Public institutions and organizations in Turkey, for their needs like goods procurement, service procurement, construction, and lea sing activities, can conduct these either directly through administrati ve units or by outsourcing to private legal entities. However, unlike private individuals, administrative authorities are bound to operate within a set of pre-established rules, a necessity for achieving public welfare. These rules are generally referred to as public procurement. Public procurement can be defined as the process and procedures related to the selection of private legal entities for various activities such as procurement of goods, services, construction, and leasing. There are two primary laws governing the procurement activities of administrative authorities: the State Procurement Law (No. 2886 of1983) and the Public Procurement Law (No. 4734 of 2002), with the addition of the Public Procurement Contracts Law (No. 4735 of 2002). The Public Procurement Law has a broader scope than the State Pro curement Law, both in terms of administrative units and activities covered. In the context of public procurement contracts, various ad ministrative sanctions can be applied in certain situations, including bans from public tenders, removal from office, financial penalties to public officials, administrative fines for legal entities, compensation for damages, cancellation and termination of contracts, removal from public service, and disciplinary actions. Additionally, there are crimes specifically related to public procurement, such as bid rigging and fraudulent performance of a contract, outlined in Articles 235 and 236 of the Turkish Penal Code. Apart from these, during the procure ment process and the execution phase of the contracts, crimes like forgery, embezzlement, bribery, extortion, and abuse of office can also occur. However, this study will specifically focus on the crimes of bid rigging and fraudulent performance of a contract. In this study, the focus will initially be on both criminal and ad ministrative sanctions applicable in public procurement processes. Administrative sanctions are penalties imposed directly by administ rative authorities without judicial intervention, as allowed by law. These sanctions are of an administrative nature and are executive in character. Criminal sanctions, on the other hand, are punishments or measures imposed by judicial authorities for acts defined as crimes by law prior to their commission. These can include imprisonment, life imprisonment, and judicial fines. After discussing the administrative and criminal sanctions in public procurement, the study will examine the concept of deferred announcement of verdicts, evaluating its app lication within the context of criminal sanctions. The concept of deferring the announcement of a verdict, in the context of intentional crimes committed by first-time offenders with no criminal record, involves suspending the disclosure of a court- imposed judicial fine or imprisonment sentence of less than two years for a probation period. If the probation is completed satisfactorily, the offender's sentence may be dropped, effectively suspending the conviction's legal consequences and preventing the individual from acquiring a criminal record, contingent upon meeting certain conditions. This study aims to assess the implications of this mechanism within the realm of administrative law, particularly concerning public procurement crimes. It will first address both criminal and administrative sanctions relevant to public procurement processes, then evaluate the deferral mechanism within the criminal sanctions process, and finally, discuss the consequences of this mechanism in administrative law. This analysis will incorporate aspects of both administrative and criminal law, and judicial decisions will be referenced as appropriate.