New development in the Seçil Erzan case: Denizbank issues statement on the 'Fatih Terim Fund'

Denizbank has released a statement regarding Seçil Erzan, the former manager of the Denizbank Levent Branch, who is accused of defrauding dozens of people through a fund known as the 'Fatih Terim Fund.'

The statement from the bank said, "Our bank first became aware of the issue on 07.04.2023, when a complainant, who is also our customer, came to the branch while Seçil Erzan, who had been serving as the manager of our Levent Büyükdere Street Branch since June 2022, was not on duty due to a two-day excused leave."

The bank noted that although the victims' complaints date back a year, no one had submitted a request, report, or complaint to Denizbank, the BRSA (BDDK), or the Presidential Communication Center (CİMER) until April 7.

WHO FIRST BROUGHT THE MATTER TO THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES?

The full statement from the bank included the following:

"The matter, which was immediately examined by our Bank's Board of Inspectors, was conveyed to our General Manager around 16:30 on Friday, April 7, 2023. Upon receiving the initial information, an attempt was first made to contact Seçil Erzan, but she could not be reached via the two phone numbers known to our Bank. On the same day, an application was made to the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office. Considering that those involved were famous names from the sports and business worlds, confidentiality was requested for the file to protect the personal rights of those mentioned. Given that Seçil Erzan could not be reached at all and considering the possibility of a banking crime, a travel ban was requested for her.

In the later hours of Friday, April 7, our General Manager was called by individuals from the sports world, and a meeting was requested.

THE FIRST MEETING WITH THREE COMPLAINANTS ON SATURDAY, APRIL 8

On the morning of Saturday, April 8, individuals from the sports world visited our Bank, and a meeting was held with the participation of our Bank's Legal, Operations, Board of Inspectors, and Human Resources unit managers, the relevant Regional Manager, and our General Manager.

At the meeting, the individuals from the sports world stated that there was a fund named after their former coach and that they had been deceived by Seçil Erzan, to whom they had given significant amounts of money. They provided an image of a handwritten list of creditors on a piece of paper.

This was the first time our Bank learned the names of the people claiming to be victims collectively. The coach in question, who was also present at the same meeting, made statements such as, '...I cannot understand what Seçil Erzan, whom I adopted like my own daughter and who came in and out of our home, has done. Although I have a loss, I do not even know the amount.'

Bank executives stated that the matter was being examined by the Board of Inspectors, but that initial findings did not reveal any debt-credit records regarding the amounts subject to the complaint, that they did not see any abnormalities in bank accounts, that investigations were ongoing, and that efforts to reach Seçil Erzan were continuing, but that she could not be contacted. Upon this, one of the football players said that he was in constant contact with Seçil Erzan and had been talking to her until the morning, and that he could provide her phone number and the address where she was staying if requested, after which they left the bank.

Following the departure of the individuals in question, while our Bank's executives were continuing the meeting, the same football player, who was among the complainants, called by phone and said that Seçil Erzan was at the house of a relative in Çorlu. He provided a phone number where she could be reached other than the numbers registered with our Bank and conveyed the information that if our Regional Manager Sermin Tekin, who was Seçil Erzan's supervisor, called her, she only wanted to speak with her. Additionally, he made a statement saying, 'You want the complainants to apply to the Public Prosecutor's Office, but we are holding them back...'

FIRST CONTACT WITH SEÇİL ERZAN AFTER THE INCIDENT

Although the provided phone number was called, there was no answer. Subsequently, the Regional Manager was called by Seçil Erzan from another number and invited to the house in Çorlu for a meeting, and the location information of the house where she was staying was sent via WhatsApp. The Regional Manager, who went to the house in Çorlu on Saturday afternoon, April 8, was invited inside. Seçil Erzan stated that '...she was constantly being threatened by the people who were creditors, that she was in a bad state of mind, that she wanted to commit suicide, and that she kept her phones turned off because she was being called constantly...'

After the three-hour conversation she had with the Regional Manager, she said that she felt relieved, that she wanted to tell the truth, and that she wanted to come to the bank and make statements to the Board of Inspectors. Upon this, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 29-32 of the Banking Law No. 5411, Articles 19 and subsequent articles of the Labor Law No. 4857, clause (d) of Article 5, clauses (a) and (h) of Article 7, and the second paragraph of Article 21 of the Regulation on Internal Systems and Internal Capital Adequacy Assessment Process of Banks published by the BRSA, as well as the Bank Personnel Regulation, Disciplinary Regulation, and the Employment Contract signed between the Bank and the Employee, she was invited to our general directorate on Sunday, April 9, at 10:00, and the Regional Manager left the house.

