27.08.2026 15:41
At the 71st hearing of the 'İmamoğlu criminal organization for profit' case, the defendant businessman Adnan Çebi, who is on trial without detention, made his defense and stated that the 4 million 700 thousand liras sent for the construction of a nursery as mentioned in the indictment was a donation for educational purposes. Responding to the allegations that security camera tapes were covered during the meetings at his hotel, Çebi claimed that this practice was a routine procedure by the İBB security personnel and that he had given no such instruction.
In the 'Corruption' case against IBB, 414 defendants, including 53 arrested, among them Ekrem Imamoglu who was suspended from duty, appeared before the judge at the 71st hearing.
"CAMERA TAPING" DEFENSE
At the hearing held by the Istanbul 33rd Heavy Penal Court in the hall opposite the Marmara Closed Penal Institution, Adnan Cebi, Chairman of the Board of Makyol, who testified as a defendant, left the responsibility for the camera taping, use of jammers, and meetings attended by Ekrem Imamoglu at the Le Meridien Hotel to the company operating the hotel. Cebi defended himself, saying, "I am only the property owner." However, the prosecutor's critical questions during the Q&A session drew attention. When asked whether other groups had taped the cameras at the hotel, which has been open for about 14 years, Cebi said, "To my knowledge, I have not encountered it." To the question of whether a similar practice occurred during official meetings, he replied, "Nothing has come to my ears."
LE MERIDIEN HOTEL INQUIRY IN IMAMOGLU CASE
In the case against the Criminal Organization for Profit, defendant Adnan Cebi's defense and the Q&A session with the hearing prosecutor became one of the notable topics of the file.
Cebi, stating he is the Chairman of the Board of Makyol, rejected the accusations of organizational connections and aiding the organization. He explained that his company operates in 12 countries and has made donations to various public institutions and foundations for many years, arguing that the nursery payment mentioned in the file was a construction project carried out for charitable purposes, not organizational financing.
However, the most striking part of the hearing was the prosecutor's questioning regarding the meetings allegedly held at Cebi's Le Meridien Hotel, the taping of cameras, and the use of jammers.
CRITICAL QUESTION FROM THE PROSECUTOR: "DID OTHER GROUPS ALSO TAPE THE CAMERAS?"
The prosecutor first asked Cebi how long the hotel had been in operation. Cebi replied, "2012. About 14 years." Upon this answer, the prosecutor moved directly to the issue of camera taping.
The prosecutor asked Cebi whether, during the approximately 14 years of operation, any other individuals or groups staying at the hotel had similarly taped the security cameras. Cebi's answer was striking: "To my knowledge, I have not encountered it."
Thus, Cebi recorded before the court that he had no knowledge of any other group or individual performing a similar camera taping procedure at the hotel, which has been operating for many years.
"WERE CAMERAS ALSO TAPED DURING OFFICIAL MEETINGS?"
The prosecution was not satisfied with this. Cebi was asked whether official institutions had previously held visits, meetings, or conferences at the hotel. Cebi said, "Yes, sir, many times."
The prosecutor then asked whether similar practices like camera taping were encountered during these official meetings. Cebi replied, "Nothing has come to my ears, sir."
This Q&A section, along with Cebi's defense that camera taping was a "routine practice" of IBB security personnel, became one of the important topics discussed in the file.
CEBI: "TAPING THE CAMERAS WAS A ROUTINE PRACTICE OF IBB PERSONNEL"
In his defense, Cebi stated that, based on the statements in the file, the shutting down of cameras was a practice carried out by IBB security personnel.
Cebi argued that the napkins and tapes used to shut down the cameras were brought from vehicles by IBB personnel, showing that he had not given such instructions.
Stating that there are 323 cameras in the hotel, Cebi explained that only one of them was shut down and the other cameras continued to operate.
Cebi also made the striking defense: If he had acted together with those attending the meetings, they might not have felt the need to shut down the cameras.
THE PROSECUTOR ALSO ASKED ABOUT THE JAMMER
Another critical topic raised by the hearing prosecutor was the jammer. The prosecutor asked whether there was a security procedure for bringing a device like a jammer into the hotel's entrances and exits, in other words, whether "anyone could enter the hotel with a jammer."
