17.10.2026 17:10
In the İBB case, during Ekrem İmamoğlu’s cross-examination, many topics came to the agenda, from cash-in-hand allegations to the transfer of a villa. Rejecting the allegations against him, İmamoğlu defended his 35-year business life and said, “I did business with my honor.” His answer “God forbid” to the question of whether he had met Aziz İhsan Aktaş was also one of the striking moments of the trial.
In the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (IMM) case, Ekrem İmamoğlu, whose cross-examination is ongoing, denied the claims that a money pool was created at İETT and that villas were transferred. İmamoğlu said, “I conducted business honorably. I cannot bury my 35-year business career for the sake of buying two villas.” To the presiding judge's question, “Do you know Aziz İhsan Aktaş?” he replied, “God forbid.”
The cross-examination of Ekrem İmamoğlu, whose defense was taken in the case concerning the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (IMM), is continuing. At the hearing, the presiding judge asked İmamoğlu questions on various matters, from the allegation that money was received in cash to the distribution of duties at the municipality, from the meeting alleged to have requested that money and documents be moved before the operation to the villa transfer.
“$100,000 RECEIVED IN CASH” CLAIM REJECTED
The presiding judge asked İmamoğlu about the claim in Yakup Öner's account that $100,000 was received in cash. Stating that the claim was not true, İmamoğlu said, “There is no such thing. I absolutely do not accept this claim.”
When the presiding judge asked whether Yakup Öner had received any other cash payment from him besides his salary, İmamoğlu stated that no delivery of money was involved and replied, “There is no such thing. I have neither personally made such a delivery nor is such a situation in question.”
Answering questions about Yakup Öner's position at the municipality, İmamoğlu stated that Öner served as a technical advisor rather than a mayor's advisor. Saying that the mayor's advisor role was a special status, İmamoğlu recalled that in previous questions and answers he had explained to whom he had given this status, and said, “Yakup Öner is not one of them.”
When asked about Öner's official position at the municipality, İmamoğlu said, “He served with the status of mayor's advisor, in the position of department head.”
İmamoğlu, also confirming that Yakup Öner received a salary from the municipality, stated that he served as a civil servant and said, “He was a civil servant with the status of department head and was defined as such. In other words, he was not someone who just walked in off the street.”
“THIS IS NOT A SYSTEM; IT IS MY LEADERSHIP APPROACH”
At the hearing, the presiding judge also brought up the accounts in Yakup Öner's statement dated July 10, 2025. It was conveyed that Öner described İmamoğlu's structure at the municipality through Fatih Keleş, Murat Ongun, and Ertan Yıldız, while characterizing Murat Gülibrahimoğlu, Adem Soytekin, and Hüseyin Köksal as “men outside the system.”
İmamoğlu objected to these accounts and argued that the distribution of duties and authorization at the municipality was part of the normal working order.
Explaining that when a file is given to the relevant person, that person deals with the file, assumes responsibility, and meets with people connected to the matter to assess whether the institution can carry out that work, İmamoğlu said that Yakup Öner does not take instructions from anyone other than him regarding whether the IMM can carry out a job.
İmamoğlu said, “When we give Mr. Yakup a file, of course he deals with that file and assumes its responsibility. He meets with the relevant people, tries to understand what they want, and assesses whether the institution can do it. Regarding whether the IMM can carry out a job, Mr. Yakup does not take instructions from anyone other than me.”
İmamoğlu also commented on the relationship between Fatih Keleş and Ertan Yıldız and rejected the claim that Keleş gave instructions to Yıldız, saying, “It is not the case that Mr. Fatih gives him instructions.”
İmamoğlu objected to the working order at the municipality being described as a system and explained his own understanding of management, saying, “This is not called a system; it is Ekrem İmamoğlu's understanding of leadership. You define an area of work for people. I do not give Mr. Fatih instructions either; I say, ‘Could you look at this?’ Mr. Fatih is not my civil servant. He is a brother and friend with whom I worked shoulder to shoulder in all my elections.”
