The hearing at Antalya 1st High Criminal Court was attended by detained defendants M.T. and R.B. and 9 undetained defendants, complainants and party lawyers attended.
In his defense, former SGK Provincial Director M.T. claimed that he had done very successful work in Antalya during his directorship and that he was subjected to an unfair operation.
Claiming that the claim that he received 1 million lira from Antalyaspor's former president Sinan Boztepe in return for giving a "no debt" letter to the club was slander, M.T. claimed that he was made a target because he had the real estate of the club's senior officials seized in April 2025.
Stating that he met Sinan Boztepe through his visits, M.T. claimed that he sold his car to Boztepe for 2 million lira.
M.T. stated that they put a lien on Antalyaspor's sponsor at the time because of their debts, and claimed that the club president Boztepe and a member of parliament tried to lift the lien by putting pressure on him, but he did not lift it.
Claiming that Boztepe constantly called for the removal of the lien, came to him and in the meantime invited him to his son's wedding, M.T continued his claims as follows:
"Sinan Boztepe 'We are considered to be the men's side, you are our friend. As Antalyaspor, let's give the boy some jewelry.' he said. He persistently asked for an IBAN number to send money. I do not allow anyone to use my IBAN number. I called the detained defendant M.A. 'When they come to send money for the jewelry, you can keep it and I'll buy it.' I said. We hung up the phone and Sinan the president left. Sinan Boztepe says that he gave me 800 thousand liras in cash. Such a monetary purchase is out of the question. I learned the amount of 200 thousand liras of jewelry from the law enforcement agency. "I did not sign any illegal transaction."
M.T. did not accept the other 6 criminal allegations against him.
"I FULFILLED THE ORDERS"
The detained defendant, former SSI Private Secretary R.B. He claimed that he had no information about the allegation that bribes were taken under the name of donating 2 million lira in return for the removal of SSI debts during the transfer of a private school.
Arguing that he did not force anyone to donate, R.B. said, "I do not have any signature authority at SGK. I fulfilled the orders. I have not provided anything material or moral for myself. I am innocent. I request my release." he said.
"I BECAME THE DEFENDANT OF MY OWN MONEY"
The son of the detained defendant M.T., the unarrested defendant M.R.T. Claiming that the case consisted of slander, he said, "There is money that Sinan Boztepe allegedly gave in June 2025. He files a complaint 6 months later. The money received before my wedding is 200 thousand liras. That 200 thousand liras did not belong to my father, M.T., who is the defendant. I was taken as a suspect because jewelry money came to me in September. I became the defendant of my own money." he said.
Complainant H.P.C.A, detained defendants M.T, R.B. and stated that he filed a complaint against the unarrested defendant E.B., for whom he took over a private school.
Explaining that when they took over the school, they saw that it had 51 million SSI debt and that they wanted to give up the sale, H.P.C.A said that the owner of the school, the defendant E.B., who was not arrested, made an appointment with the SSI to explain the situation.
Stating that R.B. welcomed them at the door when they went to SGK, H.P.C.A said:
"He took us to the office of SGK Director M.T. E.B. explained our situation. M.T. said, 'Deposit 2 million liras to SGK. We will move to a new building, donate 2 million to us.' he said. During this conversation E.B. And there was my wife, and R.B. He was going in and out. Everything I say is true. I deposited 2 million lira to SSI to have the annotation lifted. Donation money to M.T. He asked for it by hand. We met in a cafe near Boğaçayı. Next to me, my wife, E.B. and R.B. There was. Our money was ready in the car. My wife and E.B. They took the money from our car and put it in E.B's car. "I think E.B. gave this money to M.T."
After hearing the other undetained defendants and witnesses, the court decided to continue the detention of the detained defendants and postponed the hearing.
