25.08.2026 18:01
At the 69th hearing of the Imamoglu case regarding the criminal organization for profit, the defenses of the defendants released without arrest were taken. Muzaffer Beyaz stated that they applied to the Bakirkoy Municipality to make the parking lot of the Capacity AVM in Bakirkoy, where he is a partner, paid, saying, "As a result of this application, we were demanded a 5 million euro bribe. When we did not accept this demand, an administrative fine was imposed."
At the 69th hearing of the case in which 414 defendants, 53 of whom are arrested, are being tried on charges related to the "Imamoglu criminal organization for profit," the defenses of the non-custodial defendants are being taken.
At the hearing held by the Istanbul 33rd Heavy Penal Court in the hall opposite the Marmara Closed Penal Execution Institution, non-custodial complainant-defendant Muzaffer Beyaz, whose defense was taken, said that last week he had difficulty expressing himself due to his high blood pressure.
"BAKIRKOY MUNICIPALITY DEMANDED 5 MILLION EUROS IN BRIBERY, IMPOSED A PENALTY WHEN WE REFUSED"
Beyaz stated that the reason for his inclusion in this case was due to the parking lot permit of Capacity AVM in Bakirkoy, where he is a partner, and said, "We had tried to make the closed parking lot here paid. For this, we applied to Bakirkoy Municipality. As a result of this application, 5 million euros in bribery was demanded from us. When we did not accept this demand, an administrative fine was imposed. We were tried for this and acquitted. The unjust fine was also canceled."
Beyaz said that in October 2024, they applied to CIMER (Presidency's Communication Center) regarding the issue through his employee, and the documents related to this are in the file.
Referring to a project in Beylikduzu, Beyaz stated that the landowner demanded 20 million liras from them during the permit stage, saying, "The landowner had two schools built. Adem Soytekin built these schools. We also paid our share of 10 million liras to Adem Soytekin, with whom we had the rough construction done as the companies of the joint partnership, by transferring 7 apartments and 5 shops as more than his dues. Murat Calik asked us to transfer four apartments to Hasan Imamoglu."
"APARTMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED TO HASAN IMAMOGLU"
When Ekrem Imamoglu's father, non-custodial defendant Hasan Imamoglu's lawyer, asked, "Did you personally witness the parts related to Hasan Imamoglu?", Beyaz said, "This request was conveyed to us first by Adem Soytekin and then by Oktay Hamzaoglu."
Mehmet Murat Calik, who was suspended from his mayoral duty in Beylikduzu after his arrest, asked Beyaz, "He says 7 shops and 5 apartments were transferred in return for 10 million, but when we look at the title deed registry system, we see that 12 properties were not transferred. How do you explain this?" Beyaz replied, "4 apartments were transferred directly to Hasan Imamoglu. We will check again."
In his defense, Beyaz said that the issue of reconciliation with Ekrem Imamoglu was misunderstood, that he had no connection with his commercial activities, that his receivables continued, and that his complaints were ongoing.
PROSECUTOR'S REQUEST FOR CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST IMAMOGLU'S FATHER
Defendant Hasan Imamoglu, who presented his defense at the hearing, stated that he has had a 60-year commercial life, that they engaged in trade like everyone else, and that they bought and sold apartments.
Hasan Imamoglu said, "One thing I pay attention to in my commercial life is not to consume forbidden (haram) earnings and not to feed my children with them. If only they had explained to us back then that trading was an illegal act, we wouldn't have done it. I never needed to launder money because I didn't earn dirty money. I am not being tried here. I am being tried for being the father of the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Mayor. I won't say I wish I weren't, because I am pleased."
The prosecutor at the hearing asked the elder Imamoglu about the source of the 1 million euros that Tuncay Yilmaz claimed, in his defense, to have handed over to him in cash.
Hasan Imamoglu's lawyer also stated that since this matter was not included in the indictment, his client had not come prepared for such a question and that it was against procedure.
Imamoglu said there was always money in his account and that he had no clear information on this matter.
The prosecutor, on the grounds that the source of the said money was unknown, requested that a criminal complaint be filed against Hasan Imamoglu on charge of laundering with respect to action 34.
At the hearing, the defenses of non-custodial defendants Baran Gonul and Omer Gungor were also taken.