İmamoğlu also criticized the methods by which people who gave statements within the scope of the investigation were brought to the prosecutor's office and interrogated. Claiming that some people were brought to the prosecutor's office through improper methods and that attempts were made to suggest things to them, İmamoğlu stated that the conditions under which the statements were taken should also be evaluated.
Asking that it be taken into account whether the people giving statements spoke of their own free will and whether the interrogation methods were lawful, İmamoğlu said, “You also need to evaluate whether people gave statements of their own free will and whether the interrogation methods were procedurally appropriate.”
Rejecting again the claims regarding his organization at the municipality, İmamoğlu said, “My answer is clear: Ekrem İmamoğlu's organization complies with procedure. There is no structure described as a ‘system’ within it.”
RESPONSE TO THE CLAIM “MOVE MONEY AND DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE OPERATION”
The presiding judge also asked İmamoğlu about the claim in Adem Soytekin's statement that before the operation he was asked to entrust money and documents to another person.
According to Soytekin's account, it was alleged that İmamoğlu told him, “Have you taken your precautions? An operation will be carried out, and you are on the list. If there is money or documents you need to entrust, entrust them to Turan Taşkın Özer.” The claim also alleged that lawyer Mehmet Pehlivan was present during the meeting and organized some parts of the process.
İmamoğlu objected to the claim that he instructed others to move his money and documents. Stating that the money in his own accounts was still there, İmamoğlu said his family's accounts could also be examined.
Drawing attention to the contradiction in the claim, İmamoğlu said, “So I supposedly told ‘everyone to take precautions,’ but I did not take precautions myself. There is money in my accounts, and there is money in my father's account. Everyone's money movements are clear. Whatever money existed ten days ago or a month ago is still in the accounts. I did not withdraw even one lira from my account. Neither my father nor my wife withdrew money. But I supposedly instructed everyone, ‘take the money there, bring this here.’”
Saying that claims about an operation had come up before, İmamoğlu stated that since 2024, especially beginning in May and June, it had been discussed that an operation would be carried out against him and that preparations were underway.
İmamoğlu, requesting that his own as well as his family's and his company's accounts be examined, stated that one or two years of money movements could be investigated.
İmamoğlu said, “Let them examine my money movements for a year, two years. Let them look at the accounts of İmamoğlu İnşaat, mine, my wife's, and my father's. Let them investigate whether any unusual money transfer has been made anywhere. If they find even a kuruş worth of something surprising, let's talk about it.”
“GOD FORBID” RESPONSE TO AZİZ İHSAN AKTAŞ QUESTION
During cross-examination, the Presiding Judge asked İmamoğlu whether he knew Fatih Yadoğlu. İmamoğlu answered “No” to this question.
To the question the Presiding Judge then asked, “Do you know Aziz İhsan Aktaş?”, İmamoğlu replied, “God forbid.”
Later in the hearing, the allegation in the statements of Aziz İhsan Aktaş and Fatih Yadoğlu that a meeting was held at the mayoral residence in Florya under the chairmanship of İbrahim Bülbüllü was addressed.
According to the allegations, at the meeting in question, money was collected from companies that had received work from İETT and other institutions and a pool was created. It was also claimed that companies that did not attend the meeting were warned that they would not be able to receive work.
Stating that he was not aware of the meeting in question, İmamoğlu said, “I have no knowledge of it, and that place is not a mayoral residence.”
Expressing that the place in Florya had been converted into the İstanbul Planning Agency, İmamoğlu said regarding the meeting allegation, “I have no knowledge of such a meeting.”
ALLEGATION OF A NOTE SAYING “STAND TALL, DON'T SELL US OUT”
At the hearing, the allegations that Adem Soytekin described in his statement dated June 16, 2025, also came up. The Presiding Judge stated that Soytekin said he had been subjected to pressure in prison through lawyers, that he was tried to be silenced by being offered a parliamentary seat, and that handwritten notes alleged to belong to İmamoğlu were read to him.
It was stated that one of the notes Soytekin said he remembered contained the words “Adem, stand tall, don't sell us out.”
İmamoğlu said he did not write and send such a note. In his assessment of the phrase “stand tall,” he stated that the word carried a positive meaning.
