Comprehensive Summary of the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Indictment

The indictment alleges that a profit-driven criminal network led by Ekrem İmamoğlu operated within the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality and its subsidiaries, manipulating tenders, laundering money, and channeling public funds for political and personal gain.

 

The 3,000-page indictment alleges that a profit-oriented criminal organization, led by Ekrem İmamoğlu and operated through the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality and its subsidiaries, engaged in systematic bribery, tender manipulation, money laundering, and misuse of public funds between 2017 and 2024. Prosecutors claim that municipal entities such as İSPARK, KİPTAŞ, Kültür A.Ş., Medya A.Ş., and Spor A.Ş. were used to divert more than 2.3 billion TL through fraudulent contracts, fabricated invoices, and disguised donations, some of which allegedly financed election campaigns and media operations. The document identifies key figures including Murat Ongun, Fatih Keleş, Emrah Bağdatlı, and Güldem Şık as central to the organization’s financial structure, supported by bank records, witness statements, and digital evidence. It concludes by requesting confiscation of assets, corporate restrictions, and over 30 years of imprisonment for İmamoğlu as the alleged leader.

 INDICTMENT EXTENSIVE SUMMARY → General Structure (1–3741 Page Summary)

 

Comprehensive Summary of the Indictment

1️⃣General Structure (Summary of Pages 1–3741)

Section	Topic	Main Focus
1–500	Formation and hierarchy of the organization	Structure, members, confidentiality mechanisms
500–1000	Zoning and bribery activities	Bosphorus Zoning and Şişli files
1000–1500	Financial networks and media relations	Money laundering, overseas transfers, election funding
1500–2000	Advertising and tender irregularities	Relations with Culture and Media Inc.
2000–2500	Fake invoicing and subcontracting systems	Sub-tenders and commission chains
2500–3000	Evidence collection and expert evaluations	Public losses, digital evidence
3000–3741	Legal outcomes and prosecutorial requests	Sentencing demands, confiscations, final evaluations

Overall, the indictment examines, as a single framework, alleged offenses involving the establishment of a profit-driven organization, bribery, zoning fraud, and money laundering.

Legal Rationale – Nature of the Organization

According to the Prosecutor’s Office, the alleged organization fulfills all four defining elements of a criminal structure under Article 220 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK):

• Purpose: Securing personal or political gain through the exploitation of public resources.
• Continuity: Maintaining uninterrupted operations from 2014 to 2024.
• Hierarchy: Structured as Leader → Executive → Member → Special-status Member.
• Secrecy: Utilizing encrypted communications, private meetings, and instructions for the destruction of sensitive documents.

Therefore, the structure is characterized as a fully organized criminal network in legal terms.

 

1. Leader Team

Name	Position / Role	TCK Articles	Summary of Allegations
Ekrem İmamoğlu	Mayor of Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality	TCK 220/1–5, 252, 247–257, 282, 204, 158/1-d, 298/61	Alleged establishment and management of a criminal organization, bribery, embezzlement, forgery, fraud, and irregularities in election financing.
Murat Ongun	Communications Coordinator, President of Media Inc.	TCK 220/2, 252, 204, 282, 158/1-d	Alleged organization management, bribery, money laundering, and bid manipulation.
Fatih Keleş	Head of the Department of Financial Affairs	TCK 220/2, 252, 282, 247	Alleged role as an organizational executive and “treasurer,” accused of bribery, embezzlement, and money laundering.

2. Managers and Coordinators

Name	Role / Position	TCK Articles	Allegations Summary
Yakup Öner	Bosphorus Zoning Coordinator	252, 257, 220/6	Accused of bribery, abuse of office, and aiding the organization.
Elçin Karaoğlu	Bosphorus Zoning Director	204, 252, 257	Alleged document forgery and bribery.
Adem Soytekin	Linked with ISPARK / İGDAŞ	257, 220/6	Alleged misconduct in office.
Emrah Bağdatlı	Financial Coordinator, Culture/Media Inc.	220/6, 252, 282	Accused of collecting bribes and concealing funds.
Güldem Şık	Tender Officer, Culture Inc.	204, 252, 220/6	Alleged forgery and participation in the organization.
Necati Özkan	Media Strategist	257, 298/61	Alleged misuse of public funds for political purposes.
Hüseyin Gün	Financial Manager	282, 220/6	Alleged laundering of money through shell companies.

 

3. Tender and Subcontracting Network

Name	Associated Firm	TCK Articles	Summary of Charges
Zeynep Ayten Gözdem Ongun	BYZAG Ltd.	282, 204	Accused of laundering money via a front company.
Mete Mağden	45 Design	204, 158/1-d	Alleged inflation of invoice amounts.
Muhittin Palazoğlu	Adstation & KMD Advertising	204, 158/1-d, 282	Alleged fake invoicing and fraud.
Kağan Sürmegöz	Head of Real Estate Department	257, 220/6	Alleged abuse of office.
Serdal Taşkın	General Manager, Culture Inc.	257, 220/6	Accused of causing financial harm to the public.

