Famous contractor appears in court after 8 years... But how?!

Murat Çeçen, the Chairman of CCN Holding and a Board Member of IC İçtaş İnşaat—known for his proximity to the government and for securing major public tenders such as the Yavuz Sultan Selim Bridge and Northern Ring Motorway Project, Antalya Airport, the New York Turkish House, the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant, and the 2nd Stage 1st and 2nd sections of the Ankara-Istanbul High-Speed Train Project—has finally appeared in court. He had been facing charges of "threats" but had previously evaded giving a statement. What did he say? He claimed he did not "remember" the audio recordings that both he and his lawyers had previously accepted. Furthermore, regarding the businessman who filed the lawsuit, he stated, "I think he may have ties to an organization."

First, let us summarize the subject of the case and the events of the 8-year process for those who have not been following.

Businessman C.D., who worked as a subcontractor on the construction of the Mersin and Bilkent City Hospitals, alleged that Murat Çeçen not only failed to pay his debts but also threatened him at the Bilkent City Hospital construction site. The basis for C.D.'s claims was an audio recording of a conversation he had with Çeçen.

Following that audio recording, C.D. filed a criminal complaint against Çeçen with the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor's Office on charges of "insult, extortion, deprivation of liberty, and threats." However, because Çeçen did not even attend the prosecutor's office to give a statement, a lawsuit was not filed against him for a long time. Eventually, a decision of non-prosecution was issued.

Upon the objection of his lawyer, Abdullah Kaya, in 2023, the Ankara 4th Criminal Court of Peace overturned this non-prosecution decision, and a new investigation was opened against Murat Çeçen. However, the prosecutor's office was still unable to obtain his statement. As a result of the investigation, an indictment was issued on May 7, 2025, solely for the crime of "threats," and a prison sentence of 6 months to 2 years was requested for Çeçen.

The Residency Issue

The first hearing of the case, held at the Ankara 90th Criminal Court of First Instance, took place last January. While Murat Çeçen did not attend this hearing on the grounds that he was abroad, his lawyers stated that he resided in Istanbul and requested that he be heard there via a rogatory commission. Fifteen days after this hearing, the lawyers provided the address of a hotel in Istanbul.

The court first wrote a warrant to the police department of the district where Çeçen was known to reside in Ankara, ordering him to be brought by force to the second hearing on February 27. It also decided that if he were in Istanbul, he should be heard via SEGBİS (Video and Audio Information System). The police who went to the address in question in Ankara filed a report stating they could not find Çeçen. Meanwhile, it was reflected in the report that Çeçen's lawyer called the police and said, "We received information that the judge is on sick leave, so we will not attend the hearing by submitting an excuse to the court."

Before the hearing on February 27, his lawyers submitted an excuse stating that Çeçen was abroad, and since the judge was on leave, the hearing could not be held. Or rather, upon the insistence of C.D.'s lawyer, Abdullah Kaya, the temporary judge sat in the court clerk's office and prepared an 8-item report as if the case had been heard and the prosecutor's opinion had been taken, postponing the hearing to April 15.

What happened on April 15? The judge said that a letter had been written to the Istanbul Anatolian 75th Criminal Court of First Instance for the defendant's statement to be taken via SEGBİS, but the SEGBİS connection could not be established. After Çeçen's lawyers stated that they had not received any notification regarding this matter, they requested that SEGBİS be abandoned and the statement be taken via a rogatory commission.

The plaintiff C.D.'s lawyer, Abdullah Kaya, reacted to this request by saying, "In all proceedings taken to obtain his defense, he does not attend by declaring that he is abroad. It is clear he is a fugitive; he does not come. SEGBİS was mentioned, a warrant for forced appearance was issued; but the police and gendarmerie cannot bring him. The other party wants his statement taken via a rogatory commission to avoid facing us. Our request for him to be heard via SEGBİS continues." Çeçen's lawyers replied, "If a letter is written for a statement via a rogatory commission, we will ensure our client adjusts his work and attends according to the commission date."

Ultimately, at that hearing, an arrest warrant was issued for Murat Çeçen to obtain his defense on the grounds that "he did not attend the hearing despite proper notification."

The Audio Recording Issue

Let us also report the developments regarding the audio recording, which is the most important piece of evidence in the case, point by point.

At the January hearing, Çeçen's lawyers argued that it was obtained unlawfully and created to manufacture a crime, stating, "Let the audio recordings be listened to. Although some of the expressions are slang, they are ordinary expressions, and the complainant is trying to make him say these things. 'Killing, finishing,' it is always C.D. who starts these. That is why a decision of non-prosecution was given and it became final."

The court decided that a voice sample should be taken "urgently" and an expert examination should be conducted to determine whether the voice belonged to Murat Çeçen.

The police in Ankara assigned to take the voice sample reported that they could not reach Çeçen; that his secretary said he was out of the city and they would call when he returned, but no one called; that when they called again, this time his lawyer said, "His residence is in Istanbul. We are handling the work and procedures with the Üsküdar District Police Department, we will have a letter of return without action written regarding this," and that when no such letter arrived, they went to the address specified in the document, but since no one opened the door, the voice recording could not be obtained. Meanwhile, before the hearing on February 27, his lawyers requested that the decision to take Çeçen's voice sample be abandoned.

When the court insisted on its decision and this time wrote a warrant to the Üsküdar District Police Department, his lawyer submitted a petition to the Police Department stating that Çeçen was abroad and that they had requested the court to abandon the decision. Upon this, the Üsküdar Police Department prepared a report stating, "...the instruction could not be fulfilled because the person named Murat Çeçen could not be reached at the address in question during the investigation, and also because his lawyer stated that he was abroad and that they had declared to the court that the audio recording was authentic." Simultaneously, in a petition submitted to the Court, Çeçen's lawyers repeated the request to abandon the decision to take the voice recording, saying, "in view of the fact that neither our client nor we, his lawyers, have any objection to the contents of the audio recordings and that we accept the audio contents, in order to prevent the trial from being prolonged."