Cebi said, "Of course, such a thing cannot be possible." However, he immediately argued that security procedures were entirely the responsibility of the Le Meridien group. Cebi stated that Makyol had no means to intervene in these processes.
In his defense, Cebi also noted that he investigated whether there was any interruption in communication at the hotel due to the use of a jammer and stated that the operating company was responsible for security practices.
"I AM ONLY THE PROPERTY OWNER"
The main axis of Cebi's defense regarding the hotel was the argument that, although Makyol owns the building, the operation is carried out by Marriott/Le Meridien.
Cebi said that the hotel's general manager, employees, security personnel, security cameras, collection processes, and all daily operational activities are the responsibility of the operating company, defending himself with, "I am only the property owner of the hotel building."
Cebi also stated that he has lived in the residence within the complex where the hotel is located for about 12 years and that Makyol's office is adjacent to the hotel building, arguing that it is natural for him to share the same base station with people at the hotel.
"I DID NOT ATTEND ANY MEETINGS WHERE IMAMOGLU WAS PRESENT"
While some meetings at the Le Meridien Hotel involving Ekrem Imamoglu were brought up in the file, Cebi said he did not participate in them.
Cebi said, "I absolutely did not attend any meeting or discussion held at the hotel that involved Ekrem Bey."
Cebi argued that he had never seen most of the people who attended the meetings in his life and therefore claimed he was not the organizer of these meetings.
HE ALSO OBJECTED TO HOTEL INVOICES
Cebi also rejected the allegations that invoices related to the meetings were directed to Makyol.
Cebi said that a person named Cem Alkaya was not a Makyol employee but a Le Meridien Hotel employee at that time; he also stated that hotel general manager Sinan Udil was Alkaya's superior, arguing that the claim of instructions being given through Makyol was contradictory in itself.
Saying that in his research he learned that some payments were collected in cash, Çebi requested that Cem Alkaya be heard as a witness if the court deems it necessary.
4.7 MILLION TL NURSERY PAYMENT: WE DID IT FOR THE 'NO' VOTE
The other important topic in Çebi's defense was the 4 million 700 thousand TL sent to Asoy İnşaat. Rejecting the accusation in the indictment that this payment was made to finance the organization, Çebi said the money was paid as progress payments for the construction of a nursery.
Stating that their relationship with Asoy İnşaat dates back to the era of former Esenyurt Mayor Necmi Kadıoğlu, Çebi explained that the company had also previously worked on Makyol projects.
Stating that he submitted approximately 200 photographs, payment records, satellite images, and receipts regarding the nursery construction to the court, Çebi argued that the payment dates coincided with the construction progress stages.
"WE NEVER GOT ANY WORK FROM IMM DURING THE İMAMOĞLU PERIOD"
Çebi also centered his defense against the charge of aiding the organization on Makyol's relations with IBB during the İmamoğlu period.
Saying that they did not receive any new work from IBB during Ekrem İmamoğlu's mayorship, Çebi stated that they also liquidated two projects worth approximately 1.5 billion dollars remaining from the Kadir Topbaş era.
Çebi also mentioned that there are hundreds of millions of liras worth of ecrimisil (compensation for unlawful use) lawsuits between them and IBB, presenting this picture as an indication that they did not "act in concert" with the municipality.
PROSECUTOR'S QUESTIONS FOCUSED ON THE MOST CRITICAL POINT OF THE DEFENSE
Throughout his defense, Çebi claimed that he had no connection whatsoever with the cameras, jammers, and meeting organizations at the hotel, and that all responsibility belonged to the operating company.
However, in the prosecutor's interrogation, the focus was particularly on the relationship between the hotel's 14-year history and the camera taping practice.
Çebi said that he had not "come across" other groups taping cameras in a similar way, and that despite many official meetings being held, he had not heard any information about cameras being taped at them.
Thus, the camera taping and jammer practices, which are at the center of the debates regarding the Le Meridien Hotel in the İmamoğlu Criminal Organization case, entered the court records once again through the prosecutor's direct questions.