IMM cases continue.
The second session started. First the detained defendants, then the undetained defendants make their defense. I also go to Silivri to follow the hearings as much as I can and write down what I see and hear in the courtroom.
Yesterday, it was the turn of confessor Serbülent Danış to defend himself.
Danış explained that he could not collect his receivables from the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, so he met with the detained CHP PM member Baki Aydöner and his brother Bulut Aydöner. He claimed that he paid bribes and even transferred a piece of land to get what he was owed.
Baki and Bulut Aydöner deny these accusations.
After Danış's defense was completed, the detained defendant Baki Aydöner tried to ask him questions.
I say “it worked” because both Danış's lawyer and the president of the court frequently intervened. The presiding judge warned Aydöner several times.
Baki Aydöner asked Danış briefly:
"You say that my company is on the verge of bankruptcy. However, you increased the capital in the same period. How does this happen?"
While listening to this dialogue, the same question came to my mind: What happens in the commercial life of business people who confess?
Serbülent Danış was a suspect in the investigation initiated on the charge of "tender rigging" due to the road maintenance and repair tender held in 2020 with the tender registration number 2020/218883.
He became a confessor in the IMM file.
During this process, the name of the company changed. The company started to continue its activities under the name Yeditepe Taahhüt.
IT'S NOT MINDABLE!
What happened next?
Gaziosmanpaşa Municipality, whose mayor was arrested and whose management changed hands, held the road maintenance and repair tender with registration number 2026/367344.
The price of the tender was 139 million 977 thousand TL.
The company that won the tender was Serbülent Danış's company.
Not only that.
It is stated that the concrete of the new courtroom built in Silivri for Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality and other major cases was provided by a company within the Danış group of companies.
I found the photos taken while the construction was ongoing. Thereupon, I examined the company's website. It seems that the company supplying the concrete is actually within the same group.
It's unbelievable; They had the confessor of the IBB case pour the concrete of the court where they tried the IBB defendants.
Moreover, there is more.
An operation was carried out against Boğaziçi Yönetimi AŞ, a subsidiary of Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, and 57 people were detained.
One of the companies mentioned in the investigation file is the company named Baya, which is ranked 51st on the list. The official of the company is Muammer Yamak.
These are also available in public sources.
The same company also won the tender for the purchase of surgical instruments within the scope of the Ministry of Health Şanlıurfa City Hospital Project.
Tender registration number 2026/612729.
The approximate cost of the tender is 1 billion 344 million TL. The tender price is approximately 922 million TL. The company named Baya won the portion of 588 million TL.
But the difference between the singles is striking. According to the information I have obtained, almost half price offers were given for the same job. It is stated that an objection has been made to the Public Procurement Authority against the tender result.
Will the tender be canceled or not?
I don't know about this.
Of course, the price difference alone is not evidence of irregularity. Technical competence, quality of products and validity conditions of offers should also be examined.
But aren't there serious questions that need to be asked on behalf of the public?
THERE IS A STRANGE THING THERE
Aziz İhsan Aktaş, who was accused as the "leader of the organization" in the indictment and stated that he paid bribes and rigged tenders, was tried without arrest after he confessed. While the case was ongoing, he browsed television channels. He was not punished by benefiting from effective remorse provisions for some actions that he said included bribery.
Those who allegedly took bribes were brought to the hearing from prison. Now we see a similar picture in other names.
People accused of bid rigging and bribery, or who have made statements to this effect, continue to enter and receive public tenders.
Those who allegedly took bribes are in detention and are defending themselves.
I'm not saying anyone is guilty or innocent here.
But there is something strange.
Justice is not just about the decision made in the courtroom. The application should appear equal, and the same measure should be applied to people in the same situation.
So let's ask:
How does a person who claims to have paid a bribe in a public tender continue to receive other public tenders?
Why does a company accused of "tender rigging" have commercial relations with public institutions as if nothing had happened?
Is there any investigation into the confessors' companies?
Are past investigation files taken into account in the new tenders received by these companies?
Why is the person who allegedly took bribes being tried in detention while the one who claimed to have bribed is out and continues to receive tenders?
Is confessional a legal institution that provides clarification of the crime, or is it a mechanism that turns into commercial and judicial immunity for some people?
I don't decide.
I put the documents, tender records and what was said in the hearing room side by side.
This is the picture that emerges.
As a result, is it only the freedom of confessors that is protected, or is the way for their companies opened just because they are confessors? This is where the whole issue comes to a head.
