Üsküdar Mayor Sinem Dedetaş could not explain the mystery of the 260 million lira 'consulting income'.

03.08.2026 12:58

Striking contradictions have emerged in the prosecutor's statement of Mayor Sinem Dedetaş, who was detained in the corruption investigation against Üsküdar Municipality. In contrast to her previous claim that approximately 260 million liras in project consultancy income obtained by Kent A.Ş. from contractors was presented to her, Dedetaş, who had earlier said, 'I don't know how much profit was made,' this time admitted that she was well-versed in the company's income and expenditure situation.

Striking contradictions and admissions emerged in the prosecutor's office statement of Mayor Sinem Dedetaş, who was detained in the corruption investigation conducted by the Istanbul Anatolian Chief Public Prosecutor's Office against the Üsküdar Municipality.

At the prosecutor's office, Dedetaş was questioned about the licensing and occupancy permit procedures allegedly carried out through Kent A. Ş., the benefits demanded from contractors, the company's revenues, unauthorized appointments, the foreign currency reportedly distributed to municipal staff, and the witness statements in the investigation file.

CONTRADICTION OVER 260 MILLION LIRA INCOME

Kent A. Ş. employee Özgür Ceylan, in his statement given within the scope of effective remorse, stated that at a meeting held in February or March 2026 attended by Sinem Dedetaş, the company's project consultancy income was presented to the mayor as approximately 260 million lira.

Dedetaş was reminded that in her statement at the police station, she said she did not know how much profit Kent A. Ş. earned from the contracts it made with contractors. When asked about the contradiction between these two statements, Dedetaş admitted that she repeatedly asked Nazım Akkoyunlu about the company's revenues and income items at the meeting.

Stating that she was trying to learn from which contractor and on what basis consultancy income was received, Dedetaş claimed she did not know the exact amount obtained from the contracts.

"I WAS IN COMMAND OF THE COMPANY'S INCOME AND EXPENSES"

While on one hand saying she did not know how much profit was earned from contracts made with contractors, Dedetaş also stated, "I was actually in command of Kent A. Ş.'s income and expense situation."

Admitting that she knew the company's overall financial structure, Dedetaş stated that after the investigation, she compared the accounting records with the income-expense tables and did not notice any irregularities.

Dedetaş, who said she did not know whether the contracts Kent A. Ş. made with contractors were given to the parties, placed the responsibility on the company's general manager Nazım Akkoyunlu.

STATEMENT "I WILL ASK PRESIDENT SINEM AND INFORM YOU" QUESTIONED

In the prosecutor's office statement of Kent A. Ş. employee Barkın Ege Tekkököğlu, it was recorded that which benefit would be demanded from contractors at occupancy permit meetings was determined by Nazım Akkoyunlu and Construction Control Manager Mevlüt Güray.

Tekkököğlu testified that in some permit files only the amount was determined, and Nazım Akkoyunlu said: "I will ask President Sinem where and how the agreed amount will be paid or spent, and inform you."

Claiming that Akkoyunlu informed Mevlüt Güray of the decision after consulting Dedetaş, Tekkököğlu stated that negotiations were held with contractors and work followers who applied for occupancy permits based on the agreed amount.

Dedetaş, however, claimed these accounts were slander; she said she was unaware of the meetings, the decisions taken, and any wrongdoing.

10 MILLION LIRA FOR OCCUPANCY PERMIT

One of the most striking allegations in the file concerned the occupancy permit for the construction located on parcel 150, block 1313 in Üsküdar. Barkın Ege Tekkököğlu testified that at a meeting, Nazım Akkoyunlu and Mevlüt Güray decided to demand 10 million lira from the contractor for the said occupancy permit.

The statement transcript also reflected that the other suspects, who were said to be company partners and intermediaries, stated that a bribe was given to a parliamentarian's advisor for the permit procedures, and that a meeting was held in the parliamentarian's office at the Turkish Grand National Assembly for this purpose.