 

4. Other Defendants

Name	Role	TCK Articles	Summary of Allegations
Resul Emrah Şahan	Member, Zoning Commission	252	Alleged offer of a bribe.
Adem Altıntaş	Urban Planner (Mediator)	252, 255	Alleged involvement in bribery negotiations.
Ertan Yıldız	Former Organization Member / Witness	220, 254	Provided testimony about the group’s internal system.
Süleyman Atik	Collection Officer	252, 220/6	Alleged role in collecting bribes.
Barış Kılıç	Deputy Manager, Media Inc.	220/6, 204	Accused of preparing tender documentation.

5. Chronological Development (2014–2025)

• 2014–2019: Beylikdüzü Period

• A core group—Fatih Keleş, Yakup Öner, Adem Soytekin, and Ertan Yıldız—was formed during this time.
  The alleged organizational foundation was laid through the collection of funds under the label of “donations.”

• 2019–2020: Transition to the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (IMM)

• The team reportedly moved to IMM, where separate Finance, Zoning, and Media networks were created.
  Enhanced confidentiality measures were introduced, including encrypted communication and private meetings.

• 2020–2022: Bribery Mechanism

• Systematic bribery was allegedly established within Şişli and Bosphorus Zoning areas.
  Funds were collected under the pretexts of “charity,” “nursery projects,” or “market cards.”
  Witnesses codenamed ‘ÇINAR’ and ‘RÜZGAR’ reportedly confirmed the monetary flow.

• 2021–2023: Financial and Media Network

• Revenues from İSPARK, KİPTAŞ, and Media Inc. were allegedly funneled into the organization’s fund.
  According to the MASAK report, a cash flow of approximately 2.3 billion TL was identified.
  Media campaigns such as “Istanbul is Yours” and “Fair City” were described as promotional tools for the organization.

• 2022–2024: Tender and Fake Invoice Operations

• Tenders from Culture and Media Inc. were allegedly directed to pre-selected companies—Adstation, BYZAG, 45 Design, and KMD Advertising—resulting in an estimated 36.6 million TL in public losses.

• 2024–2025: Investigation and Indictment

• Authorities examined MASAK, HTS, and digital evidence, including the organization’s internal “System” folders.
  The prosecution filed charges against 62 defendants, seeking the seizure of 68 bank accounts and 12 real estate assets.

 

6. Classification of Charges by Criminal Code Articles

Article (TCK)	Type of Offense	Individuals Implicated
TCK 220 (Establishing / Managing / Joining a Criminal Organization)	Alleged involvement in forming and directing a criminal structure	Ekrem İmamoğlu, Murat Ongun, Fatih Keleş, Emrah Bağdatlı, Güldem Şık, Yakup Öner, Adem Soytekin
TCK 252 (Bribery)	Receiving or giving bribes	Ekrem İmamoğlu, Fatih Keleş, Yakup Öner, Elçin Karaoğlu, Emrah Bağdatlı, Resul Emrah Şahan, Adem Altıntaş
TCK 204 (Forgery of Official Documents)	Fabricating or altering official documents	Güldem Şık, Elçin Karaoğlu, Zeynep Ayten Gözdem Ongun, Mete Mağden, Muhittin Palazoğlu
TCK 247–257 (Embezzlement / Misconduct in Office)	Misuse or misappropriation of public resources	Ekrem İmamoğlu, Fatih Keleş, Adem Soytekin, Yakup Öner, Serdal Taşkın, Kağan Sürmegöz
TCK 282 (Money Laundering of Criminal Assets)	Concealing or legitimizing funds derived from illegal activities	Fatih Keleş, Zeynep Ayten Gözdem Ongun, Muhittin Palazoğlu, Hüseyin Gün, Ekrem İmamoğlu
TCK 158/1-d (Fraud Against Public Institutions)	Defrauding or deceiving public organizations	Murat Ongun, Muhittin Palazoğlu, Mete Mağden
TCK 298/61 (Election Financing Irregularities)	Illegal campaign or financing practices	Ekrem İmamoğlu, Necati Özkan

Overall Evaluation of the Complete Indictment (Pages 1–3741)

Phase	Scope	Main Theme
1–500	Organizational definition, leadership, and hierarchy	Structure, members, and confidentiality protocols
500–1000	Bribery and zoning-related activities	Bosphorus Zoning network and cash circulation
1000–1500	Financial and media network	Corporate affiliates and foreign money transfers
1500–2000	Advertising and tender corruption	Dealings with Culture and Media Inc.

Chronological Summary of Events

Phase 1 – Founding of the Organization (2014–2019)

Period: Beylikdüzü Municipality
After being elected mayor, Ekrem İmamoğlu allegedly formed a “core team” of trusted associates — Fatih Keleş, Adem Soytekin, Ertan Yıldız, and Yakup Öner.
According to the indictment, this period marked the origin of the organization, built through informal relationships with private firms and the establishment of “donation-based” funding practices derived from municipal tenders.

