Opinion presented in the Aziz İhsan Aktaş case

The 16th hearing of the 5th week of the trial, in which 200 defendants—including 24 in custody and 7 mayors, 6 of whom have been suspended from duty—are being tried as part of the Aziz İhsan Aktaş investigation, was held. During the hearing, the defense statements of the non-detained defendants continued. According to Halk TV reporter Gamze Altunay, Yeşim Aktaş, the wife of Aziz İhsan Aktaş, also presented her defense during the hearing.

AZİZ İHSAN AKTAŞ'S WIFE PRESENTS DEFENSE

Yeşim Aktaş spoke as follows in her defense:

"We have been here almost every day for 4 weeks; we are exhausted both physically and mentally. There are 3 actions attributed to me. My defense will be 1-2 sentences. Action 47: The property in question belongs to my brother-in-law Burak Kangal. It has no connection whatsoever to Rıza Akpolat. My only action within the scope of this incident was to meet with a real estate agent and view the house. I suppose there could be no more natural behavior than this.

Action 48: The property subject to the action belongs to my brother Kazım Gökhan Yankılıç. It has no connection to Rıza Akpolat. My brother has explained in his statement how he acquired this property. My husband and I stayed there from time to time. My father passed away recently, and an inheritance was left to my siblings. For this reason, there is a chance to acquire this property, and it was purchased before we were married.

Action 49: The vehicle and the property in Mesa Ormanı belong to me. I bought them before marriage and with my own earnings. I also have assets from family inheritance.

I cannot make sense of our family ties being questioned to this extent in the indictment and being accused of a crime. It is impossible for me to accept the allegation that I or my siblings laundered my husband's assets. There is no system my husband established to launder assets, nor have I involved anyone. The truth is one. That is all I have to say."

PROSECUTOR PRESENTS OPINION

The prosecutor presented their opinion at the hearing. They requested the continuation of judicial control measures in the form of travel bans and house arrest, the lifting of the weekly signature requirement for those subject to it, and the acceptance of requests to be excused from attending the trial.

On the other hand, the prosecution requested the lifting of measures on blocked and seized assets, the continuation of the detention status of those in custody, and that the defense statements of non-detained defendants who have not yet testified be taken.