The Istanbul Municipality (IBB) indictment was finalized 237 days after Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu and his colleagues were arrested. İmamoğlu is charged with “organizing a criminal syndicate for the purpose of obtaining financial profit” and faces a prison sentence ranging from 828 to 2,352 years.
Chief Prosecutor Akın Gürlek personally announced at a press conference that the indictment prepared by the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office had been completed.
Just days earlier, CHP Chair Özgür Özel had disclosed that Gürlek had served on the board of the state-owned Wealth Management Fund—an institution overseen by the executive branch—during his tenure as a prosecutor. Although Turkish law prohibits prosecutors and judges from holding any paid secondary positions, neither Gürlek nor any executive official contested Özel’s claim. Instead, presidential legal adviser Mehmet Uçum argued that the arrangement was not improper.
Gürlek’s 3,741-page indictment names 402 suspects: 105 in custody, 170 under judicial control, seven wanted on arrest warrants, and five listed as complainants. In total, 407 individuals are charged with 142 separate acts.
According to the document, 76 suspects benefited from “effective remorse,” a Turkish legal mechanism that allows reduced sentences—or the avoidance of prosecution—if individuals cooperate with authorities. The case relies heavily on statements given under this mechanism—often limited to phrases such as “I heard”—as well as the testimonies of secret witnesses.
İmamoğlu’s alleged crime: Preparing for the presidency
The indictment, which refers to the CHP Chairman as “a person named Özgür Özel,” states that its core allegation is that funds were raised to support İmamoğlu’s potential candidacy for the presidency.
According to the indictment, the alleged “İmamoğlu criminal organization” was established to generate material gain through financial crimes, seize control of the political party to which its leader Ekrem İmamoğlu belongs—the Republican People’s Party (CHP)—and create a fund intended to secure his nomination as a presidential candidate in future elections.
The authors of the seven-part indictment outline three main objectives. The first is “material enrichment.” The second is the allegation that, since becoming Istanbul mayor in 2019, İmamoğlu sought to use the resources at his disposal to bring certain party figures under his influence and establish himself as the sole decision-maker, thereby attempting to take control of the CHP.
The third objective, according to the prosecutor, was to position İmamoğlu as the party’s presidential nominee.
Ahead of the 2023 elections, then-CHP Chairman Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu delayed announcing his own candidacy until the final weeks and ultimately became the joint nominee of the opposition coalition—known as the “Table of Six”—despite significant internal backlash.
At the time, İYİ Party leader Meral Akşener briefly withdrew from the alliance, arguing that Kılıçdaroğlu’s candidacy had been imposed on the coalition. She later returned after securing a compromise that brought İmamoğlu and Ankara Mayor Mansur Yavaş into the campaign as vice-presidential candidates.
Following the opposition’s defeat in the 2023 elections, the CHP underwent a leadership change that resulted in Özgür Özel’s election as the new party chairman.
The “System”
According to the indictment, İmamoğlu allegedly secured the loyalty of his supporters through bribery and even planned to expand this network of bribery nationwide if he were to become president. The indictment states:
“During his tenure as mayor of Beylikdüzü, the suspect planted the seeds of what would later be called the ‘system,’ a criminal organization for personal interest. The aim was to extend the material benefits generated by this system to the presidential level, spreading a cycle of bribery, irregularities, and corruption from the municipalities he controlled to the entire country. The financial resources created by this ‘system’ were not only monetary but also human, reflected in phrases reportedly used such as: ‘You are helping the future president,’ ‘Now is the time to give—when Mayor Ekrem becomes president, you will get it back many times over,’ ‘Give with a spoon now, take with a ladle later,’ and ‘Why would you hesitate to help the future president?’”
This section of the indictment relies largely on second-hand witness statements, many of which are phrased as “I heard,” “I was told,” or “I guess.”
İmamoğlu accused of leading and founding a criminal organization
The prosecutor alleges that the detained mayor, Ekrem İmamoğlu, is the leader of a criminal organization, naming his close associates Murat Ongun, Ertan Yıldız, Fatih Keleş, Adem Soytekin, Murat Gülibrahimoğlu, and Hüseyin Gün as its administrators.