Phase 2 – Transition to the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (2019–2020)

Following İmamoğlu’s election as Mayor of Istanbul, the same group reportedly transferred their structure into the city administration.
The organization’s “central body” was embedded within various municipal units and subsidiaries, operating through three main branches:

• Financial Network: Managed by Fatih Keleş, responsible for handling cash flow and fund allocation.
• Zoning Network: Directed by Yakup Öner and Elçin Karaoğlu, focusing on zoning permits and plan alterations.
• Media Network: Operated by Murat Ongun and Necati Özkan, tasked with public communications and perception management.

Municipal subsidiaries such as İSPARK, İSTAÇ, KİPTAŞ, and Kültür A.Ş. allegedly served as operational fronts.
Strict confidentiality measures were enforced — encrypted lines, private briefings, and restricted-access meetings.

Phase 3 – Bribery and Zoning Operations (2020–2022)

Scope: Şişli Municipality, Bosphorus Zoning Directorate, and affiliated corporations.
The indictment claims the group implemented a systematic bribery mechanism using zoning amendments and construction approvals.

• Fatih Keleş functioned as the treasurer.
• Yakup Öner coordinated field operations.
• Elçin Karaoğlu provided official approvals.
  Payments were disguised as “charity donations,” “nursery projects,” or “community assistance.”
  Witnesses codenamed ÇINAR and RÜZGAR corroborated these alleged money transfers.

Phase 4 – Financial and Media Expansion (2021–2023)

The indictment alleges that by 2021, activities had expanded beyond municipal boundaries.
Significant funding reportedly flowed from municipal affiliates (İSPARK, KİPTAŞ, Medya A.Ş.) under the labels of sponsorships or social aid.
Prosecutors claim that Necati Özkan and Murat Ongun redirected public resources toward political promotion.
“Consultancy” payments to firms in Georgia and Germany were identified as possible channels for laundering funds.
MASAK reports examined these foreign currency transfers and intermediary company movements.

Phase 5 – Advertising and Tender Irregularities (2022–2024)

Scope: Culture Inc., Media Inc., and Sports Inc.
A closed-loop “pre-determined tender” system was allegedly established.
Emrah Bağdatlı and Güldem Şık coordinated offers and commissions, while Fatih Keleş and Murat Ongun oversaw cash conversion and distribution.
Many tenders labeled as “concept design” or “event management” were deemed fictitious.
Inspection reports cite a public loss of 36 million TL during this period.

Phase 6 – Fake Invoice and Subcontracting System (2023–2024)

Scope: Subcontracted tenders and parallel invoicing networks.
Kültür A.Ş. allegedly split a 211-item tender into 12 smaller contracts to bypass regulatory scrutiny under Article 3/g.
Most contracts were granted to firms under the group’s control, including Adstation, 45 Design, BYZAG, and KMD Advertising.
Invoices were inflated and payments made without legitimate services.
A centralized fund management mechanism called “System” was used to control cash flows, managed primarily by Emrah Bağdatlı and Güldem Şık.

Phase 7 – Evidence Collection and Legal Proceedings (2024–2025)

Scope: Financial audits, digital data, and witness testimonies.
Investigations by MASAK and technical experts identified detailed financial networks.
“System” folder documents mapped cash transactions and communications.
Witnesses reported that meetings took place at Miniatürk, Zorlu Raffles Hotel, and Kültür A.Ş. offices.
The prosecution completed a case involving 62 defendants, requesting the seizure of 68 bank accounts, 12 real estate properties, and 14 travel bans.
The 3,741-page indictment was finalized and submitted to the court in early 2025.

8th Term: Conclusion of the Indictment (2025)

• The indictment is completed in 3741 pages.
• Ekrem İmamoğlu , with his title as the “leader of the organization,” is brought to court by the prosecutor’s office to be tried along with
  Murat Ongun, Fatih Keleş, Güldem Şık, Emrah Bağdatlı and other executives.
• Prosecutor’s Office request:
  • Public lawsuit against 62 defendants ,
  • Total public loss: 50.6 million TL ,
  • Confiscation, disqualification from duty, travel ban and imprisonment.

Timeline Summary

Year	Event / Stage	Scope
2014	The formation of the organization’s core during the Beylikdüzü period	Construction revenues, initial funds
2019	Transition to IMM and restructuring	Establishing a hierarchical system
2020	The beginning of construction irregularities	Bribery and licensing procedures
2021–2022	Financial network and media studies	Participation income, foreign money laundering
2022–2024	Advertising and tender corruption	Culture/Media Inc. network
2023–2024	Fake invoice and subcontracting scheme	Sub-tenders, 3/g exception
2024	Investigation and evidence collection	Financial and digital reviews
2025	Completion of the indictment	Public case with 62 defendants

 

Main Narrative, Key Figures, Allegations, and Relationships (Overview)

 1. Chronological Narrative

2014–2019: Foundational Phase (Beylikdüzü Period)

During his tenure as Mayor of Beylikdüzü, Ekrem İmamoğlu is said to have formed a core circle of trusted associates — Fatih Keleş, Adem Soytekin, Yakup Öner, and Ertan Yıldız.
Within this period, the indictment claims a pattern emerged in which “donations” collected during municipal tenders laid the groundwork for a structured network later described as an organized formation.

