WHAT HAPPENED IN THE 37th HEARING?

During yesterday’s hearing, detained defendant Seza Büyükçulha, a childhood friend of Ekrem İmamoğlu, and Gökhan Köseoğlu, the Progress Payment Supervisor at IBB Culture Corporation, presented their defences.

Büyükçulha stated that his name does not appear in the “actions” or “conclusion” sections of the indictment, but only in a one-page commentary and diagram section regarding the organisational positions of alleged “organisation members.”

Stating that he encountered İmamoğlu at a hotel where an incident involving the taping over of security cameras occurred—a recording of which has since become famous—Büyükçulha said: “Ekrem İmamoğlu is my childhood friend. I went to the hotel on March 6 at around 17:00. I had a doctor’s appointment at the hospital around 13:30; I had undergone surgery on my feet. The doctor recommended the pool and the gym. I was already using these facilities at the hotel regularly. I was eating when I suddenly saw Ekrem İmamoğlu’s vehicle from where I sat. I thought, ‘My brother is coming, let me go and give him a hug,’ and I went to the door.”

Büyükçulha explained that he had a brief chat with İmamoğlu before returning home. Noting that his wiretapped phone conversations consisted only of friendly banter, Büyükçulha stated that being arrested on the charge of “giving bribes” was comical.

DENIAL OF THE “ORGANISATION MEMBER” ALLEGATION

Following the statement by defendant Büyükçulha’s lawyer, the defence of the detained defendant Gökhan Köseoğlu, Progress Payment Supervisor at Kültür AŞ, was taken.

Addressing the allegations in the indictment that he was a member of a criminal organisation and acted under the instructions of Murat Ongun, Köseoğlu said: “I am essentially a financial advisor. I started working at Kültür AŞ as accounting personnel in 2015, and later became the Progress Payment Supervisor.”

Köseoğlu stated that he does not know 85% of the people in the organisational chart included in the indictment, and that he only knows the remaining 15% because they are employees or individuals who won tenders, and he was required to communicate with them for business reasons.

Köseoğlu defended himself, saying: “It is claimed that I acted under Murat Ongun. I have no personal acquaintance with him, we have never held a meeting, and I have no connection to him. I do not even have his phone number. There are no HTS (Historical Traffic Search/Call Detail Records) records connecting us. Imagine an organisation member who helped a masked inspector four years ago by explaining irregularities I witnessed as a witness. The accusations of being an organisation member do not reflect the truth.”

Explaining that he worked in a unit that prepares official documents for approved works and processes and submits them to relevant departments after the firms winning tenders at Kültür AŞ are determined and contracts are signed, Köseoğlu declared: “I have no signing authority or discretionary power. In the indictment, there is no irregularity regarding the progress payment processes.”

KÖSEOĞLU CROSS-EXAMINED

Following the completion of his defence, Köseoğlu was cross-examined.

To the question from Presiding Judge Selçuk Aylan, “Did you give the statements you provided within the scope of effective repentance under any pressure?”, the defendant Köseoğlu replied, “No, I did not give them under pressure.”

Judge Aylan then asked: “You had some narratives regarding this firm named Reklam İstanbul. You mentioned that Serdal Taşkın (former General Manager of Kültür AŞ) said certain things to you. Tell us about those matters, how did it develop, and where did you discuss this?” Köseoğlu replied as follows:

“Since I was frequently in and out of Mr. Serdal’s office, he mentioned the firm Reklam İstanbul during that period. I believe it was a firm established in 2019; that is how I remember it from the documents. He mentioned that they had no work experience or qualifications and could not participate in any tender or procurement process. Therefore, he suggested giving them small jobs to increase the company’s work experience so they could participate in large tenders.”

Köseoğlu stated that, as far as he remembers, they gave the first progress payment to Reklam İstanbul in March 2020:

“After that, starting from March 2020, small jobs were given, followed by larger-volume tasks. In the meantime, a work experience certificate was generated. Because, according to Kültür AŞ regulations, a work experience certificate above a certain limit is required for tenders conducted under 3G (direct procurement/negotiation procedures). Therefore, small jobs must be given so that the volume increases and a work experience certificate process can occur to allow participation in larger tenders later. He had statements and explanations to me regarding this.”

STATED HE “HEARD” IT

Köseoğlu stated that while two people were officially listed as company partners in the documents, he had “heard” that the company actually belonged to Murat Ongun.

To the Public Prosecutor’s question, “In your statement dated September 26, 2025, you said, ‘In the lists I saw before the tenders, I would later see and understand that those were the firms that would win the tender after they were concluded.’ Where did you see these names?”, Köseoğlu replied: “I go to many departments regarding progress payment procedures anyway. When I went to the planning and organisation directorate, I saw a list among the documents in Güldem Şık’s office. It was a list she specifically wrote in her own diary, with the heading ‘tender’ and the names of a few firms.”

When the Prosecutor asked, “Did this list say who would win?”, Köseoğlu answered: “Not as ‘who would win.’ It just had those firms with ‘tender’ and a star or something written above them. Meanwhile, I did not see all the names of these firms at the same time.”

The defendant’s defence was conclude.