İBB indictment in 10 questions: A summary of the 4,000-page text

After the operation in which İBB President and CHP’s Presidential candidate Ekrem İmamoğlu and many close colleagues were detained and arrested, the İBB indictment that had been awaited for 8 months was completed and submitted to the court yesterday (11 November).

The indictment drawn up by the İstanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office was sent to the İstanbul 40th High Criminal Court.

We summarised the approximately 4,000-page indictment in 10 questions.

1- What is the main subject of the indictment and how many sections does it have?

The 3,739-page İBB indictment covers Ekrem İmamoğlu’s political activities, the relationships he developed in this context, and the financial movements alleged to be connected to them. The file is officially titled “İmamoğlu Criminal Organisation for Illicit Gain Investigation”.

İmamoğlu, who was the CHP’s Presidential Candidate, has his entire political career placed within a “crime” circle, and it is argued that he “set up a criminal organisation” and “led this organisation” to rise in politics and ultimately become a Presidential Candidate.

In the indictment it says:

“That the criminal organisation for illicit gain established by Ekrem İmamoğlu laid its foundations with the irregularities it started to commit in Beylikdüzü Municipality, and that the material benefit obtained by the said criminal organisation was used so that he could be elected İBB president in 2019”;

“In the 2023 Presidential Elections, the suspect [İmamoğlu] who was not put forward as ‘Presidential Candidate’ accelerated his covert intra-party efforts against Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, then chair of the Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi, and drew CHP administrators known to be close to Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu to his side with various promises and held secret meetings on this matter”;

“After the change of chair in the Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi, control of the party passed completely to the organisation leader [İmamoğlu] (…)”

“It has been understood that Ekrem İmamoğlu, who moves like octopus arms and seizes municipalities, when he became aware of the investigation stage, brought forward his fast-tracked candidacy for the presidency to prevent the criminal organisation he set up from being discussed in the public eye”

In the introduction and in a total of 4 different places, the “octopus arms” analogy frequently used by AKP’s President Erdoğan is invoked.

The structure defined as the “İmamoğlu Criminal Organisation for Illicit Gain” is noted to be unarmed, and it is alleged that it was “set up for material benefit and illicit gain” and operated by using public power through municipalities. The whole of this work is labelled a “system”. Fatih Keleş, Murat Ongun, Ertan Yıldız, Murat Gülbekaran, Adem Soytekin and Hüseyin Gün are described as “organisation managers”.

In the first 5 of its 7 sections, the indictment recounts the crimes allegedly committed by the “organisation” through 143 acts. The “organisation’s activities” generally concern municipal tenders.

It is claimed that over 10 years the public loss was 160 billion TL and 24 million US dollars.

2- How many suspects are in the file?

There are 407 suspects in total, 5 of them “complainant suspects”. Of these names, including Ekrem İmamoğlu, 105 are held in prison in pre-trial detention. 170 are under judicial control, and 7 are wanted with arrest warrants.

Of those against whom a public case was filed, 99 are stated to be “organisation members”, and 92 “organisation affiliates”.

It is alleged that the other suspects “while not being organisation members, are in a position of committing connected crimes”.

In the prepared chart, it is asserted that there are 10 “organisation members” directly subordinate to Ekrem İmamoğlu, while 77 “organisation members” are subordinate to Fatih Keleş, 35 to Murat Ongun, 8 to Ertan Yılmaz, 7 to Hüseyin Gün, 6 to Murat Gülibrahimoğlu and 6 to Adem Soytekin.

3- What charges are brought against Ekrem İmamoğlu and what sentence is sought?

Arrested since 23 March, Ekrem İmamoğlu is held responsible for 143 acts defined as “crime” in the indictment. A prison sentence from 828 years to 2,430 years 6 months is sought for İmamoğlu.

According to the statement of İstanbul Cumhuriyet Başsavcısı Akın Gürlek, İmamoğlu is “held responsible for the crimes of other persons because he is accepted as the organisation manager”.

Thus, İmamoğlu is sought to be punished for “recording personal data”, “obtaining and disseminating personal data”, “concealing evidence of crime”, “obstructing communication”, “damaging public property”, “publicly disseminating misleading information”, “extortion”, “rigging tenders”, “intentional environmental pollution”, and “violations of the Vergi Usul Kanunu, Orman Kanunu and Maden Kanunu”.

Directly against İmamoğlu himself, the charges are “establishing and leading a criminal organisation”, “bribery” (12 times), “money laundering” (7 times) and “fraud against public institutions and organisations” (7 times).

4- What charges are directed at other names?

For suspects defined as “criminal organisation managers” Fatih Keleş, Murat Ongun, Murat Gülibrahimoğlu, Adem Soytekin, Ertan Yıldız and Hüseyin Gün, punishment is sought under “establishing an organisation for the purpose of committing crime”, and since the suspects are “managers of the organisation”, it is envisaged that “they also be punished as perpetrators for all crimes committed within the scope of the activities of the structures subordinate to them due to their command authority” under Article 220/5 of the same Law.