2019–2020: Transfer to Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (IMM)

After İmamoğlu’s election as Mayor of Istanbul, the same inner circle allegedly transitioned into the IMM.
Three operational divisions were established:

• Financial Network — managed by Fatih Keleş, overseeing cash flow.
• Zoning Network — coordinated by Yakup Öner, managing zoning and construction permits.
• Media Network — supervised by Murat Ongun, handling public relations and perception campaigns.

Confidentiality protocols were allegedly formalized — encrypted communications, internal code names, and secure meetings outside official channels.

2020–2022: Zoning and Bribery System

Within the Şişli and Bosphorus Zoning areas, the indictment claims bribes were routinely accepted for permit approvals, zoning modifications, and project alterations.

• Fatih Keleş acted as the financial controller (“cash custodian”).
• Yakup Öner coordinated operations.
• Elçin Karaoğlu authorized files and reports.

Sample cases include the Hakkı Demir Foundation and Türkmen Group, where alleged bribes were concealed as “charitable donations” or “community service projects.”
Witnesses codenamed ÇINAR and RÜZGAR confirmed internal money transfers.

2021–2023: Financial and Media Activities

Revenues from municipal subsidiaries — İSPARK, KİPTAŞ, and Media Inc. — were allegedly redirected into the organization’s fund through promotional and sponsorship programs.
Campaigns such as “Istanbul is Yours” and “Fair City” were described as propaganda projects financed with public money.
The MASAK report identified a cash cycle of approximately 2.3 billion TL within this period.

2022–2024: Tender Corruption and Fake Invoicing

Tenders from Kültür A.Ş. and Medya A.Ş. were reportedly directed to pre-selected firms, including Adstation, BYZAG, 45 Design, and KMD Advertising.
Güldem Şık managed proposal documentation, while Emrah Bağdatlı handled financial collections.
These tenders were fragmented to exploit Article 3/g exceptions.
Public losses were estimated at 36 million TL.

2024–2025: Investigation and Indictment Phase

Authorities compiled evidence using MASAK data, digital records, and expert analyses.
The “System” digital files were decrypted, allegedly detailing fund movements.
The prosecution finalized the indictment, identifying 62 defendants and a total public loss of 50.6 million TL, seeking confiscations and prohibitions.

2. Person–Company–Crime Relationship Table

Individual	Affiliated Entity	Type of Offense	Description
Ekrem İmamoğlu	Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality and affiliates	Leadership of a criminal organization	Alleged primary decision-maker and initiator of all activities.
Murat Ongun	Media Inc., BYZAG Ltd.	Money laundering, bid manipulation	Oversight of advertising and promotional tenders.
Fatih Keleş	IMM Financial Department	Bribery, embezzlement	Collection and distribution of organizational funds.
Güldem Şık	Culture Inc., Panoffect	Document forgery	Preparation of falsified tender proposals.
Emrah Bağdatlı	Culture/Media Inc.	Concealing funds	Collection of commissions and handling cash logistics.
Zeynep Ayten Gözdem Ongun	BYZAG Ltd.	Money laundering	Alleged fund transfers through a front company.
Mete Mağden	45 Design	Inflated invoicing	Receiving payments without service fulfillment.
Muhittin Palazoğlu	KMD Advertising, Adstation	Forgery and fraud	Acting as a front subcontractor in illicit payments.
Necati Özkan	Özkan Media	Misuse of public resources	Channeling public funds for political messaging.
Yakup Öner	Bosphorus Zoning	Bribery	Alleged benefits tied to zoning approvals.

3. Evidence Categories and Legal Assessment

Type of Evidence	Description
Financial Reports (MASAK)	Documented money transfer chains, bank account activities, and fund flow maps.
Digital Evidence	“System” folders found on USB drives and computers; encrypted messages, emails, and chat logs.
Witness Testimonies	Anonymous witnesses “ÇINAR,” “RÜZGAR,” “İLKE,” and “SEKOYA” confirming the internal structure and transactions.
Expert Reports	Findings on fake invoices, inflated tender prices, and identified public losses.
HTS Analyses	Detailed telecommunications data showing frequent interactions among organization members.
Physical Evidence	CCTV recordings, payment receipts, and signed cash delivery documents.
Defense Statements	Defendants’ denials and “routine procedure” defenses, countered by prosecutors citing consistent evidence.

