21.08.2026 02:20
In his defense at the 68th hearing of the IBB case, Aziz Ihsan Aktas claimed that a structure called the 'system' was established at IBB and that this structure acted under the leadership of Ekrem Imamoglu. Aktas alleged that progress payments and payments at the municipality were used as a means of pressure on businesspeople and that money was collected through the system, stating, 'The most important of the system's main objectives is the financing of Ekrem Imamoglu's political life.'
The 68th hearing of the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (IMM) case, in which 414 defendants, including 53 detainees and among them Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (IMM) Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu, are being tried, was held by the Istanbul 33rd Heavy Penal Court in the new courtroom established within the Marmara Closed Prison complex in Silivri.
At the hearing, Aziz Ihsan Aktas, who is also among the defendants in the IMM case and is being tried on charges of "leading a criminal organization" in another case, made his defense.
"I SUPPORTED MY STATEMENTS UNDER EFFECTIVE REMORSE WITH BANK RECORDS AND HTS DETERMINATIONS"
Aktas, stating that he wanted to recount the events he experienced, knew about, and said were confirmed by documents before the court, narrated that he was detained and subsequently arrested within the scope of the operation known publicly as the "Besiktas file."
Aktas stated that after his arrest, at the end of April 2025, entirely of his own free will, without any direction or pressure, he applied to the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office and said he wanted to benefit from the provisions of effective remorse.
Expressing that his aim was to ensure the state and the public learned the truth and that the grievances he and other businesspeople experienced were not repeated, Aktas argued that the events he described were confirmed by the bank records he submitted to the file, the subsequent HTS base station determinations, and the statements of other defendants and witnesses.
Aktas, saying he was only one of the people who were subjected to the pressure of the established order and who described the functioning of the system, stated that he explained in detail before the Istanbul 1st Heavy Penal Court how businesspeople doing business with public institutions were victimized by municipal mayors, managers of municipal subsidiaries, managers responsible for municipal financial affairs, general executives of the political parties of which the mayors were members, headquarter executives influential in candidate nominations, and some deputies during the effective remorse process.
Aktas said he supported his oral defense with expert opinions and documents and stated he would also explain to the court how the structure he said was called the "system" at IMM operated.
"I GRADUATED WITH A REAL DIPLOMA"
Also providing information about his own background and commercial activities, Aktas said he was born in Diyarbakir in 1976, graduated from the Chemistry Department of Harran University, and is the eldest of 10 siblings.
Stating that he started his business life at a young age, Aktas said that after Diyarbakir and Ankara, he had been operating in different fields in Istanbul for over 10 years, saying, "I was born in Diyarbakir in 1976. I completed my primary, secondary, and high school education in Diyarbakir. I graduated from the chemistry department of Harran University with a real diploma. I am a businessperson. Throughout my entire commercial life, I tried to conduct my business within the law and to protect the labor of my employees and my family."
Aktas also argued that the perception that the people around him were a "protection army" was not true, stating that they were official bodyguards assigned by the state due to a previous assassination attempt against him.
"ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT MAIN PURPOSES OF THE SYSTEM IS THE FINANCING OF EKREM IMAMOGLU'S POLITICAL LIFE"
Aktas claimed that the structure he encountered was established under the leadership of Ekrem Imamoglu.
He alleged that Imamoglu's instructions and requests for money were conveyed through Presidential Advisor Ertan Yildiz, responsible for IMM subsidiaries, Presidential Advisor Ibrahim Bulbullu, CHP Istanbul Deputy and former Deputy General Chairman Ozgur Karabat, and other intermediaries.
Aktas argued that existing receivables from the municipality and progress payments were used as the main tool of pressure, that ending current business relations with municipalities through threats of penalties and termination was brought up, and that a share was also demanded in zoning and licensing processes.
Claiming that "one of the most important main purposes of the system is to finance Imamoglu's political life," Aktas said that exerting pressure on businesspeople for the purpose of financing political activities is contrary to both the law and moral and conscientious values.
"If these people who want to do politics through this system are trying to collect money from businesspeople through pressure and coercion instead of focusing on providing service to the public, then, Mr. President, this is not politics; it is the abuse of public power," said Aktas, arguing that he was not the only person talking about the system.
"EKREM IMAMOGLU HIMSELF WAS FOLLOWING THE ENTIRE MONETARY SYSTEM"
Aktas drew attention to the statement of Presidential Advisor Ertan Yildiz, responsible for IMM subsidiaries, dated May 6, 2025. Aktas, citing that Yildiz said Imamoglu followed the monetary system and demanded accounts from people working on his behalf within the system, stated that it was expressed that some people occasionally did small jobs on their own behalf and Imamoglu turned a blind eye to this.