TAKING SEÇİL ERZAN'S STATEMENT

Seçil Erzan, who came to the bank on Sunday, April 9, in a vehicle belonging to her relative E. E. and driven by her relative H. E., made statements and explanations in the presence of the Board of Inspectors, Human Resources, and Legal Group managers, and the Regional Manager on the 18th floor where the meeting rooms are located. While making these statements and explanations, she said that there might be some notes at her home in Göktürk, but since she did not want to go alone, she went to her home in Göktürk with the Regional Manager upon her request. After finding a few diaries in the house where N. A., whom she stated was her aunt, was also present, she returned to the bank.

When the diaries in question were examined, no meaningful information was found in their contents. Seçil Erzan took these diaries with her when she went to her house in Çorlu in the evening. In her written and signed defense taken within the scope of the administrative investigation to be conducted about her, she said, '...there was actually no fund, that she gave some of the money she collected as principal and interest payments to people she had previously received money from, that she also became excessively indebted within this framework, that she lost her assets, that even though she told these people that there was no fund, no one wanted to believe it, and that some of the people she told even used force and violence against her and wanted this Ponzi scheme to continue...'

On the same day, around 22:00, while all these statements were being taken, she returned to the house in Çorlu, where she stated that her mother and a few relatives were also present, together with H. E., who had been waiting for her in the bank's general directorate lobby without leaving, and spent the night there. Since she stated during her statements that she was constantly being threatened, a vehicle containing two unarmed security guards was kept waiting near the house in order to notify the security forces in case of a possible threat and/or assault. Seçil Erzan was personally informed about this, and she thanked our Bank for this sensitivity.

The next day, on Monday morning, April 10, she came to the general directorate again with the same vehicle, which also contained the same relative and that relative's spouse, and continued her statements. The DenizBank Board of Inspectors preliminary investigation report, which was created with the statements of the complainants who applied to the bank starting from April 7 to April 10 and which stated that there were no entries or exits to the accounts at DenizBank and therefore no banking crime could be detected, was delivered to the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, which was conducting the investigation, on April 10. During the delivery of the report, the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office clearly stated that there was no application from any victim other than the notification made by DenizBank, that the only application made on this subject was by the Bank, and that no banking crime could be detected in the initial examination made by the Public Prosecutor's Office in the report.

During these two days when her statement was taken, questions were asked to Seçil Erzan to understand the incident and its content, to learn the amount of money subject to the transaction, and to learn the names of the people subject to the transaction. The statements of the people who complained to our Bank were compared with what Seçil Erzan told, and it was investigated whether the transactions subject to the complaints were in our Bank's records.

At the end of the examinations, it was concluded that the acts alleged to have been committed by Seçil Erzan were carried out without using the accounts in our Bank, by using her relationships outside of her duties. Seçil Erzan, who completed her statements to the Board of Inspectors on the same day, returned to the house in Çorlu, where her relatives were also present, around 19:35 with H. E. and his wife again. She was detained by the police at midnight and gave a statement to the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office on April 11. She was sent to the Magistrate's Court with a request for arrest and was arrested after repeating the same statement in court.

OUR RESPONSES TO THE DELIBERATE ALLEGATIONS THAT SEÇİL ERZAN WAS HELD CAPTIVE BY OUR BANK AND THAT EVIDENCE WAS DESTROYED

Contrary to the information provided by certain claimants in the public eye, especially for manipulation purposes;