4. Prosecutor’s General Evaluation and Sentencing Requests

Assessment

The Prosecutor’s Office concluded that the organization operated for financial gain within a hierarchical and covert structure, maintaining uninterrupted activities between 2014 and 2024.

Requested Penalties and Sanctions

Group	Proposed Sentence	Additional Measures
Ekrem İmamoğlu	30–67 years’ imprisonment	Asset confiscation, permanent disqualification from public office
Murat Ongun, Fatih Keleş	20–40 years’ imprisonment	Public service ban, international travel restriction
Yakup Öner, Güldem Şık, Emrah Bağdatlı	15–30 years’ imprisonment	Asset confiscation and money-laundering penalties
Other Defendants (Total 62)	10–25 years’ imprisonment	Asset freeze and monitoring orders
Corporate Entities (BYZAG, Adstation, KMD Advertising, UrbanPlan)	Commercial suspension	Account freezes and financial audits

Conclusion

The prosecution asserts that financial, digital, and testimonial evidence collectively demonstrates a structured, profit-motivated organization meeting the criteria of purpose, hierarchy, continuity, and secrecy under Turkish Penal Code Article 220, thus warranting the opening of a public trial.

4. Relationships and Hierarchy

According to the indictment, the organization was arranged in a classic hierarchical format, resembling a mafia-style structure with distinct levels: leader, manager, special-status member, and ordinary member.

Within the municipal bureaucracy, a “shadow chain of command” was reportedly established — meaning that certain individuals without any official position allegedly issued directives to public officials inside the municipality.

It is further claimed that most decisions were made under İmamoğlu’s direct instructions, and that financial transactions were handled through trusted intermediaries referred to as “safes,” primarily Fatih Keleş and Adem Soytekin.

Communication privacy was allegedly maintained by using dedicated phones, offline computers, and encrypted messaging applications to prevent tracking.

5. Confidentiality and Operational Methods

The organization’s activities were reportedly conducted in private meetings held outside official buildings.

Discussions on tenders, bribe amounts, and money transfers allegedly took place during gatherings at exclusive venues such as the Zorlu Raffles Hotel.
Precautionary measures included avoiding internet connections on work devices and using basic non-smart phones to ensure communication security.

In the event of a potential breach of confidentiality, members were allegedly instructed to destroy related documents and devices in order to prevent the organization from being exposed.

Summary (First 500 Pages)

This portion of the indictment presents the claim that a profit-driven organization was formed under the leadership of Ekrem İmamoğlu, outlining its legal framework, internal hierarchy, interpersonal dynamics, financial operations, and secrecy measures.

The content primarily consists of:

• an explanation of the organization’s definition and purpose,
• a detailed organizational chart,
• descriptions of individual roles, and
• methods of maintaining confidentiality.

At this stage, the factual evidence and witness testimonies have not yet been fully examined.

Main Narrative, Key Figures, Allegations, and Relationships

This section corresponds to Actions 43–45 of the indictment and focuses on the activities of the Bosphorus Zoning Directorate.
The central allegation is that the organization, allegedly led by Ekrem İmamoğlu, established a systematic bribery network within the zoning sector.

1. Main Narrative

These chapters describe alleged incidents of bribery, zoning manipulation, extortion, and profiteering, particularly involving the Şişli Municipality and the Bosphorus Zoning Directorate.

According to the indictment, between 2022 and 2024, bribes were allegedly received under the guise of “charitable projects,” “nursery construction,” “public building development,” or “market card donations.”
In return, parties were said to receive favorable zoning plan revisions, tourism area reclassifications, or unauthorized building renovations.

Within this structure:

• Fatih Keleş, referred to as the “cashman,” was responsible for collecting and managing funds.
• Yakup Öner was identified as the technical and field coordinator overseeing bribery operations in the Bosphorus development zone.
• Elçin Karaoğlu, serving as the Bosphorus Zoning Director, was accused of preparing “compliance” reports and handling zoning files in exchange for payment.

4. Network of Relationships

• Şişli Municipality Branch: Bribery negotiations related to zoning plan requests were allegedly conducted through Resul Emrah Şahan and Adem Altıntaş.
• Bosphorus Reconstruction Branch: The trio of Yakup Öner, Elçin Karaoğlu, and Süleyman Atik reportedly transferred collected funds to Fatih Keleş.
• High-Level Decisions: Under İmamoğlu’s direction, monetary amounts were determined case by case, with benefits disguised as “social assistance” programs to conceal the flow of funds.

Pages 500–1000 — Summary

Chapter 1 – Action 43: Bribery (Hakkı Demir Foundation Case)

In 2022, the Hakkı Demir Foundation requested a zoning plan amendment from the Şişli Municipality.
According to the indictment, the approval was made conditional upon the construction of a nursery school.

Foundation representative Mustafa Duhan Demir allegedly issued and delivered three checks totaling 12,500,000 TL through intermediary Adem Altıntaş.
These checks were reportedly endorsed to several companies — Asoy, Mufa, and Valioğlu İnşaat — before being transferred into the organization’s fund.

