The hearing defended by Serkan Yıldız and Yakup Öner at the Istanbul 33rd High Criminal Court

At the hearing held at the Istanbul 33rd High Criminal Court, in the hall opposite the Marmara Closed Penal Institution, Serkan Yıldız, the owner of the unarrested defendant organization company, made his defense.

In his defense, Defendant Yıldız said that he started to fail to receive many of the jobs he had tendered for, and said, "That's why I had trouble with many people in the industry. They told me that these jobs were passed on by Emrah Bağdatlı, from other subcontractors in the market. During this process, I had a phone conversation via WhatsApp with a person named Eyüp, who said that he was directed by Emrah Bağdatlı. My lawyer will submit the number through which the person named Eyüp reached me to the file." he said.

Stating that he thought this person was an employee of Kültür AŞ, Yıldız made the following statement:

"Because he was in control of all my trade, including how much I was receivable. They sent me an invoice. I did not want to risk my receivables and my trade, so I paid. No goods or services were delivered to me in return for the invoice. As far as I remember, I was called around August 2024 and made a payment of 75 thousand liras to 58 thousand liras, based on the invoices I received at the end of August and at the end of September. If you want to know how high the amount of receivables I had at that date, you can obtain it from the accounting records of Kültür AŞ. "At that time, I had more than 15 million receivables from Kültür AŞ. I did this transaction because I had to in order to continue my commercial activities. It will be understood when you look at the jobs I received from my company."

Yıldız said, "They made the same statements here about other companies that made payments like me. The prosecutor makes allegations as if they were created with artificial intelligence. However, the same events happened to the companies. They made these payments in order to get work and get their payments." he said.

"EACH WAS PROTECTING THEIR OWN SPACE"

According to the news reported by AA, in his defense, Yakup Öner, a survey engineer working at Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality and one of the defendants without arrest, denied the accusations of membership in an organization and said that there were three names within the institution, each with the title of official consultant working under the president, each authorized in different fields, and that these were Ertan Yıldız, Murat Ongun and Yiğit Oğuz Duman.

Öner stated that people in the municipality have certain areas of duty and authority, and that certain units are formed by working under consultants, and that everyone acts in their own field, and that there is a functioning in which these areas are connected to each other when necessary.

Öner claimed that he never attended management meetings and was not a member or employee of any of them.

Stating that Fatih Keleş, Murat Ongun and Ertan Yıldız had different areas of authority within the municipality, Öner said, "Each of them protected their own area, they did not directly intervene in each other's area. However, when necessary, these areas came into contact with each other. Outside the municipality, I heard that names such as Murat Gülibrahimoğlu and Adem Soytekin were among the external connections of this structure. If there are others outside, I do not have clear information about these names. In particular, Murat Gülibrahimoğlu's excavation works were carried out by İbrahim Bülbüllü and "I heard that he was running it together with Fatih Keleş. I am not one of them." he said.

Defendant Öner said that he was never present at the meetings and said, "The basic way of working within the institution was that when a job or issue came to the agenda, the relevant person stepped in, taking into account the nature of the job and the field it was related to, and the decision-making and authority mechanisms within the municipality and the relationships with outside people and companies complemented each other in this process. Therefore, although they seem to be different people and different jobs, I do not think that they are completely independent of each other. I think that there is an order in which there is a sharing of duties and authority between them, and they coordinate with each other when necessary." he declared.

Öner said that negotiations were held with some companies during the tender processes and that some company owners learned from them that a share of approximately 7-10 percent of the tender price was requested. "However, I was not involved in these works. Therefore, my knowledge is limited to what I learned. I learned that some companies doing business for the municipality made requests for cards, cash or similar during the election period. I understood that the follow-up of money affairs was carried out by Fatih Keleş and that he was the person who knew what amount of money was received from whom." he said.

Öner stated that he was not an employee of Fatih Keleş and said:

"I did not share any information with him, except for a limited number of issues that the President referred to Mr. Fatih. As far as I could see, although there were many consultants, there were only three consultants and one person who were actually effective. There was a structure in which people were responsible for certain areas, these areas worked in conjunction with each other when necessary, and some work was carried out within this organization. I was not part of any of the people in this business. Therefore, he asked me, 'Where are you in this?' "If you ask, I can explain it this way: As I said at the beginning, I am just a public official who works as a technical advisor to the Mayor of Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality."

Defendant Öner, who rejected the accusation of extortion against him, argued that setting up a scenario in which he gets work done in exchange for benefits is against both the limits of his duty and authority and the ordinary flow of life.