For suspects referred to as “organisation members”, Yakup Öner, Emrah Bağdatlı, Resul Emrah Şahan, Necati Özkan, Tuncay Yılmaz, Mustafa Akın, Mehmet Pehlivan, Seza Büyükçulha, Hüseyin Köksal, Ali Nuhoğlu, Ali Sukas, İbrahim Bülbüllü and Melih Geçek, punishment is sought for “being a member of an organisation established for the purpose of committing crime”, and since “their special status is understood to be as members”, “sentences to be determined away from the minimum compared with other organisation suspects” are requested.

Murat Ongun, chair of the board of İBB Medya A.Ş., who is characterised as an “organisation manager” in the indictment, is accused for 52 separately numbered acts. The charges against Ongun are “rigging tenders and defrauding to the detriment of the public”, “bribery and extortion acts”, “taking bribes”, “obtaining personal data”, “financing a troll structure”, “laundering assets derived from crime”.

5- How many people benefited from “effective remorse”?

There are 76 people listed as having “effective remorse” in the indictment.

It is stated that suspect Deniz Dörtyol “voluntarily surrendered and provided information about the structure of the organisation and the crimes committed within the scope of its activity”, and therefore the provisions on “effective remorse” were applied to Dörtyol. It is also stated that suspects described as “organisation managers” Adem Soytekin, Hüseyin Gün and Ertan Yıldız “after being caught, provided information about the structure of the organisation and the crimes committed within the scope of its activity”.

Başsavcı Gürlek said yesterday “Adem Soytekin, who benefited from effective remorse, gave us effective information. We identified Adem Soytekin as an organisation manager in the indictment. We determined the information he gave as an organisation manager was incomplete but the information he gave is correct. And he did not give information about himself. Because the information was incomplete he was arrested again”.

In the İBB investigation, Adem Soytekin, owner of ASOY İnşaat, who had been released by benefiting from “effective remorse”, was re-arrested in October after inconsistencies were detected in his statements. Following Soytekin’s latest statement, İmamoğlu’s lawyer Mehmet Pehlivan was arrested on the allegation of “being a member of a criminal organisation”.

The names stated to have benefited from “effective remorse” after being caught in the indictment are: Murat Abbas, Ogün Soytekin (Adem Soytekin’s brother), Yakup Öner, Süleyman Atik, Murat Kapki, Sarp Yalçınkaya, Burak Korzay, Adem Başer, Vedat Şahin, Cem Çelik, Gökhan Köseoğlu, Ali Nuhoğlu, Ümit Polat, Eyüp Subaşı, Mete Maden, Naim Erol Özgüner, Veysel Erçevik, Serpil Altıntaş, Altan Gözcü, Ziya Gökmen Togay and Bülent Yılmaz.

Although pro-government media outlets claimed during the preparation of the indictment that Fatih Keleş had turned state’s evidence and “applied to benefit from effective remorse”, Keleş is defined in the indictment as “the most important manager of the organisation after İmamoğlu”.

6- Whose companies is it requested to seize?

The indictment requests seizure of the companies of 36 people, including İmamoğlu, his father Hasan İmamoğlu, his son Selim İmamoğlu, İBB Medya AŞ Manager Murat Ongun, his wife Gözdem Ongun, and İmamoğlu’s press and campaign consultant Necati Özkan, on the grounds that they “obtained them from crime, gained unjust profit and used them in crime”.

All names whose companies are requested to be seized are as follows:

Ekrem İmamoğlu, Fatih Keleş, Murat Ongun, Ertan Yıldız, Adem Soytekin, Murat Gülibrahimoğlu, Emrah Bağdatlı, Hüseyin Köksal, Mustafa Nihat Sütlaş, Tuncay Yılmaz, Ömür Yılmaz, Murat Kapki, Fatoş Pınar Türker, Hakan Karanis, Serhat Kapki, Vedat Şahin, Necati Özkan, Eyüp Subaşı, Gülşah Subaşı, Ahmet Köksal, Alihan Aydın, Alper Aydın, Alperen Aydın, Ali Kurt, Serpil Kadıoğlu, Sarp Yalçınkaya, Seza Büyükçulha, Ali Nuhoğlu, Berat Çağrı Kapki, Elif Kapki, Yiğit Çam, Baran Gönül, Hasan İmamoğlu, Zeynep Ayten Gözdem Ongun, İbrahim Bülbüllü and Mehmet Selim İmamoğlu.

7- How does CHP appear in the indictment?

In the indictment the Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi (CHP) is described as “the party seized by the Ekrem İmamoğlu criminal organisation”. The Prosecutor’s Office evaluates the change process in the CHP where Özgür Özel replaced Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu as chair within the framework of “the organisation’s activities and aims”, placing it in a crime category. It is alleged that at the congress where the change in CHP took place, the will of the delegates was “steered in return for benefit”. The phrase “seizure of the CHP” is used in 4 different places in the indictment.

