Maydonoz Döner operation brought to light by CİMER complaint: Details of the incident revealed

Details have emerged regarding the operation conducted last week against Maydonoz Döner, a chain with 410 branches, which was targeted in a FETÖ investigation.

It was revealed that investigations began following a complaint filed to CİMER (Presidency's Communication Center) by a waiter who had been dismissed regarding the closed-loop system at Maydonoz Döner.

In the testimonies taken during the operation, it was understood that the organization selected the individuals to whom it granted partnership shares in the döner restaurant chain from among those who were "loyal to FETÖ" and, specifically, those who did not benefit from effective remorse, despite having previously faced judicial proceedings.

THOSE WITHOUT FETÖ REFERENCES WERE NOT HIRED

It was alleged that there were unofficial shareholders in the chain of döner restaurants, where it was claimed that those without a reference from FETÖ were not hired. The testimony given to the prosecutor's office by R.Ö., who was hired with the promise that he could "work as a manager or supervisor" and "become a shareholder over time and earn extra money" but was not granted a partnership once it was learned that he had previously benefited from effective remorse within the scope of a FETÖ investigation, drew attention.

FILED A COMPLAINT TO CİMER

In his confessions, witness R.Ö., who exposed the system established to generate income for the organization, stated that he had filed a complaint with CİMER regarding meetings held at the restaurant chain by individuals dismissed from public service as part of the terror organization investigation, as well as regarding a capital increase in the millions.

Stating that I.B. and A.T., who were previously dismissed from public service, officially held partnerships in the store, R.Ö. testified, "I saw that these individuals were growing very rapidly over a period of 3-4 months. I do not know how these individuals, who have judicial records and dismissal records, grew so quickly."

R.Ö. stated that "he did not encounter any organizational affiliations among employees such as service staff, couriers, or döner chefs, but that in all stores, a portion of the store managers were individuals who had undergone 'secret service' (mahrem hizmet) or had records of dismissal via Decree-Law (KHK)."

TESTIMONY REVEALED

Explaining that he realized there were unofficial shareholders while working at the restaurant, R.Ö. provided the following information:

"I saw that these shareholders were generally individuals such as dismissed civil servants or former students of the secret structure. Such shareholders were not on any official documents. In the store where I was in charge, I.B. and A.T. were partners on paper. M.A., who held the rank of manager and was my superior in the store, was a dismissed public official. I learned from E.K. that this person received a sentence because he did not benefit from effective remorse provisions in the trial conducted against him. I know that his file is at the Court of Cassation and that he spent time in prison."

"One day, when I was talking to store manager M.A., he asked me 'how many years of sentence I received.' When I told him I received a sentence of 1 year and 6 months, he asked me again how I received such a sentence, noting that people usually receive 5 or 7 years. I did not tell him at that moment that I had benefited from effective remorse provisions, but he had understood that I had testified in this situation."

"I WAS DISMISSED WHEN IT WAS LEARNED THAT I BENEFITED FROM EFFECTIVE REMORSE"

R.Ö. stated that E.K., one of the partners who hired him, was being tried on charges of membership in an armed terrorist organization and had received a heavy sentence.

Stating that E.K. knew he had benefited from effective remorse provisions, R.Ö. said, "I started working as a waiter with the reference of a friend whose connection to the organization I knew. Later, I was assigned as the person in charge of three different branches. When my friend invited me, he had stated that I could become a partner with a 5 percent share, but when it was learned that I had benefited from effective remorse provisions, I was not given the share; first, pressure was applied, and then I was dismissed."

"I COULD NOT BENEFIT FROM THE PROMISED SHAREHOLDING"

R.Ö. explained the following:

"Mobbing began to be applied to me with excuses such as a drop in turnover, untidiness in the workplace, and low ratings on application sites. I could not benefit from the promised shareholding either.

I was told that I would not be given shares. In a later meeting, E.K. stated that this matter was a joke. The share I was promised was 5 percent. No money had been discussed in exchange for this share.

Even if the 5 percent share had been given, it would have been unofficial. When I asked E.K. the reason for this, he said that everyone was a reliable person and that no share was given to anyone who was not trusted."

Stating that he learned from E.K.'s statement that no one was given a share above 5 percent, R.Ö. provided the following information:

"5 percent shares could be given to store managers in different branches, but a share above 5 percent was strictly not given so that authority would not increase in a single store and administrative control would not be lost. These external shareholdings I mentioned are unofficial partnerships based entirely on a relationship of trust. The people who appear as company owners on paper also have FETÖ affiliations. I believe that no outsider is allowed to open a franchise or be given shares."