Zeydan Karalar's statement to the prosecutor has been revealed: It is not in accordance with the normal flow of life and logic

The prosecutor's interrogations of 13 people, including Adana Metropolitan Municipality Mayor Zeydan Karalar and Adıyaman Mayor Abdurrahman Tutdere, who were detained in the latest operation against CHP municipalities on Saturday morning, July 5, are continuing.

Karalar, who was detained at his sister's house in Gebze while returning from Istanbul to visit CHP presidential candidate and Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu, who is under arrest in Silivri, and Tutdere, who was detained while trying to return to Adıyaman from Ankara, were taken to the Istanbul Police Department building on Vatan Street. After a health check this morning, the prosecutor's interrogation of the names, who were sent to the Istanbul Courthouse, has begun.

“IT IS NOT SUITABLE FOR THE ORDINARY FLOW OF LIFE”

It was learned that Zeydan Karalar, whose statement at the prosecutor's office ended, said the following:

“I know Baki Nugay because he is a contractor for the municipality. He came to my office to meet me. In this meeting, there was no discussion of demanding money in return for progress payments as he claimed, it is completely slander. The company won a tender during the previous AK Party term and continued to work with our municipality after I was elected mayor. We tried to make the payments without delay in our term as we did in the previous term. When the progress payment documents are examined, it will be seen whether they received the payments late or not. There is no coercion. Baki Nugay declared that he left the partnership in 2016 and claimed that he gave money in 2019, this issue is clearly inconsistent. It is not in accordance with the normal flow of life and logic for someone who left the partnership to give money within the scope of an ongoing job.

'I THINK BAKİ NUGAY DID NOT GIVE A HEALTHY STATEMENT DUE TO HIS PRISON CONDITIONS'

Our municipality had a tender for transportation at the end of 2014, but the tender was cancelled due to the lack of competition. Later, in early 2015, the tender was won by the joint venture of Barka and Albayrak, but the Public Procurement Board cancelled this tender as well. I remember that a contract was signed with Barka and Albayrak companies after the court annulled the decision of the Public Procurement Board.

There was no agreement with the company before the tender either. Özcan Zenger was responsible for cleaning work. It is normal for him to meet with company officials due to his duty. However, I do not know why he met with company officials on the dates stated in the file and alleged to have been paid, he is the addressee of this question, I do not know the relationship between them, I did not give him any instructions. I did not direct company officials to any person either. I think Baki Nugay did not give a sound statement due to prison conditions. I have been serving as Mayor for approximately 12 years. I am currently the Deputy Chairman of the Union of Municipalities. I had high-level duties before. I am someone who can come when called. Under these circumstances, it is not lawful and conscientious for me to be detained in unhealthy conditions for 4 days. I think this operation is a political operation. I do not accept the accusations. I demand to be released.”

LAWYERS REQUESTED THAT THE INVESTIGATION FILE BE SEPARATED AND SENT TO ADANA

Karalar's lawyers requested that the investigation file be separated and sent to Adana. It was learned that the lawyers' defense was as follows:

“The crime attributed to the client in the file is extortion. It is alleged that money was paid on more than one date. The last payment place was put forward as Adana. Considering the provisions of chain crimes, we request that the place where the act was committed is the last place of action and therefore it was evaluated that it was committed in Adana province. Baki Nugay does not have the status of a suspect either. He claimed that he was a victim of extortion, therefore there is no connection between the main file conducted in Istanbul province and the act attributed to the client. For this reason, we request that a decision be made to separate the file in terms of the client and that the file be sent to the Adana Public Prosecutor’s Office and that the investigation be conducted by the Adana Public Prosecutor’s Office.

'THE PERSON MADE A FABRIC BASED ON BANK RECORDS'

Baki Nugay, who made a statement about his client, claimed in his statement that he was forced to give a certain amount of money during the meeting with the mayor, but he did not make this concrete in his statement. He did not explain what this amount was or how much money he was forced to give. In order for such coercion to occur, Baki Nugay's company must not receive payment or there must be constant delays in terms of payments. However, when the payment records are examined, it will be seen that regular payments were made to the company. Again, after giving money, these progress payments must have increased, but when the records are examined, it will be seen that the payments made to Baki Nugay's company were regular and there was no change after the dates he claimed to have given money. Therefore, we request that the payment records made by the municipality be examined. The prosecutor's office has not examined this issue.

When examined, it will be seen that his claims are unfounded. The person fabricated the claims based on bank records. He matched the bank records with Özcan Zenger’s presence in Istanbul due to his child’s school records or other reasons. Approximately 80 million TL was paid to Baki Nugay’s company during the chairman’s term. There was also a debt of 80 million TL that needed to be paid to the company after the chairman left. If the claims were true, the company would have no receivables or the company would have been paid in order to profit from this situation. We demand that this statement, which is inconsistent from beginning to end, not be taken as basis. He claimed to have paid 100,000 TL on 12.06.2018 and the date he claimed to have made the next payment was 25.01.2019. There was a period of approximately 7 months in between. He regularly received his entitlements during this period. If his claims were true, he should not have been paid during this interim period.”