18.03.2026 09:41
The seventh hearing of the "corruption" case involving 407 defendants, including Ekrem İmamoğlu, is being held against the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (İBB). So far, 8 defendants have presented their defenses, while tensions and disputes have marked the hearings. The court will continue to receive new defenses today.
The trial of a total of 407 defendants, 107 of whom are in custody, continues regarding the allegations of "organized crime" against the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (IMM). As the trial progresses into its seventh day with new defenses, developments from previous hearings are determining the course of the process.
WHAT HAPPENED YESTERDAY?
On the sixth day of the trial, the court panel listened to the defenses of employees of Ağaç A. Ş. and some business people.
Ümit Polat, the Purchasing Manager of Ağaç A. Ş., who benefited from effective remorse, was cross-examined. After the questioning, Polat took the floor again and expressed that he had difficulties during the detention process.
Then, Fatih Yağcı, the Purchasing Chief of Ağaç A. Ş., made his defense. Yağcı argued that the statements of the secret witness codenamed "Gürgen" in the indictment did not reflect the truth.
Detained business people Ali Üner and Enver Şiroğlu also denied the accusations against them.
IMM Deputy Mayor Nuri Aslan, who wanted to follow the hearing, was not allowed into the courtroom.
SO FAR, 8 DEFENDANTS HAVE MADE THEIR DEFENSES
The first hearing of the IMM case started on March 9. The court panel announced that the trial would continue until the end of April.
So far, a total of 8 defendants have made their defenses. In the first week, former CHP Member of Parliament Aykut Erdoğdu, businessman Bulut Aydöner, Sırrı Küçük, and Ümit Polat provided their defenses.
In the sixth session held on March 17, Ümit Polat, Fatih Yağcı, Ali Üner, Evren Şiroğlu, and Hüsnü Yüksel Tunar appeared before the court.
The fifth session of the trial lasted only 7 minutes due to a "seating crisis." Following the tension, the Istanbul 40th Heavy Penal Court imposed new restrictions regarding the courtroom order.
NO HEARING WILL BE HELD ON MARCH 19, THURSDAY
The seventh hearing, which will be held in the building of the Marmara Open Prison Campus in Silivri by the Istanbul 40th Heavy Penal Court, will continue to take the defendants' defenses. On the other hand, there will be no hearing on March 19, Thursday, due to the eve of Ramadan Feast.
NEW MEASURES FROM THE COURT
The Istanbul 40th Heavy Penal Court has taken a new precautionary measure regarding the order of the hearings. Only defendants, their lawyers, complainants, press members, and first and second-degree relatives of detained defendants are allowed to enter the courtroom.
DETAILS FROM THE INDICTMENT
Ekrem İmamoğlu, who was removed from his position as the Mayor of IMM after his arrest, is depicted as an organization leader in the indictment, which includes many accusations. The indictment, consisting of 3,739 pages, alleges that irregularities occurred in tenders, that metro and İSKİ loans were used for purposes other than intended, and that forced donations were collected from business people. It is also stated in the indictment that the collected money was primarily used to seize control of the CHP management and that it was intended to be used for İmamoğlu's presidential candidacy in the ongoing process. Ekrem İmamoğlu is requested to be sentenced to up to 2,430 years in prison.
"THE PERSON WHO SHOULD BE ASKED IS NOT MY CLIENT"
What happened during the sixth hearing held on Tuesday, March 17, is as follows:
Ümit Polat, the Purchasing Manager of IMM's Subsidiary Company Ağaç A. Ş., said, "I went through a troubled detention process, my psychology was turned upside down. I lay on the ground for months. I couldn't fully express myself in my defense the other day. I want to make a correction. It was said that 'the governor was lied to.' I do not want to disrespect the governor; if something wrong happened, I apologize. It is not a relative, but a friend of a relative who works. I went to the first statement without a lawyer and without requesting effective remorse. In my third statement, I wanted to benefit from the provisions of effective remorse. I was asked about the Court of Accounts issue, 'Did you undergo an audit?' When the Court of Accounts comes, it examines completed files. I never said 'I saw' regarding the delivery of money," he stated.
Ümit Polat's lawyer, Sevgi Dağdemir, said, "I have no doubt that justice will prevail. Even if you try to silence Ümit Polat, I believe that other people will not remain silent. If we were part of this structure, we would continue in the purchasing department; we might even be in better positions. Ümit Polat is a victim. We are not the addressees of the graph. The person who should be asked is not my client," she said.
"I DID NOT ENGAGE IN ANY MONEY TRANSACTIONS WITH ANYONE"
Fatih Yağcı, the Purchasing Manager of Ağaç A. Ş., stated, "I neither saw nor heard any money transactions. There is no money or anything similar delivered to me, nor is there any statement regarding this. The HTS matching is entirely due to physical conditions. My office is next to the guest waiting room, meaning there is a distance of 10 meters from the arriving guest. It is normal for everyone to have HTS with me. It is said that I facilitated bribery by receiving the bribe money mentioned in 122, but I did not engage in any money transactions with anyone. I have been in custody for 8 months. I had to separate from my spouse, and my name was tarnished in the company where I worked for 21 years. I do not think anyone would make a negative comment about me; I am innocent," he said.
"ALL STATEMENTS ARE BASED ON ASSUMPTION AND INTERPRETATION"
Detained businessman Ali Üner stated, "What I understand from the indictment is that the prosecutor evaluates that 'if the businessmen who are confessors in the file have given bribes, then Ali Üner has also given bribes.' It is then stated, 'We could not prove that Ali Üner gave a bribe; however, it is established that he made a bribery agreement.' First of all, I want to express clearly and unequivocally that I did not give a bribe to anyone and did not make such an agreement. I am innocent. There are a total of 4 people related to me in the file. These are the secret witness Gürgen and the defendants Ümit Polat, Murat Or, and Adem Yavuz. None of these individuals has a concrete, direct, and definitive statement that I gave a bribe or made a bribery agreement. All statements are based on assumption, interpretation, and hearsay. The secret witness Gürgen states, 'As far as I remember, there were Alis on the list, but I do not know if money was received or not.' Ümit Polat states, 'I was never involved in money transaction processes; I do not know if money was received from these company owners.' Murat Or states, 'I heard that the company of a person named Ali Üner from the European side was prioritized.' Adem Yavuz states, 'A person named İlknur used to work at Üner Construction. After starting at Ağaç A. Ş., Ali Üner began to take many jobs from there.' My dear President, as you can see, no witness has made a concrete statement such as 'He gave a bribe,' 'He delivered money,' or 'I witnessed a bribery agreement.' They have used completely hypothetical expressions like 'I heard.' I have never seen Adem Yavuz in my life; I do not know him. Additionally, Ümit Polat states in his testimony that Ali Sukas requested money from me and that I told him about this situation. This claim is completely false. I never made a statement to Ümit Polat saying, 'Ali Sukas asked me for money.' He is lying. Moreover, if I had made such an agreement with Ali Sukas, why would I go and tell Ümit Polat? This is contrary to the ordinary course of life. I think Ümit Polat said such a thing to benefit from the provisions of effective remorse," he said.