Others—including Tuncay Yılmaz, Mehmet Murat Çalık, Resul Emrah Şahan, Yakup Öner, Mustafa Akın, Yiğit Oğuz Duman, Cevat Kaya, Seza Büyükçulha, and Mehmet Pehlivan—are accused of “acting directly under the orders of the organization’s leader without holding administrative roles.”
A simple diagram displaying names and photographs of the alleged hierarchy is included in the indictment.
İmamoğlu is charged with “forming an organization to commit crimes” (12 counts), “money laundering” (7 counts), and “fraud against public institutions” (7 counts).
The “octopus” analogy
The indictment references President Erdoğan’s metaphor of “the octopus’s arms,” used in his May 25, 2025 speech in which he described alleged wrongdoing within the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality as “an octopus whose arms stretch from Istanbul to the rest of Turkey and abroad.”
In its introduction, the indictment states:
“During his time as mayor of Istanbul, the organization spread its activities across the municipality like the arms of an octopus…”
In section six, it continues:
“Like octopus arms — Ekrem İmamoğlu is taking over municipalities; then, upon learning about the investigation, he intensified his presidential candidacy in order to prevent the public debate over the criminal organization he founded.”
Gürlek reports CHP to the Constitutional Court
The prosecution reported the suspects’ actions to the Supreme Court of Appeals, noting that they involved the CHP, and therefore submitted a notification under the Political Parties Law. Under Turkish law, such notifications may, though do not automatically, lead to party closure proceedings. Only the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Supreme Court has the authority to formally request the Constitutional Court to open a closure case, and the Constitutional Court ultimately decides whether a party should be dissolved, partially sanctioned, or acquitted.
Against this legal backdrop, the notification was widely interpreted as a potential prelude to a party closure case.
The prosecutor’s office later offered a clarification, stating:
“No notification has been made requesting the closure of the CHP. As stated in the indictment, the report was filed in accordance with the Political Parties Law.”
In other words, the prosecution signalled that it is not explicitly seeking a closure case, but the matter is now in the Supreme Court’s hands—an ambiguity that may foreshadow a new political crisis.
The indictment also seeks the seizure of the CHP’s Istanbul provincial headquarters, alleging that the building was purchased with illicit funds. This claim, too, is based largely on the statements of remorseful witnesses and video footage circulated by pro-government media outlets. The document states:
“The statements taken during the investigation have been included in detail, and when these statements are examined and evaluated together, it is interpreted that almost all of them contain allegations regarding the collection of money for the purchase of the CHP provincial headquarters, and that these funds were allegedly collected from municipalities and businessmen.”
Alleged evidence of a secret organization
To demonstrate the existence of a “secret” organization, the prosecution points to what it describes as patterns of secrecy and continuity.
As evidence, prosecutors highlight a document found on the phone of İmamoğlu’s campaign coordinator, Necati Özkan: a photographed text titled “İmamoğlu and the Operation That’s Coming.” The document predicts that an operation would soon be launched against the municipality to block İmamoğlu’s candidacy, alleging that the chief prosecutor, the police chief, and the governor would be replaced in advance. It also references the president’s earlier statement that “municipalities must be agitated decisively.
The document—whose author and origin remain unknown—suggests:
“A secret office should be rented, new phones should be purchased, and computers that have never been connected to the internet should be used.”
Despite the ambiguity surrounding the document, which could plausibly have been written by any political commentator or strategist, the prosecution presents it as evidence of “secrecy” within what it calls the İmamoğlu organization. The indictment states:
“The text asserts that an anti-corruption operation was being planned against suspect İmamoğlu and that certain urgent steps should be taken to portray it as slander. These details are important for highlighting the ‘secrecy’ element of the İmamoğlu criminal organization.”
Özkan has since said through his lawyers that he had no knowledge of the document:
“If it was found on my phone, someone probably sent it to me. I did not open it.”
