Reasoned decision in Said Bey Sitesi case: 'Having a clean criminal record' was considered as a reason for discount

46 people lost their lives as a result of the collapse of the Said Bey Site, built within the scope of urban transformation, in the Yahya Kemal District of Kahramanmaraş's Dulkadiroğlu district, during the February 6 earthquakes.

At the verdict hearing at the Kahramanmaraş 4th High Criminal Court, building owner and contractor Hasan Çam was sentenced to 13 years and 4 months in prison for "causing the death and injury of more than one person through conscious negligence".

By applying a good behavior discount, his sentence was reduced to 11 years, 1 month and 10 days.

The undetained defendants, project and application inspection officer Yavuz Kaygısız, building inspection company official Halil Yıldız, building inspection company control employee Melike Yiğit, and construction site managers Halil İbrahim Us and Murat Kaş were sentenced to 10 years and 8 months in prison each for the same crime. By applying a good behavior discount, their sentences were reduced to 8 years, 10 months and 20 days each.

The court banned the five defendants from profession for two years and ruled that the judicial control orders against them would continue. Public officials Arzu Özaydın and Serap Binici were sentenced to 6 years in prison each for "causing death and injury by negligence".

By applying a good behavior discount, their sentences were reduced to 5 years, 5 months and 10 days. The committee separated the file of ZBK Construction Control Company officials from the main file because the defendants' defense statements were not taken.

"THE DATE OF THE CRIME SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS FEBRUARY 6, 2023"

ANKA News Agency reached the 61-page reasoned decision, which includes expert reports received during the investigation and prosecution stages, participant and witness statements, and defendant defenses.

In the reasoned decision, while the concepts of "negligence", "conscious negligence" and "possible intent" were discussed, it was accepted that the date of the crime was February 6, 2023, when the building was demolished, by referring to the Supreme Court Criminal General Assembly decision regarding the Gölcük Earthquake of August 17, 1999.

In the decision, it was emphasized that it was necessary to separately examine whether the elements of the crime of "conscious negligence" were formed and, in this context, judicial practices regarding similar events should also be taken into account. In the reasoned decision, which referred to the decisions of the 12th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals regarding the collapsed buildings after the 23 October 2011 Van Earthquake, the following statements were made:

"In each concrete case, it is necessary to determine whether there is 'conscious negligence' by evaluating together the profession of the perpetrator, whether he is in a position to know whether the area where the building is located or not due to his profession, the task he took in the construction of the building, the duration of these duties, the reason for the demolition of the buildings, the role of the perpetrator in the construction of the building and its effect on the factors that caused the destruction, and whether the legislation has been violated in accordance with the Zoning Law and the applicable regulations, taking into account the year of construction of the building."

In the decision, it was stated that it is not possible to predict the magnitude of the earthquake in terms of "conscious negligence" and that the main criterion is whether the building is in the earthquake zone in terms of the year and place it was built and whether the perpetrator was in a position to know this should be evaluated together with other criteria.

"THEY HAVE A CLEAN CRIMINAL RECORD" WAS CONSIDERED A REASON FOR DISCOUNT

In the reasoned decision, which was based on Pamukkale University's root report dated 30 April 2025 and its supplementary report dated 14 July 2026, the responsibilities of the defendants were discussed separately.

In the reasoned decision, it was evaluated that "contractor and building owner Hasan Çam was found to be 'primarily at fault' in the root and additional reports due to his productions contrary to the project, material quality and renovations contrary to the license, and that he acted with 'conscious negligence' because he ignored the fact that the region was an earthquake zone, and as a result, he was one of the primary and most seriously at faults."

It was stated that the lower limit was moved away, taking into account the number of people who died and the presence of those injured due to the defendant Çam's action, but it was concluded that a discretionary reduction should be applied, taking into account "the defendant's clean criminal record, his behavior during the trial process and the possible effects on the future of the sentence".

"THEY DID NOT FULFILL THEIR DUTIES EVEN IF THEY KNEW THE EARTHQUAKE RISK"

In the decision, the defendants Halil İbrahim Us and Murat Kaş, as construction site managers, "did not prevent obvious contradictions in the carrier system and material applications, although they actually managed and managed the manufacturing process"; Yavuz Kaygısız, as a static project and application inspection officer, "failed to properly fulfill his project design and application inspection duties that directly affect building safety"; The reason was that Halil Yıldız and Melike Yiğit Yıldız, as officials and control staff of Sehay Construction Control Company, "failed to carry out building inspection activities actually and effectively".

In the reasoned decision, in which it was determined that the five defendants were at fault in the main and additional reports, it was concluded that "It is accepted that the defendants acted with 'conscious negligence', taking into account their faults stated in the expert report in the construction of the building and the renovations made in the building contrary to the license, as well as their professions, their ability to know whether the area where the building is located or not, their duties in the construction of the building, their role in the construction of the building and their effects on the factors that caused the destruction, and that there is a causal link between the resulting result and the defendants' actions."

In the decision, it was decided to apply a discretionary discount to these defendants "taking into account the moving away from the lower limit, their clean criminal records and their behavior during the trial process", and also to ban them from practicing their profession for 2 years within the scope of TCK 53/6.

"CONSCIOUS NEGLIGENCE" WAS NOT APPLIED BECAUSE THEY "DID NOT FORESEE THE RESULT"

In the reasoned decision, it was evaluated that the then Dulkadiroğlu Municipality Zoning and Urbanization Manager Arzu Özaydın and Deputy Manager Serap Binici "neglected their administrative control duties in the licensing and building control processes".

In the decision, it was stated that the defendants were "secondarily at fault" in the primary and additional expert reports, and it was decided that they would be punished within the scope of TCK 85/2, but that the provisions of "conscious negligence" would not be applied on the grounds that the element of "foreseeing the outcome" was not fulfilled.

A discretionary reduction was applied to Özaydın and Binici on the grounds of "their past and the impact of the sentence on their future", and also that the defendants were sentenced to 53/6 of the Turkish Penal Code. It was reported that, in accordance with the article, it was decided that they would be banned from practicing their profession for 2 years.