• Seçil Erzan's statement was taken within the scope of the administrative investigation initiated by our Bank,
• The statement-taking processes were carried out in the presence of personnel working in the relevant and authorized boards of our Bank and entirely within the framework of the provisions of Laws No. 5411 and 4857 and relevant legislation,
• During the statement-taking phase carried out on April 9, Seçil Erzan came with the vehicle driven by her relative H. E. and belonging to another relative, E. E. H. E. waited for Seçil Erzan in the bank's lobby throughout the statement process, and after the statement was finished, she returned to the house where they were staying with her mother in Çorlu with the same vehicle and spent the night there.
• Since Seçil Erzan stated in her statements that she was in fear due to the threats and assault incidents she was subjected to, a vehicle containing two security guards who did not carry weapons was kept waiting near her house on April 9 in order to notify the security forces if necessary. Seçil Erzan was also informed about the matter, and she thanked our Bank for this sensitivity.
• Seçil Erzan came to the second meeting held on April 10 with the same vehicle belonging to the aforementioned relative, which was also accompanied by her relative H. E. and H. E.'s spouse. Upon her statement that she 'could not sleep all night and was very weak,' and with her consent, vitamin and serum supplements prepared under the supervision of one of the five doctors working in the polyclinic that serves more than four thousand of our employees in our general directorate building were administered by the on-duty senior nurse. We regret to state that this support, which was provided entirely for Seçil Erzan's health and within the framework of good faith, is being distorted by some lawyers who give statements to the press and used against our Bank.
• Since Seçil Erzan stated that she could not open her existing phones because the claimants and people whose names she could not give were constantly disturbing her, a phone containing a line belonging to our Bank was also delivered to her so that she could notify the security forces or us if necessary. The claim of a broken phone, which is included in some news, is completely untrue, and Seçil Erzan delivered the phone, which was stated to be broken, to the Prosecutor's Office as evidence through her lawyer. The messages obtained from these phones and not deleted by Seçil Erzan are in the court file.
• After the statement was finished, Seçil Erzan returned to the house in Çorlu, where she was staying with her relatives, around 19:30 with the same vehicle driven by H. E. again. She was detained by the police that same night."

As can be understood from our explanations, our Bank did not have a detention or similar attitude, and Seçil Erzan did not make a statement to the contrary in her first statement she gave to the Prosecutor's Office on April 11. On the other hand, she mentioned such an issue in her second statement dated May 3, the motive and pressure under which she gave it are unknown, but she also stated that there was no detention or similar attitude in reality by saying, '...in fact, they were treating me so well...' She maintained the same attitude by stating that she had no complaints about this issue in her statement during the hearing on November 20. The comings and goings to the bank's general directorate, the details of which are included above, were carried out entirely in the company of vehicles and persons belonging to her relatives, and on Sunday and Monday, when her statement was taken, she went to the house where she was staying in Çorlu after her statement and spent both evenings in this house. She was even given a phone to use if necessary. In this case, it is obvious that she always had the opportunity to reach the Public Prosecutor, the police, and/or anyone she wished. The matter is already being investigated separately by the Public Prosecutor's Office.

'WE HAVE NO CONNECTION TO THE PONZI SCHEME'

In this context, all movements of Seçil Erzan between her entry and exit to our Bank, and her entries and exits in the lobby and meeting room, have been determined by camera recordings and submitted to the Public Prosecutor's Office along with a report. Under these circumstances, describing the implementation of the procedures we are legally obliged to fulfill as our Bank 'detaining its personnel' is an unacceptable allegation. To state it more clearly; all allegations that 'Seçil Erzan was pressured and even deprived of her liberty in order to give a statement that there is no embezzlement crime, that the matter has nothing to do with the bank, and to eliminate evidence in this context' are completely baseless. Moreover, the papers that the claimants call documents have been submitted to the court files by the complainants and their attorneys. Since there is no record of a Ponzi scheme at DenizBank, naturally, there can be no destruction of any evidence. DenizBank has immediately submitted all other information and documents requested from it by the Public Prosecutor's Office and the BRSA to the relevant authorities. In this context, while camera recordings taken in bank branches, which are considered sensitive areas, are generally kept for two-three months as a general practice, our Bank, which some complainant lawyers accuse of destroying evidence, delivered the approximately 10-month branch records of our Levent Büyükdere Street Branch, which were detected by 27 cameras, to the judicial authorities at the very beginning of the investigation.

As stated above, the necessity of taking Seçil Erzan's statement is a matter regulated by law, and acting in the opposite direction would mean a violation of the Bank's duty.

At this point, we would like to state specifically that; as a result of the examination and evaluation made by the BRSA, since it was understood that the crime of embezzlement within the scope of Law No. 5411 could not be in question, the written application process was not initiated. If the existence of an embezzlement crime within the scope of Law No. 5411 had been determined by a court decision, the bank would have paid the embezzled money to the rightful owners as required by the legislation and then could have applied to the insurance policy. Therefore, although our Bank does not have a reflex to avoid a situation that has a solution within the framework of its own rules, the statements that 'Seçil Erzan was detained to destroy evidence regarding the crime of embezzlement' are aimed at misleading the judicial authorities and the public and damaging our Bank's reputation.