Aktas said that in another statement by Yildiz dated June 17, 2025, it was stated that Ali Sukas organized the affairs and transferred the obtained money to the system managed by Fatih Keles, that commissions ranging from 7 to 10 percent were taken from companies at Ağaç A. Ş., and that Sukas later tried to establish his own system.
Also citing the statement of ISFALT General Manager Burak Korzay dated July 11, 2025, Aktas stated that Korzay was told "There is a structure called the system" and was told that the money would not be paid unless 30 million lira, approximately 970 thousand dollars, was sent.
Aktas, citing that Korzay also responded with "Is this the first time you have heard of the system? Don't you know about this?", said these were the statements of bureaucrats from the Imamoglu era.
"A 10 PERCENT SHARE FROM TENDERS WAS REQUESTED"
Also referring to the statement dated June 3, 2025, of Fatih Yadoglu, brother and representative of Yusuf Yadoglu, owner of the Beydağ company doing business at IETT, Aktas stated that in the meeting held at the Florya Presidential Residence, Ibrahim Bulbullu said a pool had been created within IMM.
Aktas stated that, according to Yadoglu's statement, contractors working or wanting to work with IETT were told they had to deposit money into this pool, that those who did not pay would face problems in their existing jobs and would not be able to enter new tenders.
Also referring to the statement dated August 26, 2025, of Remzi Baka, owner of the Ulaşım A. Ş. company, Aktas stated that Baka was summoned to the presidential residence in Florya by Ibrahim Bulbullu and was told that companies doing large-scale work were expected to contribute to the system.
Aktas said that, according to Baka's statement, a 10 percent share from tenders was requested, and it was stated that if the offer was not accepted, it would be impossible to do business in Istanbul, payments would not be made, and work would be made difficult.
“YOU CANNOT RECEIVE YOUR LEGAL RECEIVABLES WITHOUT GIVING A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THEM TO THE STRUCTURE CALLED 'THE SYSTEM'”
Aktaş claimed that the method was the same despite involving different individuals, dates, and companies.
According to this, Aktaş stated that businesspeople's progress payments or existing receivables were delayed, and they were told that payments would not be made unless the money demanded by the system was paid, arguing that the money deliveries were made not to secure new business but to collect their legal progress payments.
Aktaş alleged that the money was delivered to consultants, drivers, hotels, or private offices at the instruction of decision-makers, and said the aim was to keep the system administrators in the background this way.
He noted that the money was not deposited into the municipal treasury, official donation account, or bank account, but was withdrawn in cash and handed over to intermediaries, then transferred to the pool called the “system.”
Aktaş argued that this structure was not just an abstract description, claiming, “You cannot receive your legal receivables without giving a certain percentage of your receivables to the structure named the system.”
“EKREM İMAMOĞLU USED THE MAYORAL OFFICE TO COLLECT MONEY FOR THE SYSTEM”
Aktaş argued that when his own statements were evaluated together with other statements in the file that he said corroborated each other, the structure in question could not be explained as the personal initiative of a few individuals independent of İmamoğlu.
He stated that in action number 22, the demand for money was conveyed directly as an instruction from İmamoğlu, and in action number 141, it was similarly said that progress payments would not be made citing İmamoğlu's instruction.
Aktaş said that in action number 142, the demands were announced by İmamoğlu's advisor during a meeting held at the presidential residence in Florya.
Arguing that evaluating these three actions together leads to a clear conclusion, Aktaş said, “Ekrem İmamoğlu used the mayoral office to collect money for the system.”
“ÖZGÜR KARABAT SAID I NEEDED TO PAY 5 MILLION TL”
Aktaş recounted that during the 2024 local elections period, Özgür Karabat, the former deputy chairperson of CHP responsible for financial affairs and Istanbul deputy, called him.
Aktaş stated that Karabat said companies winning tenders from CHP-run municipalities in Istanbul needed to give money for the elections, that those who did not pay would not be around in the next period and their payments would not be made, and claimed he was told this was İmamoğlu's instruction.
Aktaş said he later met with Karabat at the Sheraton Hotel in Esenyurt, stating that Mesut Aykın, nicknamed Mustafa Selanik, was also present at the meeting.
Aktaş noted that Mesut Aykın confirmed this meeting in his statement dated May 28, 2025, and reported that Aykın said he did not hear the content of the conversation but mentioned that during election periods, municipalities asked contractors for money for election campaigns.
Aktaş also stated that Sırrı Küçük, a driver he believed to be Karabat's advisor, was present at the meeting.
