Beşiktaş Mayor Akpolat's prosecutor testimony obtained: He denied allegations of tender irregularities

The prosecutor's testimony of Beşiktaş Mayor Rıza Akpolat, who was detained as part of an investigation into a criminal organization and brought before a judge with a request for his arrest in Istanbul, has emerged.

In the investigation conducted by the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, which alleges that a criminal organization led by Aziz İhsan Aktaş organized tenders by bribing mayors and senior municipal officials, the proceedings for the suspects referred to the Istanbul Courthouse in Çağlayan are ongoing.

In his testimony, which proceeded in a question-and-answer format, Rıza Akpolat stated that his monthly income is 85 thousand liras and that he owns a construction company named Emza Akaryakıt.

When asked, 'Provide information about the process of appointment to the Beltaş board of directors, and what is the mayor's role in this process?', Akpolat noted that he knew the board members, recalled that Alican Abacı had brought forward the name of Ahmet Aktaş, and stated that the appointment process for Önder Gedik and Esra Yenidünya was based on a collective decision.

WERE THERE IRREGULARITIES IN THE SALE OF REAL ESTATE?

Explaining that the board of directors made the decision regarding the sale of real estate and that he learned about this situation later, Akpolat, in response to the question of who decided on the sale of the real estate belonging to Beltaş in Ortaköy and Rumeli Hisarı, stated that the company made the sale but he did not know when or for what reasons it was done.

Upon the statement in the file regarding the real estate sales process that there was no board of directors decision to initiate the tender process, Akpolat expressed the following:

'A decision was made to go to tender in accordance with the principle of transparent management. The board of directors' decision stated that the sale should be in accordance with legal regulations. In this context, Chairman of the Board Önder Gedik used his initiative and granted authorization for the sale.'

When asked whether an announcement was made regarding the sale of the real estate, Akpolat stated that he had no information.

Akpolat argued that he had no information about the decision to sell the real estate taken one day after Ahmet Aktaş was elected as a board member, nor about the commission formed during the process of selling the real estate in Ortaköy to Elif LPG Akaryakıt AŞ, which belongs to Aziz İhsan Aktaş.

When the prosecutor's office stated that a letter was written to Beltaş on January 2 regarding whether there was a board of directors decision concerning the sale of the said real estate, that Önder Gedik, Ozan İş, and lawyer Arif Sağlam came to the prosecutor's office with the board of directors book one day later, but that the relevant document did not have a notary certification on the board decision taken on July 4-5, 2024, and that it was seen that there was a decision dated July 3, 2024, regarding Gedik's appointment as a board member, which was approved on July 8, 2024, Akpolat claimed that he had no information about this matter either.

Akpolat claimed that he had no information about the report regarding the inconsistency in the valuation report obtained by Beltaş 5 months before the sale of the real estate, which stated the value of the property as 269 million liras, 4 million euros, and 4 million dollars.

When asked about the fact that 70 million liras were deposited into the Beltaş account by the Elif LPG ve Akaryakıt company for the sale of the property under the pretext of salary payments, that 400 million liras came to the Beşiktaş Municipality account, and that 301 million liras of the approximately 302 million liras deposited by Sarper Petrolcülük were transferred to the Beşiktaş Municipality account, Akpolat replied, 'I do not know the reason for the transfer of the money.'

When asked whether he was involved in the sale of the said real estate to the two companies and whether he made the sales decisions himself, considering that the money paid to Beltaş was transferred to the Beşiktaş Municipality account, Akpolat claimed that he had no information and was not involved in the sales decisions.

ONE OF THE PROPERTIES WAS SOLD WITH A 60 PERCENT PROFIT IN FAVOR OF THE MUNICIPALITY

In response to the question of who decided to invite the three companies for the sale of the real estate and whether he had information about their owners, Akpolat stated that he did not know the companies and did not know how they participated in the tender.

'After the bid envelopes were opened, it was seen that an auction method was used and the company named Elif LPG ve Akaryakıt won the tender for 470 million 760 thousand liras and deposited the specified amount into the Beltaş account. However, according to the report dated January 8, 2025, obtained by our Chief Public Prosecutor's Office regarding the property, it was determined that the value of the property in its current state on the sale date of July 26, 2024, was 580 million 825 thousand liras, and its value in its current state on the report date was 651 million 291 thousand liras. What would you like to say about this matter?' Akpolat replied, 'I became aware after the sale was made. When I learned that it was sold for 60 percent above its value, I thought it was in the public interest and was happy.'

When asked about the allegation that the companies named 'Barka, Vekontek, Bilginay, Elif LPG ve Akaryakıt', owned by suspect Aziz İhsan Aktaş, had received 18 tenders from the Beşiktaş Municipality since 2020, and that the majority of the tenders were made by bargaining, and what he had to say about Aktaş's companies receiving almost all of the municipality's work in their field of activity, Akpolat stated, 'I do not know the mentioned companies. I do not know how many tenders they received. The tender process is followed by the relevant units of our municipality. Tenders that are concluded are discussed in meetings, but the company owners or the tender process are not explained.'

Akpolat claimed that he did not know the tender processes, that he was not involved in the subject unless there was an extraordinary situation, that he knew Aziz İhsan Aktaş because he was a subcontractor for the Beşiktaş Municipality, that he had no personal or commercial relationship with him, and that they did not meet face-to-face.

When it was stated that a report was filed with the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office that the tenders were announced in a way that Aktaş's companies would win and were given to the said companies in exchange for bribes, Akpolat said, 'I have no knowledge of the process. I delegated authority to the colleagues who follow the tender processes. The process is carried out with their knowledge. The relevant colleagues also sign the contracts.'

'THERE ARE NO IRREGULARITIES IN THE TENDERS'

Claiming that he did not think there were any irregularities in the tenders made by the municipality and that he had no connection with Aktaş, Akpolat noted the following when asked whether he obtained any financial benefit from the tenders and real estate sales made by the municipality:

'During my term as mayor, I did not request any financial benefit from anyone as required by my duty. I know some of the mentioned people and companies by name. Other than that, I have no acquaintance, intimacy, or commercial relationship. The allegations are baseless. I am trying to serve nearly 2.5 million people. I am in contact with the public as part of my duty. It is not possible for me to follow all the work and transactions done by the municipality. I delegated most of my powers to my colleagues through delegation of authority. Therefore, it is not possible for me to know the transactions made in the tenders. Some parts of the property used as a hospital, which is the subject of the investigation, do not belong to us. I want to point that out. That is the reason why I was happy when I learned the sale amount. I was happy when I heard it: My company's accounts were mentioned. I had previously made a capital increase. I had stated that it was with the jewelry from the wedding. There is no concrete evidence that could form the basis of the crimes attributed to me. I request to be released.'

News Source: AA