We would also like to present to the public's information that if our Bank, which is a joint-stock company under BRSA supervision, makes a payment for an act that is not embezzlement without any court decision, it would be then that the bank executives would have committed the crime of embezzlement within the scope of Law No. 5411. As we have stated above, in the face of the matter having been brought to the judiciary, we have full faith that the statements and allegations in the press that do not reflect the truth will be clarified as soon as possible.

DOES THE BRANCH MANAGER HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RECEIVE MONEY?

Upon the application of the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, the records of 23 banks, including DenizBank, were examined by inspectors assigned by the BRSA. On page 41 of the report dated 16.06.2023 and numbered 88387, which was prepared as a result of the examination in question, it is stated: 'It has been determined that the money alleged to have been received by Seçil Erzan did not enter the Bank's records and/or the Bank's assets in any way, that there may be an element of deception in the transactions (showing a non-existent fund as if it existed), and that Seçil Erzan did not have a duty to accept physical and cash money from customers in her service contract.'

At DenizBank, no one other than the teller staff has the authority to accept cash. Banking transactions in all banks in Turkey are carried out in the systems of the relevant banks, and all kinds of cash acceptance transactions made from branches can only be made through tellers by personnel assigned for this task. Considering that almost all of the complainants are customers of DenizBank and other banks, it is contrary to the ordinary flow of life to say that the rule is not known by these people.

DID DENIZBANK EXECUTIVES HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SO-CALLED FUND?

Again, on page 41 of the same report, it is stated: 'In the criminal complaint dated 19.04.2023, which is seen to be included in the scope of the investigation numbered 2023/82925 conducted by the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, Bank Executives Hakan Ateş, Mehmet Aydoğdu, and Seçil Erzan are shown as suspects. There is detailed information in the Report regarding the acts attributed to Seçil Erzan. Although it is alleged in some of the suspect statements that Seçil Erzan collected money with the promise of earning interest with the expectation of high returns in a fund managed by Bank Executives Hakan Ateş and Mehmet Aydoğdu, no signs (circulars, contracts, advertisements, receipt descriptions, money movements, and other documents) regarding the existence of such a fund managed by the mentioned Bank Executives and to which the money obtained from the complainants was transferred in terms of records or cash have been encountered.' By stating this, it was clearly stated that DenizBank Board members and executives had no connection or knowledge of the subject, as some complainant lawyers claimed, and it was decided that there was no place for a written application regarding the crime of embezzlement within the framework of the BRSA Report.

As can be understood from this information; complainant attorneys manipulate the documents in the criminal case file as they wish in written and visual media and freely make information contrary to the facts recklessly. They give the meaning they want to the pieces of paper that the complainants have in their hands, which they obtained not at the moment of money delivery but later, which have no meaning in terms of banking, do not show any banking transaction, and the meaning of which is not even clear, and they state that their clients were defrauded with these documents. In the hearing on November 20, each of the complainants stated that they obtained the papers in their hands on dates after they delivered the money to Seçil Erzan or her couriers in cash.

A part of the phone conversation that A.T., who claims to have given money to Seçil Erzan, had with Seçil Erzan on the evening of April 7, which was submitted to the court by his attorney and deciphered by the police units, is included below;

A.T.: How many people are there, 20-25, Seçil, for God's sake, don't lie to us anymore, our children are in a difficult situation

Seçil ERZAN: Arda, there aren't 100 people, wait... uh...

A.T.: How many people are there, take a guess, think about it

Seçil ERZAN: One minute... uh... there are 10 football players

A.T.: Yes

Seçil ERZAN: Uh... well, 10 from my side, that is... 10 from my close circle.

A.T.: Well, there is Terim, Fatih coach's thing, then

Seçil ERZAN: That's the total... That's all of them, like 21-22

A.T.: Look Seçil. Listen well to what I'm going to tell you, look, we are currently holding all these prosecutor's office matters, the police, everything. We are not sending anyone anywhere. If you tell the truth about these, we will try to solve this matter with the bank. If it's 20 people, we go and try to solve this with the bank. But if you tell me, Arda, there are 100 people, this won't work...

Seçil ERZAN: Let's say the maximum is 23 people, let's say 25 people. There aren't even that many. Yeah...