Aktaş claimed that at the Sheraton Hotel, he, Mesut Aykın, Özgür Karabat, and Sırrı Küçük were together, and Karabat informed him that, saying it was İmamoğlu's instruction, he needed to give 5 million lira.
Aktaş argued that if this money was not paid, he was told the progress payments of companies belonging to him and his relatives would not be made, and he had to accept the demand because their cash flow would be disrupted, bank loans would be delayed, and they would face financial difficulties.
Aktaş said Karabat asked for the money to be delivered to Sırrı Küçük and gave him Küçük's phone number.
He recounted that on the day the money was prepared, he gave Ömer Güngör Küçük's phone number and asked Güngör to stop by Karabat's accounting office in İkitelli and deliver the money to Küçük.
“WE WITHDREW 5 MILLION LIRA AND I DELIVERED IT AT BAŞAK PETROL”
Aktaş said that on March 6, 2024, Ömer Güngör spoke with Sırrı Küçük on the phone, and since Küçük was not at the accounting office, they met elsewhere.
Stating that the delivery took place at Başak Petrol in İkitelli, Aktaş reported that Güngör described the details of the incident in his statement dated June 12, 2025.
Accordingly, at Aktaş's request, Güngör withdrew 5 million lira from the Cihangir Sağlık Limited account belonging to Ümit Gözütok at the Kuveyt Türk Kuyumcukent Branch. Güngör said that at Aktaş's instruction, Sırrı Küçük's number was sent to him, and he met Küçük at Başak Petrol and delivered the money.
Aktaş stated that Ümit Gözütok was also with Güngör, and during the delivery, Küçük gave Güngör a laptop bag he remembered bearing the emblem of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey.
Aktaş noted that on page 12 of the HTS base station expert opinion submitted to the court, there was a receipt for the 5 million lira withdrawal. He said the money was withdrawn at 15:44, and the approximately 5-6 kilometer distance between Kuyumcukent and Başak Petrol was consistent with a one-hour travel time.
Aktaş stated that HTS records showed Ömer Güngör and Sırrı Küçük gave signals from the same base station at 16:52 and 16:53, arguing this indicated they met around İkitelli Başak Petrol.
Aktaş claimed that the withdrawal and delivery of the 5 million lira were confirmed by bank records, statements, and HTS data, and said the payment was not a commercial agreement or voluntary donation, but was made under the threat of his brothers' progress payments not being paid.
“THEY ASKED FOR 970 THOUSAND DOLLARS, I LEFT IT AT THE HOTEL IN KİLYOS”
Aktaş then moved on to his defense regarding action number 141.
Aktaş, who claimed that companies belonging to his brothers were doing business in IBB subsidiaries and that progress payments were deliberately delayed, alleged that Ertan Yıldız, through Burak Korzay, stated it was İmamoğlu's instruction and demanded 970 thousand dollars from them.
Aktaş noted that the amount of 30 million lira in Burak Korzay's statement corresponded to approximately 970 thousand dollars, saying he did not calculate the exchange rate at that time but was quoting the amount from Korzay's statement.
Aktaş stated he was told that if this payment was not made, the progress payments could not be received, and he argued he had to accept the demand because of the disruption to the companies' cash flow, delays in bank loans, and financial difficulties.
Aktaş recounted that on January 19, 2024, he took the 970 thousand dollars to a hotel in Kilyos, which Burak Korzay had designated as a safe place.
Aktaş stated that he delivered the money in a bag to the hotel owner, Emre Eken, and that Müslüm Koçer was also present with him.
Aktaş noted that Burak Korzay's statement dated July 11, 2025, also confirmed the incident, and he reported that Korzay said he learned about the system from Ertan Yıldız, who told him that the money would not be paid unless 30 million liras, approximately 970 thousand dollars, was sent.
Aktaş stated that Korzay asked him where to bring the money, and Yıldız said, "You name a place you trust, and I'll have it collected there."
Aktaş stated that he then notified Korzay that he had left the bag at the hotel, and Korzay informed Ertan Yıldız; he also said that Korzay's statement indicated that a person, whose identity he did not know, later picked up the bag from the hotel.
"PEOPLE FROM THE MUNICIPALITY WILL PICK IT UP"
Also referencing the statement of the hotel owner, Emre Eken, dated July 22, 2025, Aktaş reported that Eken said he had known Korzay for about 20 years and that Korzay held meetings at the hotel after becoming the General Manager of İSFALT.
According to Eken's statement, Aktaş noted that Eken said Aktaş had previously come to the hotel with Korzay, and then Aktaş went back to the hotel alone and said, "Let me leave a bag with you; people from the municipality will come and pick it up."
