Investigation into Justice Minister Gürlek's 'land registry records' continues: Ayşegül Erdağ's testimony revealed

Diyar Akdağ, a technician working at the Kaş Land Registry Office who was detained on allegations that Minister Gürlek's land registry records were queried in violation of the law, had claimed that Ayşegül Erdağ, whom he said he met on a dating app, directed him and offered him 300 thousand liras in exchange for the records. Ayşegül Erdağ, who was detained, denied the accusations directed at her. Erdağ’s testimony has been revealed.

DENIED THE ALLEGATIONS

According to the report by halktv.com; Erdağ, who was detained following the allegations by technician Diyar Akdağ, who works at the Kaş Land Registry Office, that she directed him and offered 300 thousand TL in return, did not accept the accusations.

In her testimony to the prosecutor's office, Erdağ stated that she did not know Diyar Akdağ and said, “I definitely did not give instructions. I did not have land registry records queried. I did not offer 300 thousand TL. It is all slander.” 

Erdağ also stated that she had no assets and that she earned her living by working as a dishwasher. Stating that she used social media accounts in a limited capacity, Erdağ argued that she had no communication with the person in question. 

The following statements in Erdağ’s testimony drew attention:

“I do not have a social media account that I am currently using. In the past, I only had a Facebook account. I definitely did not open it with my own name; I was using different names.

The reason I opened accounts with fake names was that my ex-boyfriend was threatening me. For this reason, I did not use my name. I have no other purpose. I did not establish contact with any important person using these accounts,” she said.

“It just came to my mind. I also had a TikTok account in the past. I forgot to mention this. In August 2025, I was looking at job postings from a Facebook account whose name I cannot remember, which I was using.

I forgot to say that I used a TikTok account; I have no purpose. I did not establish contact with anyone from this account.

The account you showed me belongs to me. My own name and photos are present. I was using it for work purposes. I remembered when you showed it. I did not give information to anyone from this account. I did not send messages to anyone.

While I was researching to find a job through my Facebook account, I met a person named M. C. C. Our conversation progressed. We met face-to-face. M. found me a few jobs. We became lovers in August 2025. Before I became lovers with M., I had phone lines that I used. I do not remember these lines and their numbers. They were all blocked; I could not pay their debts.

Immediately after becoming lovers with M., we started living together with M.’s family at the *** address. We have resided there continuously since 28/08/2025. Sometimes, I had to stay in different hotels to earn bread money with different people. I do not remember the names of these individuals. I did not give any information to these people. The line with the number 0 50**** that you asked me about is registered in my name. I took out this line on 30/07/2025. Within 1 week, I gave this line to M. Because my ex-boyfriend was threatening me. I did not want him to reach me from this number. My ex-boyfriend's name is I.C. I do not remember his phone number. During this process, I broke the phone I was using because I was angry at my ex-boyfriend.

M. and I were using the phone I mentioned. People who wanted to reach me were calling the 0 50*** line in question. I did not provide any benefit while giving the line that belonged to me to M. I do not have any other phone line. I do not have any real estate or assets. My bank account transactions can be examined.

I do not know any of the individuals you listed, namely Diyar Akdağ, Dursun Akdağ, Veli Sabancılar, Muharrem Demiröz, Kerem Duman, and Mehmet Gürel. I definitely have no contact with them. I learned the name Diyar AKDAĞ at the police station.

I definitely do not accept Diyar Akdağ's statements. I do not know the person named Diyar. I do not know why he testified in this way. I did not use a Tinder account. I did not talk to the person named Diyar via Instagram or WhatsApp. I had a WhatsApp account, but I only used this account to talk to my children. I could not make sense of why Diyar identified me. I definitely did not give instructions to Diyar. I did not ask him to query the land registry information of Justice Minister Mr. Akın Gürlek. I did not receive this data. I did not forward it to anyone. I did not receive instructions from anyone. Diyar is slandering. I did not offer 300,000 TL. I am a person who washes dishes; I do not have such money. It is all slander.

This statement is definitely not true. I did not receive instructions from anyone. I am not acting in an organized manner. I do not know the other land registry officers whose names are mentioned. I am being slandered. I did not seize data and I did not send it to anyone. I did not receive any money from anyone.

The line with the number 0 5*** does not belong to me. Diyar's statements are lies. I have never worked in the city of Istanbul. I only went for a vacation. None of the personal data of Justice Minister Mr. Akın Gürlek is in my possession. I do not accept the accusations.

I do not use a phone. I did not call anyone. This allegation is not true. I do not know Özgür Özel, I do not have his phone number. I do not have the number of any political figure. I only know them by name, I have not come face-to-face. I am just a dishwasher. I do not go anywhere other than work and home. 

I did not commit a crime. I do not want to benefit from the effective remorse provisions. I did not seize anyone's information, I did not spread it to anyone. I request to be released. My defense and evidence regarding the incident consist of these.”

PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE: THERE ARE CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS

On the other hand, in the prosecutor's referral letter, it was alleged that Diyar Akdağ acted in violation of his duties by querying the land registry records belonging to Gürlek under the direction of a person named Ayşegül, whom he stated he met on social media. 

The prosecutor's office claimed that the query records were detected in technical examinations and that the obtained data was transferred in violation of the law. The letter stated that it was determined that the person in question was Ayşegül Erdağ.

It was argued that there were contradictions in Erdağ’s defenses and that her statements were “contrary to the ordinary flow of life,” and therefore her statements were not deemed credible. 

ARREST REQUEST

Stating that the evidence was in the collection stage, the prosecutor's office requested that Erdağ be arrested on the grounds that there was “strong suspicion of crime” against her.