A.T.: So Seçil, if it's 25 people, we go and sit down and talk, do you know all of our losses

Seçil ERZAN: I know, I know those who are at a loss. I mean, at a loss... for example, Emre didn't take it, you completed your principal, you didn't take the interest

A.T.: Forget the interest. I'm going to count it for you anyway. The things, etc., 8,250, etc., forget those, he took all of them by hand. My exact principal comes to about 7,650. I counted them all. You understand. You didn't give, you didn't pay.

Seçil ERZAN: How is yours from the ones paid

A.T.: No, the ones paid... oh Seçil, I'm a mess, you know Emre...

Seçil ERZAN: Well, I had all of them written down somewhere, I'm going to take them out

A.T.: Well, Fatih coach, is Fatih coach in profit from this business

Seçil ERZAN: Honestly Arda, I'm going to tell you something, under normal conditions, the coach was in profit, because the coach's... you are alone, right...

A.T.: I'm alone, I'm alone. The coach was in profit, right

Seçil ERZAN: Yeah... Yeah...

A.T.: Well, the coach's loans have also come out. That poor man is a mess from there too

Seçil ERZAN: ... they are closing the road like that. I will take them out one by one now

A.T.: Well, I'm going to say something. This Hakan brother. Now Hakan Ateş heard this today, Mehmet Aydoğdu heard it. Didn't they have any idea about anything at all

Seçil ERZAN: No, they will ruin me. But what will they do...

A.T.: You, you don't think about the bank, Seçil. You are currently, we, I mean we, I mean we are holding everyone so that they don't report you to the prosecutor's office. You, you tell us the truth so that we can find a solution and wrap this up as soon as possible, otherwise the prosecutor's office, etc., will be a thousand and one troubles, I mean, there is no lie in this business, you will lie in prison for years

As can be seen from these statements, it is obvious that our Bank's senior management had no knowledge of the incident. Although many complainants stated in their statements that Seçil Erzan could not be reached for months and that those who reached her were stalled, the fact that none of them applied to our Bank, the BRSA, or other official institutions before the notification made by DenizBank on April 7 completely eliminated the possibility of our Bank's management being aware of events developing outside the bank.

WHY ARE DENIZBANK AND ITS EXECUTIVES BEING TARGETED?

After the application made by our Bank on April 7, 29 complainants applied to our Board of Inspectors within a few days, claiming that they were defrauded by Seçil Erzan. None of these complainants made a statement that the name of any of our Bank's executives was used while being defrauded by Seçil Erzan, but after our Prosecutor's Office complaint, some lawyers who filed complaints began to try to collect money that could not be collected from Seçil Erzan by pressuring bank executives, by involving the names of all domestic and foreign Board members and some executives of the bank who had nothing to do with the incident, without showing any evidence. In this direction, behaviors that could even be a threat to the Turkish banking system were not avoided. Even precautionary attachment decisions were taken against the bank using papers that they themselves admitted were fake, which have no meaning in the banking system and were not issued by the bank, and an attempt was made to execute this decision in front of the press. The application made by the bank to the Regional Court of Justice against this decision was accepted, and the unfair and unlawful precautionary attachment decision was canceled. As we stated above, the complainants, who do not see it possible to collect this money from Seçil Erzan, have unfairly filed a lawsuit against the Bank for the collection of their receivables. As can be understood from all these experiences, an attempt is being made to create public pressure on the bank and its executives.

20 QUESTIONS - 20 ANSWERS

Within the framework of the events we have summarized above, the question-and-answer section below has been included in order to answer all the questions frequently asked in the public eye in the light of the data we have. The aim here is to present the distorted facts, procedures, and legal contents to the public's information correctly, thereby preventing the intense manipulation effort and ensuring that the process is carried out healthily.

1) How much interest were banks paying on USD in the past period? What are the interest rates demanded by the complainants in the system?

In these periods, the annual interest rate on foreign currency accounts did not exceed 4 percent. The mentioned 4 percent interest rate refers to the annual interest, and for a deposit deposited for one month, for example, one-twelfth of 4 percent is paid to the depositor. Throughout the banking system, all rates are expressed annually.

On the other hand, in the Ponzi scheme, the 30-40 percent return offered even in short terms in dollars (such as three days, five days, one month) corresponds to interest rates starting from 250 percent in annual simple rates and reaching exorbitant rates such as 2607 percent, which everyone knows is not realistic and has no place in banking practices.