Fatih Keleş allegedly received the funds as the organization’s “cash custodian,” while Ekrem İmamoğlu was accused of leading the organization under TCK Article 220/5.

Chapter 2 – Action 44: Bribery Offer (Yüksel Family Case)

Businessman İsmail Hakkı Yüksel, who sought a zoning plan revision in Şişli, was allegedly approached through Adem Altıntaş with a condition that 15% of the project value be allocated for the construction of public buildings.
Yüksel refused the proposal.

Since no payment occurred, the incident was classified under TCK Article 252/4, which addresses offers or promises of bribery, rather than completed transactions.

Chapter 3 – Action 45: Bribery Offer (Türkmen Group Case)

The Türkmen Group reportedly requested a zoning density increase in the Bomonti area.
According to the indictment, Resul Emrah Şahan proposed approving the change in exchange for 15% of the construction value.
The company rejected the proposal, leaving the incident at the “bribe offer” stage.

Chapter 4 – Operations of the Bosphorus Zoning Directorate

It is alleged that following 2019, a bribery mechanism was established within the Bosphorus Zoning Directorate, operating through a three-tier system:

Individual	Role	Description
Yakup Öner	Technical Consultant / Coordinator	Allegedly collected zoning files under the guise of consultancy work.
Elçin Karaoğlu	Zoning Director	Allegedly approved submitted files in exchange for payments.
Fatih Keleş	Financial Manager	Allegedly gathered funds and transferred them into the internal “System” fund.

The indictment claims that zoning files were processed outside official correspondence channels, using a “parallel transfer system.”
Some payments were allegedly disguised as “market card” distributions or “Ramadan aid”, and partially redirected toward election campaign activities.

Secret witnesses reportedly stated that “no renovation permit could be obtained in the Bosphorus area without Yakup Öner’s approval.”
Additionally, Yakup Öner allegedly admitted to receiving an unofficial annual payment of USD 100,000 from Ekrem İmamoğlu between 2020 and 2024.

Summary of Pages 500–1000

This section of the indictment centers heavily on bribery and zoning-related activities.
It alleges that a profit-oriented organization, led by Ekrem İmamoğlu, established a systematic network of financial interests across key municipal departments.
Most bribes were allegedly masked as legitimate initiatives — including charity projects, donations, nursery construction, and market card programs.

The portion addressing the Bosphorus Zoning Directorate provides the most comprehensive insight into the organization’s alleged financial structure and its parallel decision-making process within the municipality.

Main Narrative, Key Figures, Allegations, and Relationships

This section covers the final part of the indictment (beginning with Action 46) and outlines the organization’s alleged money-laundering operations, media and election-financing network, and finally the evaluation of evidence and conclusions.

1. Main Narrative

According to the indictment, the organization’s financial activities were conducted through the Bosphorus Zoning Directorate, the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality’s subsidiaries — including İSTAÇ, İSPARK, and KİPTAŞ — as well as a network of private companies.

Between 2021 and 2024, approximately 2.3 billion TL was allegedly transferred into the organization’s accounts through various channels labeled as donations, sponsorships, or social-aid projects.

Part of these funds was reportedly used to finance election campaigns, media operations, and political publicity efforts.

In several tenders, investigators claimed to have identified tailor-made technical specifications, pre-selected contractors, and commission-based arrangements.

Within the organization, a dedicated media and perception-management unit was allegedly established to channel municipal resources toward political propaganda through advertising agencies.

4. Relationships and Hierarchy

• Financial Flow:
  Funds were allegedly transferred under the guise of donations via fake sponsorship and promotional expenses issued by Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality subsidiaries — notably İSPARK, İSTAÇ, and KİPTAŞ.
• Media Connections:
  Media purchases were reportedly made through agencies founded by Necati Özkan and Murat Ongun; a portion of those expenditures was allegedly redirected into the organization’s central fund.
• Foreign Links:
  The indictment states that some amounts were transferred abroad to “consulting” companies based in Georgia and Germany.
• Election Preparations:
  During 2023–2024, organizational resources were allegedly allocated to election-related spending, with multiple subcontractor firms issuing invoices and expense reports to legitimize the outflows.

Pages 1000–1500 — Summary

Chapter 1 – Action 46 (İSPARK Sponsorship Revenues)

It was determined that a portion of parking-lot revenues managed by the İSPARK company was redirected into the organization’s fund under the label of “donation.”

These transfers were recorded internally as “reward funds” or “promotion budgets.”

Between 2021 and 2023, approximately 280 million TL was funneled through this method.

The funds were deposited into special accounts reportedly controlled and supervised by Fatih Keleş.

Chapter 2 – Action 47 (KİPTAŞ Project Share Bribery)

The indictment states that a “3% contribution share” was allegedly collected from contractor companies working on KİPTAŞ projects, and that these amounts were transferred to the organization under the label of the “KİPTAŞ Promotion Fund.”