The prosecution also cites the removal of security cameras from İmamoğlu’s residence and the use of signal jammers during meetings held at hotels as additional proof of illicit secrecy. The indictment reads:
“Blocking camera footage in a public hotel entrance and using signal jammers are organizational behaviors and constitute a crime.”
According to the prosecutor, such actions can only be expected from those attempting to conceal criminal activity:
“…As can be understood from the suspects’ behavior, it has been concluded that the camera footage may contain certain images that serve as evidence of the criminal organization’s activities.”
The prosecution even extends its secrecy argument to meetings allegedly held at Akmerkez, an Istanbul shopping mall, noting that it obtained a list of attendees from the mall’s entry records.
Defence activities treated as criminal conduct
The indictment portrays defence efforts as evidence of criminal behavior. One of the claims is that İmamoğlu’s lawyer, Mehmet Pehlivan, telling detainees, “Stand tall; do this for your family and children”, amounted to a threat.
Even the act of providing legal support to detainees is framed as suspicious. One passage in the indictment states:
“Suspect Hamit Serkan Balbal stated: ‘(…) Murat (Ongun) had a wide network. After Murat was detained, his wife Feyza spoke on the phone with lawyer Mehmet Pehlivan, who said: “We are organizing everything, we are sending lawyers to everyone detained. It’s under control, don’t worry.”
Journalism treated as a crime
The indictment also targets several journalists—Ruşen Çakır, Soner Yalçın, Yavuz Oğhan, and Şaban Sevinç—accusing them of portraying the investigation as politically motivated. The prosecutor refers to their broadcasts as “so-called journalism activities,” alleging that they disseminated misleading information harmful to public order and thereby aided the “İmamoğlu criminal organization.”
Even the phone calls İmamoğlu’s press adviser, Murat Ongun, made to these journalists are listed as evidence in the case.
The indictment further claims that social media users who posted messages supportive of İmamoğlu received payments in return, and it seeks criminal penalties for those individuals as well.
Congress slogans as criminal evidence
The CHP’s 38th congress—where İmamoğlu chaired the proceedings and Özgür Özel was elected as the party’s new leader—is also presented as evidence in the indictment. Prosecutors highlight that some individuals chanting slogans during the session were municipal employees:
“These individuals participated in the congress alongside the organization leader Ekrem İmamoğlu…”
Photographs of İmamoğlu’s team attending the congress are also included as evidence.
Alleged misconduct from Beylikdüzü to the Istanbul Municipality
According to the indictment, İmamoğlu brought several close associates from his tenure as mayor of Beylikdüzü into senior positions at the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (IBB) and engaged in financial misconduct together. The document states:
“After becoming mayor of Istanbul, İmamoğlu appointed individuals close to him from his Beylikdüzü days to head IBB departments and subsidiaries. Through these individuals’ companies—some newly established and others already existing—they allegedly received numerous contracts, causing billions of lira in public losses.”
The prosecutor claims that İmamoğlu’s purpose in appointing these individuals was to facilitate criminal activity:
“…acting under his orders, they seized control of municipal subsidiaries and used public funds for personal and organizational benefit.”
The charges
The indictment, which relies more on hearsay than concrete evidence, cites 17 different laws allegedly violated—ranging from the Forest Law to statutes governing public financial loss. The charges listed include:
● Establishing and leading a criminal organization
● Membership in a criminal organization
● Aiding a criminal organization without being part of its hierarchical structure
● Accepting bribes
● Offering or giving bribes
● Extortion
● Bid rigging / collusive tendering
● Fraud against public institutions
● Violations of the Tax Procedure Law
● Money laundering
● Illegally recording personal data
● Obtaining or unlawfully disclosing personal data
● Intentional environmental pollution
● Spreading misleading information
● Damaging public property
● Violating the Mining Law
● Violating the Forest Law
Ministries listed as “victims”
The indictment identifies several ministries and public institutions as “aggrieved parties,” including:
– Ministry of Treasury and Finance
– Ministry of Interior
– Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources
– Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
– Istanbul Directorate of Environment and Urban Planning
– Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (IMM)
– Şişli Municipality
Fayn will continue to examine and report on the contents of the indictment.