2) While the Bank was notifying the crime report on April 7 regarding suspicion of embezzlement, fraud, and other crimes, why did the prosecution continue only regarding fraud and other crimes later?

On the day the incident was learned, April 7, 2023, as a result of only a few hours of examination by our Board of Inspectors, due to the urgency of the situation, a crime report was filed by our lawyers to the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office on the same day with a request for a confidentiality order and a travel ban, regarding suspicion of embezzlement, forgery of private documents, and fraud. As can be understood from this, it has only been a few hours since it was learned, so it is not a time frame that would allow for the nature of the case and the qualification of the crime. However, as a result of the examinations, as stated in the reports prepared by both our Bank's Board of Inspectors and the BRSA, no findings regarding embezzlement were found in the incident. For this reason, a decision of non-prosecution was made regarding embezzlement, and the process continues in terms of qualified fraud and forgery of private documents.

3) Is there a 5-year limit regarding the term of office of a Branch Manager in a branch?

Looking at the customs in the banking sector, branch managers can serve in the same branch for 5 years or more. There is no legislative provision preventing this. Here, essentially, it is ensured that at least one of the branch operations manager (who also has the responsibility of controlling all transactions) or the branch manager changes at least every five years. This rule was also applied in this branch, and the operations manager was changed three times during the period when Seçil Erzan was the manager. In addition, an employee who has served as a manager in the same branch for a long time in our Bank is subject to an intensive audit plan for their branch. This branch was also audited 11 times during the 10-year period when Seçil Erzan served. However, because the transactions were taking place off-the-record, that is, outside the banking system, no detection could be made. On the other hand, almost all of Seçil Erzan's off-the-record transactions took place during the period she worked at the Levent Büyükdere Street Branch, where she had been serving since June 2022.

4) Can a Branch Manager collect money, can they receive it? Do they have the authority for this?

According to DenizBank's internal regulations and job description, it is forbidden for a branch manager to touch money, receive money from customers, and deliver money. According to our Bank's Disciplinary Regulation, acts of 'taking part in any stage of giving money to a customer or receiving money from a customer outside the safe in a way contrary to procedures, turning a blind eye to such practices' are subject to 'Severe Reprimand,' and acts of 'taking part in any stage of giving money to a customer or receiving money from a customer outside the safe in a way contrary to procedures, turning a blind eye, and causing customer complaints or damage to DenizBank or its customers as a result of these practices, or making these practices a habit' are subject to the penalty of 'Termination of Employment Contract Without Notice and Without Compensation.'

Already, Seçil Erzan stated in her statement to the court at the hearing that she did not have the authority to receive or give cash in her job description, and the BRSA report also confirmed this issue.

5) Was Seçil Erzan chosen as the banker of the year?

Seçil Erzan, who started her career in our Bank in 2000, was promoted to the position of branch manager in 2010, at the age of 33. There is no such practice as 'Banker of the Year' in our Bank as reflected in the press. As in all banks, many campaigns are carried out in our Bank to achieve goals according to the priorities of the period within the year, and many of our branch managers are rewarded according to their success. According to our branch ranking system, which shows our annual evaluation results since 2010 when she became a branch manager, she was only in the top 20 branches once, and in the other years, she always remained outside the rankings.

However, our Levent Büyükdere Street Branch, where Seçil Erzan is alleged to have gone by promotion, is in the same segment as our Florya Branch, which is her old branch. Therefore, it is a horizontal transfer, and there is no promotion in question.

6) Do the papers in the hands of the complainants have any meaning in terms of banking?

The submitted papers are not based on any banking transaction and were probably produced by Seçil Erzan without using the banking system. The papers in question are PAPERS THAT WERE PRODUCED AFTER THE DELIVERY OF THE MONEY, WHICH IS CLEARLY EVIDENT FROM THE STATEMENTS IN THE FILE, PHONE CONVERSATION RECORDS, AND WHATSAPP CORRESPONDENCE, PRODUCED BY THE CLAIMANTS TO PROVE THE MONEY THEY DELIVERED AND ESPECIALLY TO COLLECT THIS MONEY FROM OUR BANK, WITH THE LEARNING BY THE CLAIMANTS THAT THE PONZI SCHEME WAS CLOGGED AND THAT THE STRUCTURE IN QUESTION HAD COLLAPSED.