Aktaş reported that Eken left the bag in the hotel's storage area and notified Korzay, and Korzay said, "Okay, they will come and pick it up."
Aktaş argued that Eken's statement confirmed that he went to the hotel and left the bag.
Aktaş claimed that he did not give the 970 thousand dollars to secure new business or a tender, but rather made the payment under the pressure of "If you don't pay, you won't receive your payment" to collect the accrued but unpaid receivables of his brothers' companies from İBB subsidiaries.
"THE WITHDRAWAL AND DELIVERY OF THE MONEY WERE CONFIRMED BY HTS RECORDS"
Stating that the relevant pages of the opinion he submitted to the court contain the receipt showing that the 970 thousand dollars were withdrawn on January 19, 2024, at 11:11 from the Kuveyt Türk Bank Altunizade Branch, and showing the pages regarding HTS records to the court panel, Aktaş explained that on the morning of January 19, 2024, he was in Koşuyolu Acıbadem at 09:49, the money was withdrawn at 11:11, and he then headed towards the hotel in Kilyos.
Aktaş stated that he traveled via the Yavuz Sultan Selim Bridge from the Beykoz direction towards Sarıyer, was on the street in Kilyos at 13:14, and delivered the money to Emre Eken.
Aktaş argued that in incident number 141, the request, the amount, the purpose, the place where the money was left, and the delivery method were all confirmed by independent statements.
"IT WAS STATED THAT PAYMENTS WOULD NOT BE MADE IF THEY DID NOT ACCEPT THE REQUESTS OF THE İBB ADMINISTRATION"
Aktaş then moved on to his defense regarding incident number 142. He stated that the company named Bilginay, owned by his brothers, won the tenders for bus repair and maintenance operations at İETT during the AK Party period and continued working during the İmamoğlu period.
He said his own company, Elif LPG, carried out maintenance and repair work for purified water and purchased computer equipment for İETT.
Aktaş claimed that after the 2019 local elections, following İmamoğlu's election as İBB President, Alper Kolukısa was appointed as the General Manager of İETT on the recommendation of Özgür Karabat, and he alleged that Kolukısa awarded the maintenance and repair work for numerous garages through the 21/b negotiation procedure to Ulaşım A.Ş., owned by Remzi Baka, whose financial advisor was Karabat.
"A MEETING WAS HELD AT THE PRESIDENTIAL RESIDENCE IN FLORYA"
Aktaş stated that Özgür Karabat also served as the financial advisor for Zara Car Rental, owned by Yusuf Yadoğlu, who also owns the Vega company, which performed bus maintenance and repair work at İETT.
Aktaş alleged that during a meeting between İETT General Manager Alper Kolukısa and Yusuf Yadoğlu at a hotel in Antalya, footage emerged showing Yadoğlu giving money to Kolukısa; he claimed that following this incident, Kolukısa was dismissed from his position and the incident was covered up.
Aktaş then said Şefik Ok got involved. Claiming that Ok is active in politics within the CHP and is a friend of İmamoğlu, Aktaş alleged that Ok is a relative and unofficial partner of Menderes Cemaloğlu, who provided solid waste collection services during İmamoğlu's tenure as Mayor of Beylikdüzü.
Aktaş stated that due to his ties with İmamoğlu, Şefik Ok called the companies doing İETT maintenance and repair work to a meeting at the headquarters of the company owned by Menderes Cemaloğlu in Küçükçekmece, where he said he was directed by İmamoğlu and told that a meeting would be held at the presidential residence in Florya.
Aktaş said the meeting in Florya was attended by Şefik Ok, İmamoğlu's advisor İbrahim Bülbüllü, Yusuf Yadoğlu's brother and representative Fatih Yadoğlu, Remzi Baka's brother and representative Şaban Baka, and Caner Vural, the owner of the Vizyon company.
Aktaş alleged that at the meeting, Bülbüllü said that if the demands of the İBB administration were not accepted, difficulties would be created during the execution of the companies' contracts and payments would not be made, and he claimed that a total of 10 percent of the contract price was demanded for the system with each progress payment.
"BETWEEN 2020 AND 2024, WE MADE TOTAL PAYMENTS OF 84 MILLION 857 THOUSAND 500 LIRA"
Aktaş stated that this incident is also mentioned in the statements of the other people who attended the meeting.
Referring to the statement of Fatih Yadoğlu dated June 3, 2025, and the statement of Remzi Baka dated August 26, 2025, as examples, Aktaş said it was stated that a payment of 380 million liras was also made to Bülbüllü for goods and services.
