Don't prosecutors and judges ever make mistakes?!

Another journalist was arrested the other evening.

We have become so “normalized,” haven't we?

What is the crime of Furkan Karabay, the court reporter for 10 Haber who was arrested?

While reporting on the process regarding the CHP's Esenyurt Mayor Prof. Dr. Ahmet Özer, who was arrested and replaced by a trustee, he wrote the names of the Chief Prosecutor and the Deputy Chief Prosecutor who were conducting the investigation and recalled the investigations they had carried out in the past.

Thus, he allegedly committed the crimes of “targeting individuals involved in the fight against terrorism,” “insulting a public official,” and “publicly disseminating misleading information”!..

The process of Furkan Karabay's arrest unfolded as follows:

His house was raided in the morning. For reasons unknown, the police took the Turkish flag from his drawer and hung it in his wardrobe. He was taken to the police station, asked a single question, and then taken to the courthouse. The prosecutor referred him for arrest without even taking his statement. The judgeship issued the arrest warrant.

Furkan Karabay was also detained and arrested about a year ago, on December 28, 2023. His crime at that time?

It was writing the transcript of the case in which Barış Saral from the Sarallar group was being tried and mentioning the name of a prosecutor who appeared in the transcript. Again, he was accused of “targeting a person involved in the fight against terrorism” and “slander.”

Fortunately, he was released 11 days later. Afterward, he was acquitted.

Let us say “This too shall pass” to our brother Furkan, who is only doing journalism, and get to the point.

''NO ONE IS BEYOND ACCOUNTABILITY''

Erdoğan has said many times: “No one in this party, including myself, is beyond accountability.”

Layüsel means unaccountable, unquestionable, untouchable.

What is understood from what Furkan Karabay experienced is that prosecutors and police are definitely people who do not make mistakes, and therefore are uncriticizable and untouchable!..

So, let's give a fresh example.

Throughout last week, I followed the second case filed against Bora Kaplan, who is requested to be sentenced to life imprisonment on the grounds that he is the leader of an organized crime group, on charges of “laundering assets derived from crime within the scope of organizational activities.”

In the final session of this case with 38 defendants, 12 of whom are in custody, held on Thursday, Ertan Kunt, the lawyer for one of the fugitive defendants, Erkan Yıldırım, claimed that his client had gone abroad before this investigation, yet a fake document was prepared as if he had been detained and brought before the Prosecutor's Office, and that the Criminal Judgeship of Peace had imposed a travel ban based on this document. He requested, “If such a decision can be made in absentia, lift that decision and you issue the travel ban again.” Lawyer Kunt also stated that if the arrest warrant were lifted, Erkan Yıldırım would be ready to return to the country and give a statement.

In this situation, there were two possibilities: either what Lawyer Kunt said was true, or Erkan Yıldırım, despite the judicial control decision regarding travel abroad—just like Serdar Sertçelik, who was both a defendant and a secret witness with the code M7 in the Bora Kaplan organization case—had somehow fled abroad and become a fugitive.

As a coincidence; on the same day, the judge of the 77th Criminal Court of First Instance, which is hearing the case, stated that a letter had arrived from the General Directorate of Security of the Ministry of Interior regarding Erkan Yıldırım, and that it had been read and placed in the file.

After the hearing, I pursued both this letter and the judicial control decision issued regarding Erkan Yıldırım.

According to this letter signed by the Head of the Interpol Department of the General Directorate of Security; Erkan Yıldırım, who is “still sought by our country's judicial authorities and is considered to have gone abroad,” had left the country legally on October 4, 2023.

Now let's look at when the travel ban was imposed on Erkan Yıldırım.

According to the minutes of the 9th Criminal Judgeship of Peace, this decision was made on October 17, 2023, that is, 13 days after Erkan Yıldırım went abroad.

So how was it given?

That day, the Prosecutor's Office referred 18 suspects, including Erkan Yıldırım, to the Judgeship with a request for judicial control.

How were they referred?

“As present.”

How do we know?

From these lines in the minutes of the 9th Criminal Judgeship of Peace:

“Although the suspects, whose names are written below, regarding the crime of creating the impression that assets were obtained through legitimate means, were brought before our Judgeship as present with the letter of the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor's Office dated 17.10.2023 and numbered 2023/...... investigation file...”

Did the judge see, for example, Erkan Yıldırım, who was sent “as present,” and then make the decision?

No, he did not see him or the others.

The reason?

“Due to workload, he examined the file in the absence of the suspects” and decided that all of them, including Erkan Yıldırım, should be “placed under judicial control separately and banned from traveling abroad separately, based on the nature of the crime charged and the state of the existing evidence showing the existence of strong suspicion of crime according to the scope of the file.”

The result?

The Ankara 77th Criminal Court of First Instance decided that, although it is understood from the letter of the General Directorate of Security that Erkan Yıldırım left the country legally on October 4, 2023, the execution of the arrest warrant should be awaited, a red notice should be issued for his arrest in the country where he is located, and the judicial control provision in the form of a travel ban against him should continue!..

DID THE POLICE WRITE THE MASAK REPORT TOO?

Another example from the same case.

Since the subject of the trial is “money laundering,” naturally, a report was obtained from MASAK (Financial Crimes Investigation Board) regarding the assets, bank movements, etc., of the defendants.

However, the defendants and their lawyers pointed out the gross errors in the report item by item and claimed that this was not a MASAK report but a police summary, and that it was understood that the police had started writing MASAK reports as well.

The judge, convinced by this defense of the lawyers, decided to send the file to “an expert sworn-in financial advisor, a banker, and an academic accounting expert” to obtain a report on “whether a causal link can be established by comparing the acquisition dates of the assets subject to the indictment, and whether the assets alleged to have been obtained from crime were subjected to certain transactions in order to hide their illegitimate source or to create the impression that they were obtained through legitimate means.”

In short; showing a non-existent suspect as if they exist and preparing controversial MASAK reports is not a crime, but journalists writing about these is a crime, is that it?!

Müyesser YILDIZ

November 11, 2024