All papers submitted by the claimants were not produced in the bank's system, therefore they have no trace records, do not contain any debt-credit records on them, and cannot be tracked from the system. These papers; are like diary pages, note papers, lined notebook papers, and A4 papers, and were mostly created by hand and in a non-serious manner. It cannot be claimed that these are documents, and it is not possible to track money and documents that do not enter the banking system.

Treating these papers as documents given regarding a banking transaction and making any payment by the bank based on them is also not possible - since all banking laws and regulations are based on recorded transactions and documents issued regarding them. From this point of view, for example, when a claimant applies to the bank with a paper containing the phrase one hundred million USD, will the bank pay it? If such a path is opened, it will even be within the realm of possibility for any bank employee to act with 3rd parties outside and collapse the banking system.

7) Are the papers given to the complainants by Seçil Erzan, as she claims, produced in the bank system? Is it possible for these to be tracked by the bank?

Since all papers produced by Seçil Erzan were produced by her 'outside the bank system,' there is no log record (computer trace record) regarding these papers in the system. These papers; are like diary pages, note papers, lined notebook papers, and A4 papers, and were mostly created by hand and in a non-serious manner. It is also not possible to claim that these are documents. Money and documents that do not enter the banking system cannot be tracked.

As additional information; all transactions made by our customers from our tellers are both recorded in the system and their receipts are trackable. When money is deposited or withdrawn from bank tellers, Bank systems automatically produce receipts. Accounting records formed at the moment of the transaction regarding these receipts are instantly tracked in branch and general directorate systems. There is no receipt application that does not come out of the system and has no record in the system. Today, documents given to customers by banks are not produced by hand or outside the banking system. None of the papers submitted to the court by the complainants within the scope of the incident were produced in the banking system. Since all of the complainants are financially literate and even qualified investors, it is obvious that they have the knowledge to distinguish the papers alleged to have been given to them by Seçil Erzan from a real banking document. It is available in our Bank's system trace records that those of the aforementioned who have accounts in our Bank have made real banking transactions, including fund buying and selling, many times through our internet banking, mobile banking, and branch channels, and this has been submitted to the court.

8) When were the papers in the hands of the complainants delivered to them?

In the statements in the file numbered 2023/341 E. of the Istanbul 41st High Criminal Court, which were given within the scope of the investigations conducted, those who transferred money to the system said that 'they were not given any document by the aforementioned when this money was delivered to Seçil Erzan,' and that they obtained the papers from Seçil Erzan later upon their request. This issue is also clearly evident in the deciphered tapes.

9) A large number of complainants state that they received money from the system. Did they receive any document regarding these?

No written document has been submitted to our Bank regarding the repayments stated to have been made by Seçil Erzan. As a matter of fact, as in the amounts alleged to have been deposited into the so-called system, no record has been encountered in our Bank's system regarding the amounts stated to have been received back, and no document regarding the amounts that the complainants stated they collected has been presented to the court to date. Regarding the money delivery; no receipt has been presented that would even prove the place of delivery, time, date, and amount. The mentioned amounts do not go beyond statements.

10) Is the signature of Branch Operations Manager Asiye Öztürk present on some documents? If so, how were these signatures obtained?

In three fake documents, there is the signature of Branch Operations Manager Asiye Öztürk in addition to Seçil Erzan. Branch Operations Manager Asiye Öztürk stated that at the time she signed the documents, the first signature was signed by Branch Manager Seçil Erzan, that Seçil Erzan, during a busy moment of the branch, also covered the top of the papers, said that customers were waiting for urgent transactions, and made her hurry, preventing her from checking the content of the papers. The aforementioned stated that she signed the papers in question only because her supervisor forced her, but that she had no knowledge of the content of the documents. Thus, Seçil Erzan corrupted Asiye Öztürk's will.

On the other hand, Seçil Erzan also signed fake signatures on behalf of Asiye Öztürk as 'A.Öztürk' on two documents. If Asiye Öztürk and Seçil Erzan were acting together, Seçil Erzan would not have felt the need to sign a fake signature on behalf of Asiye Öztürk, and even Asiye Öztürk's signature would be on all papers subject to the incident, not on three documents.

11) What does it mean to have a single signature or a double signature on a document? Does having two signatures on a document make that document valid?

All of the papers in the hands of the complainants, regardless of the number of signatures on them, do not show a real transaction and are not documents produced by the bank. The papers in question were produced later by Seçil Erzan in order to be able to direct the demands of the complainants in the Ponzi scheme to the bank. Having a single or double signature on produced fake documents has no meaning.

