Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoğlu was arrested on Sunday along with 47 others in an investigation into widespread corruption at the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (IBB). Media reports based on the investigation’s findings and other sources portray a corruption scheme dating back to Imamoğlu’s early days as mayor of the city’s Beylikdüzü district. Reports also show how organized the defendants in the case were to reap the lucrative profits from seemingly separate acts of corruption.
The account or confession of a contractor published by the Sabah newspaper shows how the Imamoğlu-led criminal network ensnared him. Uğur Güngör applied to the Istanbul Chief Prosecutor’s Office last November to explain how the network forced him to bribe.
Güngör told prosecutors that he sold a plot of land in Beylikdüzü sometime between 2016 and 2017 in exchange for apartment flats to a company owned by Ali, Zafer and Osman Gül, suspects who were detained along with Imamoğlu on March 19. Güngör said three men offered him the opportunity to convert the housing units he would receive into businesses. Still, he was told he should bribe the municipality of Beylikdüzü to obtain the permit. Güngör told prosecutors that he was supposed to pay TL 15 million (approximately $394,740) to the municipality and met the incumbent mayor of Beylikdüzü, Murat Çalık, who was back then deputy mayor of the district under Imamoğlu, to arrange the payment. He claimed that he signed promissory notes for payment, which were handed to Fatih Keleş, the current head of a sports club owned by the IBB and a figure close to Imamoğlu.
Güngör said he paid cash worth the price of two flats to Keleş, through promissory notes and agreed to hand over 13 apartment flats he jointly owned with Zafer Gül, per their bribery “agreement.” Çalık then asked them to hand over the flats they gave as a bribe to a construction company owned by Adem Soytekin, a former employee of a construction company owned by the Imamoğlu family. Soytekin was a low-level employee at Imamoğlu’s company. Evidence in the corruption probe shows he abnormally had access to considerable wealth and set up a company, raising suspicions about the source of the cash. Soytekin was among those detained alongside Imamoğlu on March 19.
Güngör also told prosecutors that he wanted to take the flats back when he learned that the company owned by the Güls did not bribe the apartments to the municipality, and he had to pay the entire bribe on his own. He claimed he faced rejection and threats when he tried to take them back. Investigators corroborated the claims of Güngör and discovered that Güngör’s flats were indeed handed over to the company owned by Soytekin.
Another report by Sabah sheds light on the suspicious outcome of a public tender launched by IBB last month. The tender for the acquisition of desserts was awarded for TL 95 million to a company based in Muş, an eastern province some 1,400 kilometers (870 miles) away from Türkiye’s most populated city. The report says the location registered as the company’s headquarters was a small grocery store.
During his lengthy questioning, Imamoğlu refused to answer most questions, either dismissing allegations or simply refusing to respond.
The investigation uncovered an organized criminal network led by Imamoğlu, operating within IBB and its affiliates. Evidence, including reports from the Financial Crimes Investigation Board (MASAK), technical surveillance data and testimonies from 25 witnesses, exposed the group’s illegal activities. The network allegedly engaged in bid rigging, bribery, extortion, money laundering through shell companies and fake invoices, fraud, illegally obtaining personal data of Istanbul residents and tax evasion.
Most witnesses were current or former IBB employees with close ties to the suspects, according to a report by Sabah. Meanwhile, nine suspects fled and went on the run, and authorities suspect that theirs were not amateurish escape attempts but well-planned in advance.
Authorities also suspect Imamoğlu of tampering with evidence after he initially did not hand over his personal cellphone and gave an assistant’s phone instead, and due to his security guards delaying the police entry into his residence for a search of the premises.
Be First to Comment