The 70th and 71st hearings in the case against former Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (IBB) Mayor Ekrem Imamoğlu, who faces a prison sentence ranging from 828 years and two months to 2,352 years for 142 alleged acts, were held Wednesday, with the court hearing the defenses of several defendants who are not in custody.
The trial concerns 414 defendants, including 53 in pretrial detention, in the case involving the alleged “Imamoğlu profit-driven criminal organization.”
Alleged bribery admissions by defendants drew attention during the hearings. Bayram Yıldırım, the former driver of Ertan Yıldız, head of the IBB Council’s Affiliates and Subsidiaries Commission, told the court about what he described as the inner workings of the alleged network.
“I found many tablets and phones in a box that Ertan Yıldız gave me,” Yıldırım said.
The corruption investigation into Imamoğlu, who was removed from his post as IBB mayor and arrested, was completed with the preparation of a 3,809-page indictment on Nov. 11, 2025.
The indictment alleges that Imamoğlu, identified as the “leader of the organization,” committed several offenses, including “establishing an organization for the purpose of committing crimes,” bribery and money laundering.
Yıldırım, who is not in custody, said he had provided testimony as part of an effective remorse provision, which allows defendants to receive legal benefits in exchange for helping authorities uncover a crime.
“I started working in 2019 as Ertan Yıldız’s official driver. I also handled his household and personal affairs and looked after his family,” Yıldırım said.
“One day, Ertan Yıldız gave me a box. We then went to Bakırköy Municipality. I called Mustafa, the driver of Ibrahim Özkan, and asked him what was inside. The box was slightly open. I looked inside and saw many tablets and phones.”
Yıldırım said Yıldız later promised to help him.
“Ertan Yıldız told me, ‘I will look after your family, hire a lawyer for you and save you.’ The lawyer he sent deceived me by telling me I would be released. I was arrested because I could not tell anyone what I had seen. When I came here, I told the prosecutor, ‘I want to benefit from effective remorse,’ and I told them what I knew,” he said.
During cross-examination, prosecutors asked defendant Bülent Yılmaz whether a previous statement he had given was accurate. The statement said that many of the events organized during Imamoğlu’s 2019 campaign for IBB mayor were carried out by Adem Soytekin, and that promotional materials distributed to the CHP’s election coordination center during the campaign were sent by Soytekin.
“That is correct,” Yılmaz replied. “The bags, tea, sugar and items sent to the provincial headquarters came from somewhere, but I did not know where they came from.”
Uğur Güngör, owner of Muscan İnşaat and a complainant who is not in custody, also testified in the case.
Güngör alleged that Imamoğlu amassed a “very large fortune” while serving as mayor of Beylikdüzü and claimed that Imamoğlu conducted municipal business through bribery in the Beylikdüzü and Büyükçekmece districts.
Güngör alleged that, during Imamoğlu’s tenure as Beylikdüzü mayor, he followed up on business dealings through Fatih Keleş, Adem Soytekin, Mehmet Murat Çalık and Tuncay Yılmaz.
“Adem Soytekin would give him plots of land without zoning approval, then have them rezoned, and the large revenues from these projects would be shared with Ekrem Imamoğlu,” Güngör said.
Güngör rejected allegations that he himself had paid bribes and described an alleged demand involving a construction project in Beylikdüzü in 2015 and 2016.
He said the owners of Gül Inşaat, Ali Gül, Zafer Gül and Osman Gül, sought to convert properties designated as residences into commercial units as part of a construction project.
“They were told that the company owners had to pay a bribe to the municipality for this to be done. They asked me for half of the bribe money. I refused. The bribe was TL 15 million ($311,600),” Güngör said.
He said he later met Zafer Gül and Mehmet Murat Çalık, who was Beylikdüzü’s deputy mayor at the time.
“Çalık demanded TL 15 million from me as a bribe. I refused to pay. Çalık then threatened me, saying, ‘If you get out of here, you will never get back in.’ We had an argument,” Güngör said.
He said Imamoğlu, who was Beylikdüzü mayor at the time, came out of his office next door during the argument and asked what was happening before leaving.
“Ekrem Imamoğlu was following the bribery dealings at the time,” Güngör said.
Güngör said he eventually agreed to provide promissory notes after repeated demands from Zafer Gül and Çalık.
“Zafer Gül took the promissory notes. Later, a man named Davut Akay said the notes were in the possession of Fatih Keleş, who was a CHP council member in Beylikdüzü Municipality at the time, and told us to make the payments to Keleş,” he said.
Güngör said he subsequently made payments to Keleş together with Zafer Gül, Akay and Oğuzhan Güney, who was the lawyer for the project at the time.
“For the remaining promissory notes, we agreed to give 13 apartments,” he said.
Güngör reiterated his allegations concerning Imamoğlu’s business dealings.
“Ali Gül is the owner of Gül İnşaat. They partnered with Ekrem Imamoğlu on the Vera project. Imamoğlu became very wealthy during his tenure as Beylikdüzü mayor. Imamoğlu conducts business through bribery in the Büyükçekmece and Beylikdüzü municipalities,” he said.
Güngör again alleged that İmamoğlu used Keleş, Soytekin, Çalık and Yılmaz to handle business dealings.
“Adem Soytekin would give him plots of land without zoning approval, then have them rezoned, and the large revenues from these projects would be shared with Ekrem Imamoğlu,” he said.
During the hearing, Çalık, another defendant, questioned Güngör. When Güngör attempted to question Çalık in response, the presiding judge intervened.
“The people here are in detention because of your statements. They have the right to ask questions,” the judge told Güngör.
Güngör was also asked by a defense lawyer about his statement that “Fatih Keleş is Ekrem Imamoğlu’s safe.”
Güngör qualified the statement, saying: “The statements here are not based on what I personally witnessed. They are based on things I heard from people around me.”
The hearing was adjourned for one hour.