İmamoğlu said, “I don't remember the situation. ‘Stand tall’ is a nice phrase. Don't stand sideways, stand tall. I liked it. If I said it, I said it. But I didn't write or send such a note. ‘Stand tall’ is a nice saying. Whether or not one stands is one's own discretion. I wish everyone would stand tall. Where we are from, the horon is also danced upright, Your Honor. Maybe it came to my mind from there.”
VILLA TRANSFER ALLEGATION: “WHAT WAS TRANSFERRED IS NOT A VILLA, BUT A COMPANY”
At the hearing, the issue of the villa transfer linked to Ali Nuhoğlu was also addressed. The Presiding Judge asked İmamoğlu for an explanation about the transaction that had previously also been put to Nuhoğlu.
Objecting to the transaction at issue being considered a direct villa transfer, İmamoğlu said, “Your Honor, what was transferred is not a villa, but a company. There are two houses owned by the company. These were the two houses immediately in front of the house where we planned to live as a family and which was purchased by my company in 2019.”
Stating that Nuhoğlu purchased the two houses in question, İmamoğlu explained that contact was established with the person responsible for his company before and after the transaction. He also stated that the two houses were about 35 years old and that earthquake reinforcement had been carried out.
Sharing details about the scope of the transaction, İmamoğlu said that in exchange for two houses with a total area of 450 square meters, three houses with a total area of 1,500 square meters—in other words, three villas—were given. İmamoğlu stated that the agreement also involved 500 thousand dollars.
According to İmamoğlu's account, in the first agreement, agreement was reached on 87 million liras, 500 thousand dollars, and one villa. However, when the 87 million liras were not paid within a year, the companies gave two more villas in exchange for that amount.
Arguing that the transaction was a commercial agreement, İmamoğlu said that the later-emerging profit and loss discussions did not change the nature of the agreement made between the companies.
İmamoğlu said, “The ‘I didn't make a profit, I made a loss’ matter, as has been told to you, is not a matter of later account-settling between the İmamoğlu and Nuhoğlu companies. There is a trade made by shaking hands under the conditions of that day.”
“I DID BUSINESS WITH MY HONOR”
Continuing to respond to the allegations regarding the villa transfer, İmamoğlu stated that they had paperwork, documents, payment records, a notarized document, and a mediation agreement regarding the transaction.
When the Presiding Judge reminded him that he had said Nuhoğlu was in this situation because he could not receive his progress payments, İmamoğlu argued that this was a different matter.
İmamoğlu said, “No. That is something else. This is a lie, a claim. Your Honor, we have paperwork, documents, payment records, a notarized document, a mediation agreement. On the other side, there are statements. What we did is trade. There is no progress payment in it, nothing else.”
Reacting to his commercial activities and personal reputation being made a subject of debate, İmamoğlu said he did not accept the allegations directed at his home, his business, and his personal sphere.
İmamoğlu said, “I do not allow anything to touch my home, my business, my personal sphere, or my honor. Nothing at all. Nor do I allow anyone's ambition and lies to touch them. I did business with my honor. I built 3,500 houses and 150 villas. I cannot bury my 35-year business life in the ground just to buy two villas.”
“I HAVE MY TITLE DEED, MY PROTOCOL, MY NOTARIZED DOCUMENT”
Also addressing those who reported about him and those who prepared the indictment, İmamoğlu argued that the title deed records of the real estate and the documents related to commercial transactions should be disclosed.
Criticizing the headlines used in reports about him, İmamoğlu said, “In which houses do those who put headlines about me live? With which title deeds do those who amplify these headlines live in those houses? Which houses have those who wrote or commissioned this indictment bought, which ones are they hiding, why don't they provide the title deed records? Let them explain.”
Emphasizing once again that the documents regarding his own transactions existed, İmamoğlu said, “My explanation is clear, Your Honor. There is the title deed of my house, my protocol, my mediation agreement, my notarized document. Nothing is missing. The rest is nonsense.”
After the questions asked by the Presiding Judge, the hearing moved on to the prosecutor's questions.
.