Effective repentance (etkin pişmanlık) in drug offences works in two ways. If accomplices and the location of the drugs are reported before the official authorities learn of the offence, and this information produces results, no penalty is imposed at all. If true and useful information is given voluntarily after the authorities have learned of the offence but before judgment, the sentence is reduced by one quarter to one half under Turkish Criminal Code (TCK) art. 192(3). The rate of the reduction depends on the nature of the assistance given.
Four separate situations
| Situation | Timing | Result |
|---|---|---|
| A person involved in trafficking reports the accomplices and the place where the drugs are stored or produced; the information leads to arrests or the seizure of the drugs (art. 192(1)) | Before the official authorities learn of the offence | No penalty |
| A person possessing drugs for personal use reports from whom, where and when they obtained them; the information facilitates arrests or seizure (art. 192(2)) | Before the official authorities learn of the offence | No penalty |
| A person who committed the trafficking or use offence voluntarily helps uncover the offence or catch the offender or accomplices (art. 192(3)) | After the authorities learn of it, before judgment | Reduction of ¼ to ½ |
| A person who uses drugs applies to the official authorities or a health institution and asks for treatment (art. 192(4)) | Before an investigation starts | No penalty; public officials and healthcare workers are also not obliged to report the offence |
Which information is sufficient?
According to the 2025 decisions of the Court of Cassation’s (Yargıtay) Assembly of Criminal Chambers (CGK), the conditions for the reduction under the third paragraph are:
- The person must have committed the TCK art. 188 (trafficking) or art. 191 (use) offence.
- The information must be given by the person themselves.
- The information must be given to the investigating or prosecuting authorities.
- The information must be given voluntarily, after the authorities have learned of the offence but before judgment.
- The person must make a significant contribution to uncovering their own offence or someone else’s offence.
- The information must be true and effective in producing a result.
What is not sufficient: Saying that the drugs were bought from an unknown person, giving fictitious names, or naming someone already known to be involved in drugs is not enough for a reduction. If the person named has been caught, they must have been convicted; if not caught, their identity and existence must have been established.
“Accomplice” is interpreted broadly. It covers not only those who took part in the offence, but also the persons from whom the drugs were bought or to whom they were sold, and persons committing another drug offence. The offence uncovered must be equivalent to, or more serious than, the offender’s own offence.
Uncovering one’s own offence also counts. For example, if a person who has no drugs on them says “there are some at my home” and so leads to a search, they have helped uncover their own offence and become entitled to the reduction.
How is the reduction rate determined?
The law only says “according to the nature of the assistance”. The court chooses a rate between one quarter and one half by looking at:
- the role of the information in uncovering the offence and the accomplices,
- its contribution to the investigation and the trial,
- how much it made obtaining evidence easier,
- the extent of the danger it prevented.
The reasons for the rate must be given in the judgment. Applying the lowest rate (¼) to a high-level contribution that led to the arrest of someone against whom there was no suspicion at all is a ground for reversal.
When and how?
- Effective repentance must be shown at the latest before judgment; it is not limited to the first statement.
- If the information is something the police already knew, for example because it had already emerged from interception of communications, no reduction is applied.
- It is important that the statement is fully recorded in the minutes and that the result of the information is added to the file. Defence counsel may ask for the outcome of the investigation opened against the person named to be brought into the file.
Recent Court of Cassation decisions
- Court of Cassation Assembly of Criminal Chambers, 05.02.2025, E. 2024/51, K. 2025/47: Lists the conditions of TCK art. 192(3) one by one. States that saying the drugs came from an unidentified person, or giving fictitious names, is not enough. Accepts that a person caught with drugs in a personal-use quantity who states that they held the drugs, which no other evidence showed to have been prepared for sale, in order to sell them, benefits from effective repentance. In the case at hand, the defendant’s explanation of the money received from the buyer as repayment of a debt was not regarded as information affecting the outcome; applying the reduction was a ground for reversal. Decision text
- Court of Cassation Assembly of Criminal Chambers, 14.05.2025, E. 2023/53, K. 2025/207: Distinguishes the conditions of the first and third paragraphs. States that “accomplice” is to be interpreted broadly, so as to include the persons from whom the drugs were bought and to whom they were sold. Held that a defendant on a bus who, during a mere identity check, when the police asked the passengers in general whether they had any criminal items, told them where the drugs were and handed them over before any search had begun and while there was no investigation against him, must be granted no penalty (art. 192(1)) rather than a reduction. Decision text
- Court of Cassation 10th Criminal Chamber, 25.12.2025, E. 2025/6398, K. 2025/14260: On the basis of the defendant’s information, an investigation had been opened against a person against whom there had been no suspicion at all, and that person had been convicted. Applying only a ¼ reduction despite this high-level contribution, and giving no reasons for the rate, was held to be a ground for reversal. Decision text
- Court of Cassation 8th Criminal Chamber, 13.01.2026, E. 2024/26141, K. 2026/547: The defendant, who had no drugs on him, said “there are some at my home”, and the drugs were found under the search warrant then obtained. It was accepted that the defendant had helped uncover his own offence, and failing to apply the art. 192(3) reduction was held to be a ground for reversal. Decision text
- Court of Cassation 10th Criminal Chamber, 24.02.2025, E. 2021/7630, K. 2025/1781: It was held that a person who, by their own statement before the authorities learned of the offence, revealed their offence and led to the arrest of the other defendant must be granted no penalty (art. 192(1)), not a reduction (art. 192(3)). Decision text
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. For your specific situation, please seek advice from a lawyer.