Investigation permission had been requested: Development regarding Mansur Yavaş in the ABB concert investigation
The Ministry of Interior has granted Ankara Metropolitan Municipality Mayor Mansur Yavaş one week to submit his defense as part of the investigation into concert expenditures.
12punto
The Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor's Office is continuing its investigation into allegations of irregularities in the concert expenditures of the Ankara Metropolitan Municipality (ABB) between 2021 and 2024.
While an indictment has been prepared against 14 people, 5 of whom are under arrest, on charges of 'qualified embezzlement' as part of the investigation, the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office recently requested permission to investigate ABB Mayor Mansur Yavaş.
A notable development occurred following the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office's request to the Ministry of Interior. The Ministry has granted Mansur Yavaş one week to submit his defense.
WHAT HAPPENED?
The Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor's Office launched an investigation into ABB regarding concert expenditures on October 8, 2025. In a statement from the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, it was stated, "According to the referral report prepared by the Ministry of Interior Civil Inspection Board, the MASAK review, the Court of Accounts review, and expert reports, it has been determined that the administration suffered a loss of 154,453,221.60 TL in 32 concert service procurements."
Of the 14 people detained as part of the investigation, 5 were arrested, while the others were released under judicial control conditions.
In the prepared indictment, it was stated that the crime of "qualified embezzlement" was committed in a chain, and prison sentences of up to 31.5 years were requested for 8 people and up to 18 years for 6 people.
Following the completion of the indictment, the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor's Office requested investigation permission from the Ministry of Interior, stating that the allegations against Mansur Yavaş and his Chief of Staff Nevzat Uzunoğlu should be evaluated within the scope of "misconduct in office" and "neglect of supervisory duty."