12.10.2026 20:32
In the case against the İBB concerning the “Ekrem İmamoğlu Profit-Oriented Criminal Organization,” Selim Marangoz, Purchasing Manager of Ağaç A.Ş., who testified in defense, explained that when the purchase request for some plants reached him, they had already been brought to the institution. Marangoz, who also confirmed that approval documents were sent to him in order to legalize purchases made without tender, drew attention with his statements at the hearing.
Selim Marangoz, Purchasing Manager of Ağaç A.Ş., who testified in defense in the “Ekrem İmamoğlu Profit-Oriented Criminal Organization” case against IMM, said he later learned that when the purchase request for some plants was conveyed to him, they had already been brought to the institution. Marangoz, who also confirmed the statement that an approval document was sent to him in order to put the purchases without tender on a legal basis, also made allegations regarding the Seka Peyzaj company owned by the spouse of Dilek İmamoğlu's nephew.
HE EXPLAINED THE PURCHASES WITHOUT TENDER On the 32nd day of the second hearing of the “Ekrem İmamoğlu Profit-Oriented Criminal Organization” case against Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (IMM), the defense of Selim Marangoz, Purchasing Manager of Ağaç A.Ş., who is a defendant not in detention, was taken. Marangoz's account regarding the purchases without tender left its mark on the hearing. Marangoz, who stated that he later learned that when the purchase request for some plants reached him, they had already been brought to the institution, also confirmed that an approval document was sent to him in order to put these purchases on a legal basis.
Selim Marangoz FIRST THE TREES CAME, THEN THE APPROVAL DOCUMENT WAS SENT Answering the trial prosecutor's questions regarding purchases without tender, Marangoz recounted that he later learned that some plants had already been brought to the institution at the time the purchase request was conveyed to him.
When the prosecutor reminded him of his earlier statement that an approval document had been sent to him in order to put the purchases made without tender on a legal basis, Marangoz confirmed this.
Marangoz's account reopened to debate the claim that in some purchases, the documents related to the purchasing process came up after the products had been delivered to the institution.
“SEKA PEYZAJ HAS NO PRODUCTION SITE” In his defense, Marangoz also mentioned the Seka Peyzaj company, owned by Murat Dağdeviren, the spouse of Dilek İmamoğlu's nephew Derya Dağdeviren, and claimed that the company had no production site of its own and obtained the trees it had to deliver from other producers.
Marangoz stated that he thought purchasing from companies with production sites would be more efficient and lower cost, but nevertheless claimed that he was pressured to obtain a quote from Seka Peyzaj.
In his defense, Marangoz used the following statements:
“This company not only has no production site, but it also supplies the trees it must deliver in the tenders from other producers and delivers them. So in fact, I thought that inviting a company with a production site instead of Seka Peyzaj would be more efficient and less costly.”
THE CLAIM THAT “A QUOTE MUST DEFINITELY BE OBTAINED” Marangoz alleged that Ali Sukas, General Manager of Ağaç A.Ş., warned him about preferring companies with production sites. Despite this, he claimed that Planning Manager Kerem Celil Uzunlar became involved in the quotation collection process by stating that a quote must definitely be obtained from Seka Peyzaj.
Marangoz said, “Despite this, after a while, Planning Manager Kerem Celil Uzunlar began pressuring and obtaining a quote by presenting that a quote must definitely be obtained from Seka Peyzaj. I couldn't understand this situation anyway.”
THE PROSECUTOR ASKED: WHO IS THE OWNER OF SEKA PEYZAJ? During cross-examination, the public prosecutor asked Marangoz who owned Seka Peyzaj. Marangoz said that the owner of the company was Murat Dağdeviren.
When the prosecutor reminded him of his statement that Dağdeviren won tenders despite having no production facility, and delivered trees by obtaining them from other producers, Marangoz answered, “Yes.”
When the prosecutor stated that Dağdeviren made serious profits without doing any work and asked why such a privilege was granted in the process, Marangoz said, “He had a closeness to the mayor. I know that.”
“I WAS BROUGHT INTO AN ALREADY ESTABLISHED SYSTEM” The defendant not in detention, Marangoz, said that when he was appointed to the position of purchasing manager, the processes were not taught to him, and he tried to understand the operation by examining past files. He recounted that at Ağaç A.Ş., requests were created by the Nurseries Directorate, and after the approval of General Manager Ali Sukas, the purchasing chief collected the quotes and forwarded them to him.
Marangoz stated that he also found it suspicious that there was no main tender serving as an umbrella file for the purchases bearing his signature, and argued that it was not known in advance which purchases would be made during the year.
HE TOLD THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE ABOUT THE BRIBERY ALLEGATIONS Marangoz, who testified during the investigation phase benefiting from the effective remorse provisions, said that during the period when he started his position, the bribery allegations went beyond rumors within the institution and were reflected in the press. Recounting that he was appointed to the purchasing manager position after Ümit Polat was removed from office, Marangoz stated that both Polat and Ali Sukas made accusations against each other, and that at first he could not fully understand what had happened.
Marangoz stated that he was arrested on May 11, 2026, and that after his release, he was first put on leave by the institution, and then his contract was terminated without being reinstated. He also added that he stood behind his effective remorse statement at the prosecutor's office.
While the statements at the hearing reflect the defendant's account and allegations, the final assessment regarding the transactions subject to the investigation and the accusations directed at the parties will be made at the conclusion of the trial.