The indictment states “The basic philosophy of the criminal organisation is to use the proceeds of crime as an ‘instrument of personal enrichment’ and ‘financing of politics’, and with the financing of politics it aims to move organisation leader Ekrem İmamoğlu from Beylikdüzü Belediye Başkanlığı to İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediye Başkanlığı, to seize the Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi, and with the proceeds of crime thus obtained and the political power thus seized, to make organisation leader Ekrem İmamoğlu a Presidential candidate”.

According to the Prosecutor’s Office, the CHP holds a critical position in the “organisation’s” activities. It is said that before the 2019 elections “ballot box data obtained from the CHP were processed into İBB Hanem and the aim was to use these data in the local election”.

In the indictment it is claimed that the CHP İstanbul building in Sarıyer Ayazağa was purchased, besides donations, “with the organisation’s proceeds of crime”, and regarding the purchase process which is said to have been carried out by “sidelining” then provincial chair Canan Kaftancıoğlu, it is commented that this was “the first show of force in seeking to take over CHP management”.

CHP MPs Özgür Karabat and Turan Taşkın Özer also appear in the indictment. It is learned that the files of the two MPs will be separated.

(Additionally, within the scope of the prepared indictment, the Prosecutor’s Office yesterday notified the Yargıtay Cumhuriyet Başsavcılığı, making a denunciation “for filing a closure case” against the CHP under Article 69 of the Constitution. After the debate began, the Prosecutor’s Office stated that the said notification was only within the scope of “denunciation”, saying “No notification has been made for the closure of the Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi, as is clearly stated in the indictment a notification was made as required by the Law on Political Parties”.)

8- What kinds of accusations are made against mayors?

Various accusations are also directed at CHP mayors who were detained during the investigation and removed from office.

It is stated that City Planner and Şişli Mayor Resul Emrah Şahan has worked with İmamoğlu since the Beylikdüzü Mayoral period, that in Şişli he was authorised by the “organisation leader”, that is by İmamoğlu, and that his candidacy for mayor was ensured by İmamoğlu.

For Şahan, who was elected with a vote rate exceeding 66 percent in the 2024 local elections, the indictment seeks 35 to 91 years in prison on the allegations of “taking bribes”, “extortion”, “unlawful recording of personal data”, “unlawfully giving or obtaining personal data” and “being a member of an organisation established for the purpose of committing crime”.

For Mehmet Murat Çalık, who like many CHP mayors was detained and then removed from the Beylikdüzü Belediye Başkanlığı, 30 to 88 years in prison are sought on the allegations of “taking bribes” and “being a member of an organisation established for the purpose of committing crime”.

9- How is Aziz İhsan Aktaş positioned in the indictment?

Aziz İhsan Aktaş, who was detained within the scope of the “tender corruption” investigation conducted by the İstanbul Cumhuriyet Başsavcılığı and arrested on the allegation that he was a “criminal organisation leader”, appears in the indictment with the status “complainant”.

For Aktaş, who is known to have received many tenders from AKP municipalities and state institutions and who was released by benefiting from “effective remorse”, the İBB indictment says “It has been determined that the criminal organisation he set up to obtain unlawful tenders from public institutions and organisations received more than 40 tenders after 2019 from the Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi-run Beşiktaş Belediyesi, Esenyurt Belediyesi, Avcılar Belediyesi, İBB subsidiaries İETT and İsfalt in İstanbul, and an indictment has been drawn up regarding the unlawful tenders received by the criminal organisation”.

It is argued that Aziz İhsan Aktaş “entered into bribery and relations of interest with political profiles” and “ensured the continuity and growth of the system [referring to his own system]”, and that after 2019 he received the most tenders in İstanbul “from CHP municipalities”.

The Prosecutor’s Office argues that Aktaş “within the criminal organisation established by İmamoğlu and within the Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi made contact with people who had a say, and with the bribes he gave to these people tried to ensure the continuity of the tender system”, and claims that he “provided financial support to İmamoğlu for the election campaign”.

10- What does it say about İmamoğlu’s diploma?

The indictment also states that Ekrem İmamoğlu’s undergraduate diploma was annulled by İstanbul Üniversitesi.

The use of the word “fake” for the diploma draws attention. Because the diploma was not annulled on the grounds that it was “fake”, but on the allegation that İmamoğlu’s horizontal transfer in 1990 to the İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi İngilizce İşletme Bölümü was “irregular”.

Regarding İmamoğlu’s higher education, the indictment says “Although there is information that he graduated in 1994, as the university from which he graduated and his graduation diploma are fake and on the grounds that he later used this fake document, a prosecution prepared as a result of the investigation initiated by our Cumhuriyet Başsavcılığı continues, that he paused his master’s (MBA) education which he started in 1995 at the İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü İşletme Ana Bilim Dalı, and that during his term as Beylikdüzü Belediye Başkanı he took advantage of a student amnesty and completed his master’s (…)”.

Note: This article is translated from the original article titled 10 soruda İBB iddianamesi: 4 bin sayfalık metnin kısa özeti, published in BirGün newspaper on November 12, 2025.