Part of this revenue was reportedly added to the mayor’s “social assistance budget”, while the remainder was collected in cash by Fatih Keleş.

According to the document, construction companies such as TARMAK İnşaat and Baysal Group were among those participating in this system.

Chapter 3 – Action 48 (Media and Public Perception Operations)

The indictment asserts that the organization redirected public funds into coordinated media campaigns.

Public projects branded under slogans such as “Istanbul is Yours,” “Green Istanbul,” and “Just City” were described as tools for image management and perception control, allegedly designed to promote the organization’s leadership as a form of legitimacy.

Necati Özkan and Murat Ongun were accused of diverting municipal advertising budgets toward this purpose.

Between 2021 and 2023, approximately 620 million TL was reportedly spent on media purchases, with about 410 million TL directed to agencies affiliated with the organization.

Chapter 4 – Action 49 (Money Laundering and Foreign Connections)

The indictment further alleges that a portion of the organization’s funds was transferred abroad.

Two foreign companies — UrbanPlan GmbH in Germany and Batumi Consultancy in Georgia — were identified as channels for these transactions.

Prosecutors claim that these entities did not conduct genuine business operations, but instead existed solely to issue invoices and conceal fund movements.

Some of the transferred money was allegedly laundered under the guise of “foreign consultancy fees.”

Chapter 5 – Conclusion and Evaluation

The Prosecutor’s Office concluded that banking data, HTS analyses, witness testimonies, and correspondence records collectively provided sufficient evidence of the organization’s existence.

As a result, a public prosecution was requested against 62 defendants.
A separate charge was filed against Ekrem İmamoğlu, identified as the alleged leader of the organization, seeking a prison sentence exceeding 30 years.

The final case file was organized under four main categories:

1. Organizational structure
2. Financial operations
3. Municipal subsidiaries
4. Media and public relations

Summary of Pages 1000–1500

This portion represents the most comprehensive and conclusive section of the indictment.
It outlines the alleged money-laundering mechanisms, international financial links, media influence network, and election-financing activities attributed to the organization.

Throughout the document, prosecutors maintain that the structure allegedly directed by Ekrem İmamoğlu fulfills all the characteristics of a profit-oriented criminal organization.
Emphasis is placed on the criteria of continuity, hierarchy, secrecy, and financial motivation.

Supporting evidence is cited in the form of bank records, digital materials, witness depositions, and expert reports.

The indictment ultimately claims that the organization created a parallel administrative network within the municipality and its subsidiary institutions.

Main Narrative and Scope

This section focuses on alleged tender corruption, irregular advertising revenues, fabricated contracts, and off-the-record money transfers carried out through the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (IMM) and its subsidiaries — primarily Kültür A.Ş., Medya A.Ş., and Spor A.Ş.

Key Individuals Identified:

• Ekrem İmamoğlu – Mayor of Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality
• Murat Ongun – Communications Coordinator, Chairman of the Board at Medya A.Ş.
• Kağan Sürmegöz – Head of the Real Estate Department
• Serdal Taşkın – General Manager of Kültür A.Ş.
• Hüseyin Köksal, Murat Kapkı, Eyüp Subaşı, Murat İlbak – Private company owners or executives
• Emrah Bağdatlı, Güldem Şık, Barış Kılıç – Administrative staff alleged to have coordinated tenders and managed cash flow

Allegations and Reported Irregularities

1. Manipulation of Advertising and Tender Processes

Advertising tenders — covering areas such as overpasses, metro stations, billboards, and digital display panels — were allegedly awarded to pre-determined companies through direct or restricted bidding.
The indictment claims that the selection of these companies was made under the instructions of Ekrem İmamoğlu and Murat Ongun.

Although appearing independent, several firms — including Reklam İstanbul A.Ş., BVA Reklam, and Urban Media — were allegedly managed by individuals with close ties to the municipal administration.

2. Unrecorded Cash Flow and Distribution of Proceeds

Significant sums of money, estimated at around 25 million TL per month from advertising revenues, were allegedly collected in cash, converted into foreign currency, and transported in suitcases.

Part of these funds was reportedly transferred to İmamoğlu İnşaat and distributed among senior managers.
Cash, foreign currency, and gold were allegedly stored in office safes and delivered by company drivers when needed.

3. Fabricated or Nonexistent Contracts

The indictment claims that the organization generated unearned profits through fictitious contracts described as “concept development” or “graphic design fees.”
A substantial portion of payments issued under contracts with Kültür A.Ş. were allegedly collected without any actual service being rendered.

These practices reportedly caused hundreds of millions of Turkish lira in public losses.

4. Witness and Suspect Testimonies

Witnesses stated that signatures on tender documents were obtained under pressure, and that winning companies were predetermined.
In some tenders, although there was no official requirement for municipal vehicles, companies were still instructed to provide them.

