Unarrested defendant businessman Kemal Şahin was connected to the hearing held at the Istanbul 33rd High Criminal Court, in the hall opposite the Marmara Closed Penal Institution, via Audio and Video Information System (SEGBİS).
In his defense, the defendant Şahin stated that they had a very large construction project, that they owned land for this project and that they had an agreement with 5 construction companies. Stating that they gave all the responsibilities starting from obtaining the construction license to manufacturing, sales, marketing and settlement areas to other companies, and that the title deeds of the independent sections were left to them due to revenue sharing, Şahin said, "While the project was continuing, the municipality asked us for 2 schools. The municipality had also taken a council decision for the schools. We did not accept it at first. The municipality insisted. I thought a lot about the insistence of the municipality. I had built a school in Çorlu, Konya before. Considering this, I accepted it because it was a charity work. I have many similar charity works." he said. Şahin, who said that he did not accept the accusations, requested his acquittal.
Arrested defendant lawyer Zeynep Tezcan also stated that her client Murat Kapki is being tried for the crime of laundering property values resulting from crime by transferring 4 immovable properties to him and said, "I have been his lawyer since 2014. I am here as a lawyer who has not been able to collect fully in return for the legal services I have provided for many years. My relationship with the three immovable properties subject to the accusation against me stems from this title and my uncollected professional receivables spanning over the years." he declared.
Defendant Tezcan stated that he declared to Kapki that he wanted to collect all his receivables, and that his client was not available for cash payment and offered to give him three real estates in return for the receivable, and argued that he accepted the offer in order to collect his receivable in accordance with the ordinary flow of life.
"I DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN ANY TENDER IRREGULATORIES"
Mehmet Recep Taşçı, the unarrested defendant, former Medya AŞ employee, stated that he started working at Medya AŞ in 2017 and worked in the purchasing department within the scope of internal rotation in 2018, and said that he did not have the authority to determine persons or companies in the tender processes or to decide on this issue.
Taşçı, who argued that he only carried out paperwork and administrative procedures as part of his duty, made the following statement: "After the statement I gave at the prosecutor's office within the scope of the investigation was revealed along with the indictment dated November 11, 2025, I was dismissed from my job for approximately 10 years within two weeks. I filed a lawsuit regarding this issue, the case in question is still ongoing. I told all I knew at the police station and the prosecutor's office. I confirm exactly the statements I made at the police and prosecutor's office and state that I stand behind my statements. I do not accept any tender. "I did not participate in the irregularity, I do not accept the accusations against me and I demand my acquittal."
During his cross-examination, the public prosecutor asked Taşçı about his statement regarding IMM tenders. Thereupon, Taşçı said, "From the communication coordination, we would be informed in advance which companies would enter which tender and for what price. We would take action accordingly. It was not directly addressed to me, but they informed me through communication. Gökhan Köseoğlu would inform our manager or come with our general manager." he said.
Defendant Taşçı: "Do you know Emrah Bağdatlı, what is his job at Medya AŞ?" On the question, "I know. He does not have any duties in Medya AŞ. We have information that he has received many tenders through his companies, be it media companies or cultural companies, with inorganic companies that have no organic ties." he said.
When asked about his claim that the payment date rule, which is 45 days from the invoice, was not complied with many times when it was Emrah Bağdatlı's company, Taşçı said, "He was using the initiative." he replied. "To their official companies or to their unofficial companies claimed in the indictment?" Taşçı answered the question: "I don't think so, because after 2022, he never did business with us through his own official company. It was through other companies he used." he replied. Taşçı: "Did he enter the tender from companies of which he is an unofficial partner?" "Yes, exactly." he replied.
"I WAS DISMISSED 10 DAYS AFTER I DID MY STATEMENT"
The detained defendant Fatoş Pınar Türker, General Manager of IBB subsidiary Medya AŞ, asked: "Have you worked in the financial affairs department at Medya AŞ or another company? Do you have experience and knowledge on financial issues such as cash flow management?" Taşçı answered the question: "No." he replied.
Türker then asked Taşçı, "In this case, based on what concrete information and document did you claim in your statement that the receivables of the companies you claim to be connected to Emrah Bağdatlı were prioritized and paid?" posed the question. Taşçı answered the question by saying, "I was learning these because I was intimate with my friends who were in financial affairs. I was learning from them, not gossip, I could see their payment lists." He replied:
Türker then said, "The company does not have a payment list. The company has a cash flow management. A study is carried out by making 3, 6, 9, 12 month forecasts regarding the company's receivables and debtors. This study is carried out by me, the financial affairs manager, and the Affiliates Coordination Department. We send these to the Affiliates Coordination Office every month and make payments as a result of their opinion and approval." he said. Murat Ongun, one of the detained defendants, said, "In one of your statements, you said that it was clear in advance which of the open tenders held by IMM would be awarded to Medya AŞ." Upon these words, defendant Taşçı said, "Yes." he replied.