At the hearing on April 15, when the arrest warrant for Murat Çeçen was issued, his lawyers requested that the audio recording, which was obtained unlawfully, not be given credence, saying, "We had accepted the listening of the audio recordings to show this irregularity. Yes, the audio recordings belong to the client, therefore the interim decision regarding taking a voice sample should be revoked." When the plaintiff C.D.'s lawyer, Abdullah Kaya, objected, "They were saying the audio recordings were suspicious. Now they are accepting them. Thus, the material fact has emerged. However, we still need to ask the defendant; he might say, 'It wasn't me, my lawyers accepted it,'" Çeçen's lawyers emphasized that they had submitted the petition stating the audio recording belonged to Çeçen with his knowledge and instruction.

Upon this, the Judge abandoned the taking of Çeçen's voice sample "due to the defendant's lawyers accepting the audio recording."

He Gave This Statement After the Arrest Warrant

Let us come to what happened after the arrest warrant was issued for Murat Çeçen at the hearing on April 15.

On the same day, Çeçen went not to the 90th Criminal Court of First Instance, where the case was being heard and which issued the arrest warrant, but to the duty 27th Criminal Court of First Instance, and gave the company's address in Ankara as his residence address during identity verification.

In his first statement, he said the following:

"I am a person with 10 thousand employees, I have subcontractors, I have more than 1500 subcontractors. The complainant is one of them. The event that is the subject of the indictment is a very old event. I do not remember having such a conversation. If an audio recording was made, I am not aware of it. I do not accept the accusations. I have been in trade for 30 years, neither the people I trade with nor my employees have ever made such an allegation against me until today. I have never been accused in any way until today. For this reason, I think this person may have ties to an organization, let this also be taken into consideration. First of all, I request my acquittal, and if a penalty is to be given, I request that the provisions in my favor be applied and that a decision be made to defer the announcement of the verdict."

His lawyer also stated that they did not accept the content of the audio recording and that it was not legally valid, and Çeçen was released after the statement procedure was completed.

Two days after this development, the plaintiff C.D.'s lawyer, Abdullah Kaya, submitted a petition to the 90th Criminal Court of First Instance as follows:

"Despite your instruction that the defendant be made ready in your Court in case he is caught in Ankara, the defendant was referred to the duty criminal court of first instance and his interrogation was taken. Thus, your court's warrant requirement was not fulfilled, and the opportunity to cross-examine the defendant was lost. Furthermore, although the audio recordings in question were repeatedly accepted in writing and orally by the defendant's lawyers, this time it was declared that they did not accept the content of the audio recording. Again, although it was stated many times that the defendant resided in Istanbul, it was reported that he resided in Ankara. For all these reasons, we request that a warrant be written for the defendant Murat Çeçen to be made ready at the hearing in order for it to be asked in person whether the audio recordings belong to him and for his cross-examination to be conducted."

These Things Also Happened at the Last Hearing

The fourth session of the case, every stage of which is interesting, was held the day before yesterday.

What happened?

First of all, it was seen that the court judge had changed.

After the judge stated that the requirement of the arrest warrant had been fulfilled, he gave the floor to the lawyers.

Murat Çeçen's lawyers argued that no act of threat had taken place in any way, that there was no element of threat in the conversations, and that the audio recording was unlawful. While stating that Çeçen gave his statement on the same day upon the court's arrest warrant, the lawyers said, "He is an important businessman. We pulled him over while he was going to Antalya. He gave his statement at the duty court shortly before the end of working hours. Because he had an evening flight, there could have been a problem."

The plaintiff C.D.'s lawyer, Abdullah Kaya, said the following:

"It was said that the defendant was constantly abroad. When the arrest warrant was issued, he beamed himself here. He did not give a statement to you, but to the duty court. Because we were going to confront him. They first did not accept the audio recording, then they said 'Yes' and abandoned the matching. Finally, they say, 'It doesn't belong to him.' They are playing games. If it is said, 'The audio recording does not belong to him'; let Murat Çeçen be called, let the audio recording be taken and a matching be made. We were able to bring the defendant to the duty court for the first time. There is threat, insult, swearing, deprivation of liberty. While my client has a receivable of 14 million Euros, he is being persuaded to accept 5 million dollars. The name of this is extortion. And the one who will decide this is the high criminal court. For this reason, a decision of lack of jurisdiction should be given, and the file should be sent to the high criminal court."

Taking the floor again, Çeçen's lawyers repeated that the audio recordings were obtained unlawfully and explained, "The client did not even remember. When he listened, he said, 'It could be.'"

Lawyer Abdullah Kaya also requested that Çeçen not be exempted from the hearing so that his cross-examination could be conducted if a decision of lack of jurisdiction was not given.

Upon this, Çeçen's lawyers said, "We were also going to make a request for exemption."

After the statements were completed, the Judge accepted Çeçen's request for exemption, while stating that he rejected the request for a decision of lack of jurisdiction at this stage.

More importantly, he decided to refer the file to the Prosecutor's Office to present his opinion on the merits.

The important detail here?

Even though it was written in the hearing minutes, "The prosecution was asked; it is requested and opined on behalf of the public that the missing issues be resolved," the Judge, while taking those interim decisions without asking the prosecutor anything, had asked the prosecutor to prepare his opinion on the merits, even though no such request had been made.

Thus, it was understood that this famous public contractor would finish the case without ever coming to the hearing!..

Müyesser YILDIZ

September 18, 2026