Company representatives reportedly made additional payments to Kültür A.Ş., labeled as “graphics fees,” which prosecutors claim served as a cover for unauthorized transfers.

General Summary (Pages 1500–2000)

This portion of the indictment outlines the alleged organized network of financial interests established within the municipal subsidiaries.
The tender processes are described as being dominated by political influence, improper profit transfers, and systematic manipulation.

Witness and suspect testimonies reportedly indicate that signatures were obtained under pressure, while a long-standing revenue-generation system, orchestrated by senior administrators, operated for several years without interruption.

Main Narrative and Scope

This section provides a detailed explanation of fraudulent subcontracting practices, false invoicing, and payments that resulted in public financial losses, allegedly conducted within the organizational system of the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality’s subsidiaries — namely Kültür A.Ş., Medya A.Ş., and Spor A.Ş.

Key Individuals and Roles

• Emrah Bağdatlı — described as the organization’s treasurer, allegedly responsible for collecting commissions from subcontractors.
• Güldem Şık — identified as a central figure who prepared tender bids, selected participating firms, and maintained operational control while acting as an IMM employee.
• Mete Mağden — accused of subcontracting and inflating invoices through his companies 45 Design and Tool Events.
• Muhittin Palazoğlu — alleged to have issued fraudulent invoices and channeled payments via Adstation and KMD Advertising.
• Murat Ongun and Barış Kılıç — portrayed as senior coordinators at the top of the organizational hierarchy, deciding which companies would be awarded tenders.
• Zeynep Ayten Gözdem Ongun (spouse of Murat Ongun) — named in allegations that the organization’s income was transferred through her company, BYZAG, under the guise of legitimate service procurement.

The “SYSTEM” Mechanism

The internal framework managing money flow and commission distribution was allegedly operated under the name “SYSTEM.”

The indictment describes the process as follows:

1. The winning company was determined before the tender process.
2. Güldem Şık prepared and adjusted the price offers.
3. Emrah Bağdatlı collected the commissions from participating companies.
4. Murat Ongun acted as the final approving authority.

Funds were then allegedly hand-delivered in cash envelopes and deposited into the organization’s central financial pool.

Key Findings

• Kültür A.Ş. reportedly divided certain large projects into 12 smaller sub-tenders, most of which were awarded to companies linked to the organization’s members.
• The total public financial loss was calculated at approximately 36.6 million TL.
• The 3/g exception clause (which sets an 18.6 million TL limit) was allegedly intentionally bypassed by splitting contracts to avoid official oversight.
• Medya A.Ş., under Murat Ongun’s direction, allegedly engaged in tasks such as film production, considered by prosecutors as an unauthorized transfer of responsibilities beyond its legal mandate.

General Summary (Pages 2000–2500)

This portion of the indictment outlines the organization’s alleged subcontracting system, its use of false invoices, and the calculation of public financial losses resulting from these activities.

Across all examined accounts and testimonies, the following conclusions are emphasized:

• Tenders were deliberately awarded to companies under the organization’s direct control.
• The creation of fake invoices and fabricated secondary offers served as the organization’s main source of revenue.
• The internal financial network, known as “System,” allegedly redistributed the collected funds among the organization’s members.
• Multiple witness statements confirmed that no tender could proceed without the explicit approval of Murat Ongun.
• An organized structure was allegedly formed under the leadership of Ekrem İmamoğlu, while the financial management was handled jointly by Emrah Bağdatlı, Güldem Şık, and Murat Ongun.

Main Narrative and Scope

This section represents the final phase of the indictment, covering the following topics:

• Tender audits and expert evaluations regarding irregularities,
• Calculation and confirmation of public financial losses,
• Assessment of evidence, including defense statements by the accused,
• The process of dismantling the organization, and
• The general conclusion and prosecutorial requests submitted to the court.

In this stage, the Prosecutor’s Office concentrates on substantiating the organization’s existence and leadership structure, presenting a comprehensive chain of evidence — including banking records, digital data, witness testimonies, and HTS (communication traffic) analyses — all of which are cited to support the main accusations.

 Summary (Pages 2500–3000)

The entire 3,000-page indictment is designed to present a comprehensive record of the organization’s seven-year period of activity.
In this final section, the emphasis shifts from describing the alleged actions themselves to establishing the chain of evidence and outlining the prosecutor’s formal requests for legal measures and outcomes.

Requests for Confiscation and Precautionary Measures

• Confiscation Orders:
  The prosecution requested the seizure of 68 bank accounts and 12 real estate properties allegedly connected to the organization.
• Travel Restrictions:
  A travel ban was sought for 14 individuals under investigation.
• Corporate Sanctions:
  The prosecution also requested that 11 companies face judicial measures restricting their commercial operations.
  Additionally, it was proposed that BYZAG and UrbanPlan be subjected to comprehensive financial audits, based on allegations that these firms were used as channels for money laundering.