Defendant Ongun said, "So you are saying that the tenders made by the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Board are irregular. Well, you make such a very serious claim and you say it so easily. On what basis do you say this?" Upon the question, defendant Taşçı said, "I know, I am involved." he replied. Defendant Ongun said, "In your statement, you said, 'I signed the signatures in the tender files under the pressure and pressure of my superiors.'" Taşçı said, "We were worried about losing our jobs if we could not fulfill the instructions. This was coercion on our part, or at least that was it on my part. As a matter of fact, I was dismissed 10 days after I testified." he said.
Thereupon, the defendant Ongun said, "I said to you, 'If you do not follow these instructions, I will fire you.' Who said that then? On the question, Taşçı said, "This is a general thing anyway. You don't do your job once, you don't do it twice, they throw it away the third time. This is actually a thought. That's what I expressed." he replied.
Defendant Ongun asked, "Were the outstanding works done by Emrah Bağdatlı's company? Can you tell us?" "It's not a very serious figure, I can't think of it right now. What was it in 2020? But if we include other external companies, it was 100 million, 60 million, 70 million jobs." he replied. When Ongun asked how the irregularity in the tenders happened, the defendant Taşçı said, "The irregularity is the early determination of the companies before or what happened afterwards. It came from you. From Mr. Gökhan or you, 'These companies will enter the tender. Their numbers will be like this. Adjust accordingly, get your job done.' It was said." he said.
DEFENSE OF ZİYA GÖKMEN TOGAY
In his defense, the unarrested defendant, former İSTAÇ Board Chairman Ziya Gökmen Togay, said that he showed a business-oriented, professional management approach that was free from political motives during his work in the municipality. Togay, who did not accept the claim of membership in the organization, argued that he did not receive instructions from anyone other than the presidential advisor to whom the participants were hierarchically subordinate. Togay, who defended the three acts subject to the indictment, requested acquittal, saying that he did not act with the intention of committing a crime.
During his cross-examination, the hearing prosecutor asked Togay, "In your statement, before the establishment of this Istanbul Management Agency (IA), you mentioned an informal structure according to your definition, headed by Ertan Yıldız. What kind of structure was this?" posed the question. Togay answered this question as follows: "Shortly after we took office, a structure was established on the 5th floor of the Bakırköy Additional Service Building, where Ertan Yıldız's office is located, where all processes of the subsidiaries were managed. Many of the friends working here were employees of the subsidiaries, in fact, they were established from friends within the subsidiaries who did their job well and were experts in that field. There were coordinators here. All processes in the subsidiaries were not carried out without Ertan Yıldız's approval. Appointment, promotion, tender decisions. "The documents sent here are sent back to the subsidiaries after the IMM stamp, which means that it has been approved by Ertan Yıldız, and the process will proceed after that approval is received from the subsidiaries."
Defendant Togay continued as follows: "This structure was not such a secret structure anyway, that is, there were e-mails and correspondences, so it was going very smoothly in the beginning. This structure did not have a legal infrastructure. Since it did not have a legal infrastructure, these were creating anxiety. These were creating anxiety in the subsidiaries, as well as anxiety in terms of other issues. After that, it was incorporated under the name of IYA. The coordinators there did not have the authority to give approval. They would ask Ertan Yıldız, and after receiving approval from Ertan Yıldız, they would return to the companies and continue the processes. "They would tell him to do it. Subsidiaries are under the responsibility of the deputy general secretary. Now, of course, I don't know how, but as general managers, we have never presented a budget to a deputy general secretary, received approval, or held meetings while managing the processes." "To whom did you present it, Ertan Yıldız?" Togay said, "Of course, it was presented to Ertan Yıldız." he said.
When asked about Fatih Keleş, one of the defendants, Togay said, "I thought for a long time that he was the advisor to the president, we know him as the advisor to the president because he had many advisors, many people were advisors. He is also the president of the sports club." he said. Asked about the claim that notification was requested before the tenders, Togay said, "This request came a few months after I took office in August 2019. Ertan Yıldız requested this information. I conveyed this information to both Mr. Fatih and Mr. Ertan. These were the information about the tenders to be held in the last week of the previous month and the next month." He replied:
Togay said, "This document contained information such as the type of tender, the approximate cost, which company won before, etc." When asked about his statement, he said: "Information about the tender, I mean, Ertan Yıldız would sometimes get this during his visits when he came to the subsidiary. Sometimes he would leave it to his secretariat, and Fatih Bey's secretariat too. Sometimes he would have people with him that he assigned for that matter. They would follow up. I mean, I don't know the other companies, I don't know the subsidiaries, but since there was a person assigned for this issue, I guess he was getting it from others as well." he replied. Some of the detained defendants who made their defense at today's hearing also rejected the charges against them and requested acquittal.
With the defense of 12 undetained defendants being taken, the defense of a total of 275 undetained defendants in the case was completed. The hearing was postponed until tomorrow.
