28.04.2026 20:02
The 'corruption' case against IBB continues. Confessing defendant, businessman Adem Soytekin, stated in his defense in court, 'I acted not as a member of a criminal organization, but as a responsible Turkish citizen. I was in the construction business and was not part of any criminal organization,' and explained the process of effective remorse. During a break in the hearing, Soytekin made a 'Grey Wolf' sign, saying 'Let those who don't know learn,' and left the courtroom.
The 'Corruption' investigation launched against Ekrem İmamoğlu, who was removed from his position as the Mayor of Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality and arrested, has been completed, and a 3,809-page indictment was prepared on November 11, 2025. In the indictment, Ekrem İmamoğlu, referred to as the 'Organization leader', is accused of committing the following crimes: 'Establishing an organization for the purpose of committing crimes', 'Bribery', 'Money laundering', 'Fraud to the detriment of public institutions and organizations', 'Recording personal data', 'Obtaining and disseminating personal data', 'Concealing criminal evidence', 'Preventing communication', 'Damaging public property', 'Taking bribes', 'Publicly disseminating misleading information', 'Extortion', 'Money laundering of assets derived from crime', 'Bid rigging', 'Intentional pollution of the environment', 'Violation of the tax procedure law', 'Violation of the forest law', and 'Violation of the mining law'. İmamoğlu is sought to be sentenced to between 828 years and 2 months and up to 2,352 years in prison for 142 actions.
EIGHTH WEEK IN THE TRIALS
The first hearing was held on Monday, March 9. Since the first hearing of the case, the defenses of 35 people have been heard. While no hearings are held on Fridays, the trials continue four days a week.
18 PEOPLE WERE RELEASED
The court panel decided to release the defendants: İBB Private Secretary Kadriye Kasapoğlu, Özgür Karabat's driver Sırrı Küçük, Ağaç A. Ş. employee Fatih Yağcı, businessman Ali Üner, businessman Evren Şirolu, businessman Ebubekir Akın, İSPER personnel Davut Bildik, Altan Ertürk, Hüseyin Yurttaş, Murat Ongun's driver Kadir Öztürk, Mustafa Bostancı, Kadriye Kasapoğlu's driver Sabri Caner Kırca, Baran Gönül, Mahir Gün, Esra Huri Bulduk, Şehide Zehra Keleş Yüksel, Başak Tatlı, and municipal police officer Nazan Başelli.
"I AM A CONTRACTOR WHO DOES WORK AND GETS PAID FOR THE WORK I DO"
Adem Soytekin made the following statements in his defense:
"I have never gone to anyone's door to get work. The basis of many issues in the file is that structures such as schools, kindergartens, mosques, dormitories, and graves built for the public as part of municipal duties were constructed by us. I am not someone who establishes, manages, or mediates a bribery organization. I am a contractor who does work and receives payment for the work I do. After completing our work, we collected our receivables sometimes in cash, sometimes by check. The part within my knowledge and will is only this. It is known that Beylikdüzü Municipality, like every municipality, builds facilities to be allocated for many public services. All municipalities still build these facilities and will continue to do so. Generally, as you all know, municipalities do not build these facilities with their own resources. Whether this is right or wrong is a separate issue; however, these facilities are usually built with donations. Whatever you call it—voluntary donation—that's how these things work. After the acquaintance process, I received and carried out these works from Beylikdüzü Municipality, all of which were done without a tender. It is established that I built these facilities. How is it established? It is established from what the prosecution itself has written. This is not a crime. If it is a crime, it is also established in the statements of municipal officials who said, 'We committed this crime and will continue to commit it.' How else is it established? It is established in the statements of people who claim that what is called a bribe was forcibly taken from them under the name of a donation. I did the work I mentioned, but I did not do it alone. They have suppliers, subcontractors, and hundreds of employees. Now let me come to the issue of how we built these facilities. The system here was as follows: The municipality assigns a job. For example, they say, 'You will build a kindergarten here, a cultural center here, a dormitory here.' Then we would be told that our receivables would be collected from certain people, sometimes in the form of apartments, shops, or checks. By the time I came into this process, whatever you call it—bribery, donation, or bargaining—between the municipality and the relevant person, the process was already over, and the parties had agreed. I do my job. I am only collecting payment for the work I do here. As I said, I am not involved in the process until this stage.
"I DID NOT ACT LIKE A CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION MEMBER, BUT LIKE A RESPONSIBLE TURKISH CITIZEN"
The issues attributed to me throughout the indictment relate to the methods and procedures of collecting my receivables from the companies directed to me in return for the work I carried out, which was largely for the public benefit. However, I did not conceal any of these payments. On the contrary, I personally explained them during the investigation phase and submitted them to the file with documents. If I had intended to conceal a crime, hide evidence, or cover up relationships, many of the issues listed as actions in the file would not have emerged through the documents and statements I submitted. Even today, my attitude is not that of a criminal organization member; it is the attitude of a responsible Turkish citizen who wants the truth to come out. Furthermore, it is clear that the statements of some individuals against me in the file contradict technical and material evidence. Very serious accusations are being made based on the abstract statements of people I have never met, who have no call records or common base station records with me, and whose accounts of dates are internally inconsistent."
HE EXPLAINED THE "ACTIVE REMORSE" PROCESS
Soytekin said, "The statements of contractors who gave testimony in the file began to appear in the press. Through one of my lawyers at that time, Onur Büyükhatipoğlu, who also had contact with the lawyers on the municipal side, I wanted this situation to be explained. I stated that news had appeared in the press, that some contractors were saying that the checks and properties they gave me as payments for my work for the municipality were given as bribes, and that this disturbed me greatly. I said that this was not the case, that the municipal lawyers knew this best, and that a statement should be made on this matter. Such a statement would correctly position me in front of my family, the media, and the public. Mr. Onur informed me that when he spoke with the municipal side, such a statement would not be made. Upon this, I said, 'If that's the case, I will explain these things myself.' That is how my active remorse process began. I started this process with the motivation to explain myself to my family and the public after all the work I did—the payments I received as receivables for my work—were portrayed as bribes, and I was left alone on this issue by the municipal officials who knew this best. I am someone who has worked in different municipalities of Istanbul. In 2023, after the February 6 earthquake, 100 containers were requested from me in a meeting. We agreed on 30 of them. Later, when we had difficulty finding containers due to disaster management, we made an agreement with the company directed by the relevant municipality. We sent the money. The company produced the containers and delivered them to Adıyaman. Now I want to ask: Are the checks I gave to the contractor or the payments I made to the manufacturer for the containers bribery or extortion? Of course not."