Arguing that he had to make the payments because if he did not meet the demands, his companies' cash flow would deteriorate, bank loans would be disrupted, and they would face financial difficulties, Aktaş stated that between 2020 and 2024, he made total payments of 84 million 857 thousand 500 liras.
He said these payments were delivered to İbrahim Bülbüllü and to a person named "Ebubekir" directed by Bülbüllü.
"THESE PAYMENTS CONSIST OF A TOTAL OF 18 WITHDRAWAL RECEIPTS AND 17 DELIVERIES"
Aktaş stated that the payments in question consist of a total of 18 cash withdrawal receipts and 17 deliveries.
Noting that due to time constraints he would not describe all the deliveries one by one, Aktaş presented one of them as an example.
Showing the page with the list of total payments to the court panel, Aktaş described the receipt for the withdrawal of the first 5 million liras and then the delivery of the money to a person named Ebubekir at the OPET fuel station owned by his nephews in Esenyurt.
Stating that other deliveries are also detailed in the file in the same manner, Aktaş said that general evaluations are included on pages 77 and 81.
Aktaş argued that in action number 102, the request, the amount, the purpose, the drop-off location, and the delivery method were confirmed through independent statements.
“THE POLITICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LEADER OF THE SYSTEM IS EKREM İMAMOĞLU”
Noting that he described three actions at the end of his defense, Aktaş said that at the core of all events lies the “system” he claims was established under the leadership of Ekrem İmamoğlu at IMM.
Claiming that this structure was created for the purpose of collecting money in a planned manner toward a specific goal, Aktaş argued that he and his brothers were subjected to pressure through the use of public power by withholding legitimate payments they deserved, and that material demands were made of them.
Aktaş stated that in actions number 22 and 141, instructions were conveyed directly in İmamoğlu's name, and in action number 142, the presidential residence in Florya was used for a meeting.
Claiming that the demands were communicated through İmamoğlu's advisor and that the same method was applied to many businesspeople over the years, Aktaş said, “The political and administrative leader of the system is Ekrem İmamoğlu.”
Arguing that the individuals who conveyed the demands and received the money changed, but the authority on which the instruction was based, the method of pressure, and the purpose did not change, Aktaş said that the expert report he submitted to the file should also be evaluated together with these matters.
“THESE PAYMENTS ARE NOT BRIBES, BUT PAYMENTS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EXTORTION”
Noting that a public lawsuit was filed against him for the crime of bribery regarding all three actions and that a decision of no penalty was requested within the scope of effective remorse provisions, Aktaş argued that when the material facts are evaluated together, the payments do not constitute bribery.
Claiming that the payments should be evaluated within the scope of extortion, Aktaş said they were made compulsorily in order to ensure the payment of receivables related to his brothers' ongoing works.
Stating that these payments were not voluntary bribes made to obtain any benefit, Aktaş argued that they were payments requested for the payment of existing receivables and necessarily made in an environment where, otherwise, the fate of their rights would become uncertain.
Aktaş also stated that at the Istanbul 1st Heavy Penal Court, regarding the other actions related to İETT, the prosecutor at the hearing gave an opinion for acquittal on the charge of “fraud in public tender.”
“IF THERE IS NO ACTION OF FRAUD IN PUBLIC TENDER, WHY WOULD A BRIBE BE GIVEN?”
In this part of his defense, Aktaş posed a fundamental question to the court.
Asking, “If there is no action of fraud in public tender, why would a bribe be given to influence the outcome of this tender?” Aktaş argued that evaluating an action for which fraud in public tender is not accepted as also giving a bribe to change the tender result is contrary to the ordinary course of life.
He claimed that it is not possible for the same material event to be subject to acquittal in one file regarding the charge of fraud in tender, while being accepted as an act of giving bribes in another file.
Stating that he personally helped uncover the corruption, Aktaş said he supported the matters he described with concrete documents and evidence as much as possible.
Arguing that his statements coincided with the material facts that emerged during the investigation and prosecution, Aktaş claimed that this showed his statements were consistent with the truth.
Noting that the HTS records regarding the individuals who delivered and received the money, in particular, and the dates and times of the events match each other, Aktaş said his accounts were not merely verbal claims; they were supported by bank records, HTS data, and other material evidence in the file.
“I REQUEST THAT I BE ACQUITTED”
At the end of his defense, Aktaş asked that all evidence in the file be evaluated as a whole and requested that he be acquitted of the charge of bribery.
Aktaş concluded his defense by saying, “For these reasons, I respectfully request and demand from Your Court that, upon evaluating all the evidence in the file as a whole, I be acquitted of the charge of bribery. Thank you for listening to me.”