Key detail regarding the expert witness mentioned by İmamoğlu! His lawyer explains: 'Violates CMK 63'

Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (İBB) Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu disclosed the name of the expert witness appointed in investigations concerning himself and CHP-run municipalities, detailing the incidents involving them. The expert, whom İmamoğlu claimed is “always the same person being appointed and delivering unfavorable decisions,” became a major topic of discussion and also led to an investigation being launched against İmamoğlu and journalists.

According to a report by Cumhuriyet, a striking fact has emerged regarding the expert witness whose name was disclosed by İmamoğlu.

Data from the Union of Chambers of Certified Public Accountants of Turkey (TÜRMOB) revealed that S.B. has no registration or license. İmamoğlu’s lawyer, Mehmet Pehlivan, stated, “This raises the allegation that the judges and prosecutors who appointed this person committed misconduct.” Pehlivan also noted that S.B. failed to fulfill their obligations and that they are not registered with the relevant professional chambers.

Pehlivan said, “According to information we obtained from open sources, this person does not hold the status of an independent auditor. It is also accessible from open sources that they are not registered with TÜRMOB. Furthermore, we have reached information that they took the Independent Audit Exam (SGS) and failed. Looking at the Expert Regional Board list, this person’s expertise is listed in four categories. First is general accounting, second is commercial enterprise and corporate accounting, third is management accounting, and fourth is qualified calculations arising from public procurement legislation. When we look at this, the person does not have an accounting proficiency certificate. Under normal circumstances, if this person were to conduct an audit related to public procurement legislation, they would need to possess the audit expertise code 4306. However, they do not possess this code.”

‘THE JUDICIARY WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE’

Reminding of the responsibility of judicial members in this situation, Pehlivan noted the following:

“If they were given a file outside their area of expertise, they should have returned it. Conversely, if they wrote a report and went beyond their expertise, it could be evaluated that they committed a crime. This gives rise to the crimes of unauthorized assumption of a public duty and misconduct in office.”

Pehlivan continued his remarks as follows:

“It is a violation of Article 63 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CMK) for judges and prosecutors to assign a file to S.B. when they lack the expertise. When the report arrives, they are required to notify the regional board that the expert has gone beyond their expertise. Whether they reported this or not is also a question mark. S.B., on the other hand, should not accept files in areas where they are unauthorized; if they did, they should have returned them. However, they both accept the files and prepare reports without notifying anyone.”

News Source: 12punto