Öner said that he acted within the scope of legal regulations and claimed that he did not benefit himself or third parties. Öner gave detailed explanations about the events in the indictment and denied the allegations of bribery.

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT ONER

When the President of the Court, Selçuk Aylan, asked whether his previous expressions of effective regret were true, Defendant Öner said that he stood by his statements.

Mayor Aylan said, "There is an issue of Gülaylar. In your statement, this is 22 million dollars. You mentioned that it costs around 22 million dollars. Gülaylar did not accept this. Then, when you presented this situation to Ekrem İmamoğlu, he said, 'They cannot get this development without the President giving something.' "You said." Upon reminding him of his statement, Öner replied, "That's true." he said.

Defendant Öner said Mayor Aylan said, "Thereupon, as a result of the protocol made with the Gülaylar group, a conditional donation protocol was signed to leave approximately 5 thousand square meters of net housing area to IMM. You confirmed this part in your statements, is it true?" "It is true. I stand behind my statements made by the prosecutor." he replied.

Defendant Öner gave the following answer to the court president's question regarding the incident where businessman Mehmet Faruk Baştürk gave 13 million liras for the construction of a nursery for the repair license of the hotel he bought:

"It was already clear that the man would give cash. I am not saying that the man did not give cash. I know that he gave it in the same way. I mean, he is very clear on this issue. I know that he met with Süleyman Atik for 13 million liras and transferred it from that business, but I do not know the details of whether he gave 2 million liras, 3 installments, took one himself, or took three himself. Let me underline that the president directed me to the meetings. I would like to state the details of the meetings I held within the framework of my technical knowledge, experience and legal legislation. The aim here was to understand the issue and convey it to the president. When I conveyed it to the president, he said, 'I have already had such a meeting with Mehmet Faruk Baştürk. I want him to do something good in Malatya. He shouldn't do it to Istanbul, let him do it to Malatya.' he said. That's actually what I went to convey."

Mayor Aylan said, "Whenever a lawful request comes, why is there such a lock down and a request is made for a public benefit? If a man wants to do good, he can do it himself." The defendant Öner said, "Our demands here are rather than establishing a causal relationship between the work and the donation. While we are here, let's make a request. In fact, it is mutual, but ours is really based on mutual consent." he said.

"UNOFFICIAL SALARY OF 100 THOUSAND DOLLARS ANNUAL" CLAIM

Defendant Öner said that the public prosecutor asked, "Does Fatih Keleş have executive authority on behalf of the municipality?" "Fatih Bey's official authority is Spor AŞ General Manager or Chairman of the Board of Directors. I do not know his exact title, but he did not have the legal authority to handle matters." he replied.

The public prosecutor asked the defendant Öner the following question:

"I looked at the financial data of the actions you are responsible for. You describe them as donations. We are talking about a donation of approximately 49 million dollars. Hüseyin Bozkurt came here, the owner of the hospital. There is a donation requested from him again. For example, this person described this donation as extortion rather than a donation. Have you ever received such responses from these people regarding the requested donations of 50 million dollars? I mean, 'Is such a donation possible?' saying. Everyone has something to do with the municipality in one way or another. When you look at it, donation is a voluntary thing. You know, there is respect and appreciation, that is, without a demand, but people constantly have something to do with the municipality, justified or unjust demands and constant donations. We are talking about 50 million dollars in donations, it is a serious number. Here, many prosecutor's offices evaluated these processes as extortion or bribery rather than donations, based on the file. "During the processes regarding these donations, during your meetings with Mr. Ekrem, did you ever convey these kinds of reactions to him?"

Öner responded to this question by saying, "So, 'How could they propose such a thing?' I did not encounter any such reaction. He just told me, 'Pass this matter to Mr. Fatih.' He said, and I conveyed it to Fatih Bey." he replied.

The prosecutor said, "In your statement, 'Fatih Keleş is the one who keeps track of money affairs.' You have a statement like " The defendant Öner said, "Yes, it is true." he said.

The public prosecutor said, "You mentioned a 100 thousand dollars issue. You received an unofficial annual salary of 100 thousand dollars with the verbal agreement you made with Ekrem İmamoğlu. How did this salary issue happen? Did he give it to you?" Öner answered the questions: "Now, I was an employee who worked outside, when I had a company. Now, naturally, you create a certain standard of living for yourself. You cannot change these standards when you are told to continue in the institution. Therefore, I made such a request. Thanks to him, he did not disappoint me, but it is 100 thousand per year, regardless of the type and quality of the work I do. So, this is a salary. I received it from hand. I was getting it in a bag." He replied:

The hearing was postponed until the morning hours to continue the cross-examination of the defendant Öner.