Developments in the bungalow hidden camera scandal

In the incident that occurred on March 30, a family that rented a bungalow in the Sapanca district of Sakarya from Istanbul discovered a hidden camera concealed inside a lightbulb that had a full view of the structure's bedroom and jacuzzi area.

The family went to the police department and filed a complaint. Following the report, teams launched an investigation and detained the business owner, H.K. (31), and his friend, T.S. (48). The two suspects, whose statements were taken, were arrested and sent to prison. During the first hearing on August 6, 2025, the public prosecutor requested that the missing issues be addressed and that the defendants remain in custody.

The court panel decided to address the missing issues and adjourned the hearing until today. The hearing held at the Sapanca 2nd Criminal Court of First Instance was attended by the detained defendants, the complainants M.K. and his wife P.K., and the lawyers for both parties.

Given the floor in court, defendant H.K. reiterated his previous statements, saying that he learned about the camera issue one day before the incident, that he handed over his phone to the police of his own volition, and that there was no situation involving the deletion of data. Stating that he had turned himself in and did not attempt to flee, H.K. requested his release. The other defendant, T.S., stated that he was the financier of the business and that his connection to the incident was limited only to his fingerprint on the lightbulb, which he claimed was a normal situation. Stating that he put the lightbulb in a drawer because he could not distinguish it from the others and that other people also entered and exited the bungalow, T.S. claimed he had no connection to the incident and requested his acquittal.

Stating that they had not received an apology, the customer M.K. expressed that they were victims and were filing a complaint. Police officer R.E., who was heard as a witness, also stated that they went to the area upon the report and said, "There was a lightbulb-shaped camera above the jacuzzi, and its red light was blinking. The light went out completely while we were there."

Other police witnesses, F.S. and B.A., also stated that they saw a red or purple-like light on the bulb. The defense attorneys stated that they did not accept the statements against their clients and requested their release. The public prosecutor requested the release of the defendants, taking into account that they had been in custody for approximately 4 months, that the evidence had been largely collected, and the penalty limits of the crime. The court panel ruled for the defendants to be tried without arrest and adjourned the hearing to a later date to address the deficiencies in the file.