It was also stated that Alihan Koçoğlu, who worked in Dedetaş's private office, said he was called by the parliamentarian's advisor U. A. and asked for information.

Dedetaş, however, claimed she could not understand what the issue was and stated she did not remember meeting with any parliamentarian about the permit file.

THE MATTER OF COLLECTING MONEY HAD BEEN CONVEYED TO HER

Dedetaş said no complaint reached her that Nazım Akkoyunlu and Ulaş Meydan had received bribes from contractors. However, the statement given by the former president of the Üsküdar Municipality Sports Club within the scope of effective remorse revealed an important claim contradicting this defense.

Albayrak said he heard that people were using the name of the Üsküdar Municipality Sports Club to engage in money traffic with contractors, and that he told this directly to Sinem Dedetaş.

Albayrak recounted telling Dedetaş: "I also hear that Ulaş Meydan and Mustafa Hacıosmanoğlu are collecting money from contractors regarding money matters."

DEDETAŞ DISMISSED IT AS "BRIBERY GOSSIP"

Sinem Dedetaş did not completely deny that she was informed that Ulaş Meydan and Mustafa Hacıosmanoğlu were collecting money from contractors. However, she stated that she regarded these accounts as a disagreement between the two names and "gossip."

Dedetaş said, "I took this approach by saying that there was gossip about the matters in which Ulaş Meydan or Mustafa Hacıosmanoğlu demanded money from contractors."

Thus, it was seen that the allegations of collecting money reached the mayor, but the statement did not provide information that any administrative investigation was initiated regarding these allegations.

MADE "DEPUTY MAYOR" WITHOUT AUTHORITY

It also entered the investigation file that Nazım Akkoyunlu, whom Dedetaş appointed as General Manager of Kent A. Ş., was introduced as "Deputy Mayor" even though he had no official appointment.

Dedetaş claimed that she wanted to transfer Akkoyunlu to public servant status through exceptional civil service, and that her private office personnel mistakenly prepared signs and labels thinking he would become deputy mayor.

However, in the examination conducted by the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, it was determined that at an event attended by Dedetaş, Akkoyunlu sat next to her and the nameplate in front of him read "Deputy Mayor." Dedetaş admitted this situation with the words: "It was not something malicious, but I accept it as an administrative error."

FINDING THAT OCCUPANCY PERMITS WERE GIVEN TO BUILDINGS NOT RESISTANT TO EARTHQUAKES

The Chief Public Prosecutor's Office reported that on-site inspections determined that occupancy permits were issued for some constructions deemed not suitable for earthquakes in terms of building statics, in a way that could endanger life and property safety.

Dedetaş stated that the people she brought into office had technical knowledge and expertise, and made the defense: "Since I cannot be competent in technical details as a mayor, I have no knowledge."

Saying it was not possible for her as a mayor to have knowledge of technical matters, Dedetaş claimed that the responsibility lay with the people she assigned as experts.

HAD IRREGULAR STRUCTURES INSPECTED AFTER THE OPERATION

Dedetaş claimed she became aware of the allegations regarding the operations of Kent A. Ş. while giving her statement at the police station. She stated that after the first operation by the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, she had the structures determined to be irregular inspected.

This statement revealed that the unlawful structures were not brought under scrutiny through the municipality administration's initial inspections, but rather after the investigation and operation. Dedetaş also claimed that he was unaware of the allegations regarding the receipt of Bimkart in return for occupancy permits, the directing of contractors to make donations, and the distribution of foreign currency to personnel by hand. He stated that the cards mentioned in the tape recordings were shopping cards.

While Sinem Dedetaş's lawyers rejected the accusations, they argued that the statements in the file could at most be evaluated within the scope of "misconduct in office." The witness and suspect statements in the statement transcript do not constitute a final judgment, and the criminal responsibilities of the mentioned individuals will be determined as a result of the investigation and trial.