12) Do Branch Managers have the authority to establish a fund?

Let alone the Bank's Branch Managers, even the bank does not have the authority to establish a fund. A fund can only be established by Portfolio Management Companies with SPK permission. Banks, on the other hand, can mediate the sale of fund shares of established funds.

Provisions regarding investment funds are included in Articles 52 and 54 of the Capital Markets Law No. 6362, and the Communiqué on Principles Regarding Investment Funds (III-52.1) has been put into effect based on the mentioned articles. The mentioned Communiqué regulates the principles regarding the establishment of investment funds, their operating principles and rules, participation shares and their issuance, and public disclosure. The principles regarding the establishment and commencement of operations of portfolio management companies are regulated in Article 55 of the Capital Markets Law No. 6362. A fund can only be established by Portfolio Management Companies with SPK permission. Just as Seçil Erzan does not have any authority to establish a fund, it is also not possible to call the system stated to have been created by Seçil Erzan a fund. Moreover, in the capital market, where the framework is determined by laws and there are heavy sanctions, funds cannot be secret, they must be public. Every established fund is announced on corporate websites or through the Public Disclosure Platform. On the other hand, the owners of such fund shares already have the opportunity to check their assets (whether they exist or the amount) whenever they want through both the Central Registry Agency and the internet banking and mobile banking systems of the banks they work with. In addition, all funds established in accordance with the Capital Markets Board legislation can also be viewed through the Turkey Electronic Fund Distribution Platform (TEFAS).

13) Where can citizens see the fund information belonging to them?

It is possible for customers to monitor, track, and control the existence, account balances, and returns of investment funds in banks or intermediary institutions through the branches of the intermediary institution, mobile banking, and internet banking, or through the Central Registry Agency's website with E-Government or Republic of Turkey Citizenship Number.

14) Do those who deposit and withdraw money from Ponzi schemes have any responsibility?

The claimants delivered their personal savings to Seçil Erzan or her couriers by hand outside the banking system and mostly in places outside the branch premises, and some even preferred to give them by withdrawing their assets from DenizBank. This situation shows that the individuals who made the notification knew that their money was being evaluated in a formation similar to a Ponzi scheme or pyramid system outside our Bank. It is evaluated that Seçil Erzan established a system in the form of a Ponzi scheme, which she created by providing from various individuals, and promised exorbitant returns to people. The return expectations stated by the individuals in their statements are also high on a scale that does not fit the realities of financial life when compared with the returns of ordinary banking investment products. In the light of the mentioned issues, it is evaluated that the claimants knew that the amounts they said they gave to Seçil Erzan were not evaluated in the banking system, that many of them were connected to each other, that they were largely included in the Ponzi scheme by persuading each other, and therefore they showed the will to act together.

All of our branches are monitored 24/7 with an average of 20 cameras, and the 24/7 recordings of the 27 cameras in our Levent Büyükdere Street branch were delivered to the Istanbul Police Department Financial Crimes Branch Directorate upon the instruction of the Prosecutor's Office, day by day, backwards from the incident date of April 7 to July 27, 2022, and copies of the recordings belonging to the days stated by the complainants were also taken by us. In the recordings of the claimants, which were watched one by one regarding these events, no image was encountered showing that they delivered money at the branch teller, and it was also determined that many of them did not come to the branch on the mentioned days. In this context, while camera recordings taken in bank branches, which are considered sensitive areas, are generally kept for two-three months as a general practice, our Bank, which some complainant lawyers accuse of destroying evidence, delivered approximately 10 months of branch camera recordings to the judicial authorities.

15) What happened to the money delivered in a suitcase with a GPS attached by one of the complainants? How can it be explained that he had enough suspicion to attach a GPS to his suitcase and deposited money into the system again despite detecting this?

In the Prosecutor's Office petition, the complainant in question summarized that; on 14.11.2022, he delivered money in the amount of 2,500,000 USD to Seçil Erzan with two or three bags, that he attached a GPS device to the bag he carried the money in because he carried large amounts of money at different times, that the bags with GPS attached were tracked by the customer, subsequently, on a date he remembered as 15.11.2022 or 16.11.2022, around 01.00 at night, Seçil Erzan called him and asked a question in the form of 'Was there a GPS device attached to the money bag you gave me?' and that he stated 'There might be GPS devices, but I don't know which bag it is in,' after this process, someone called him from the number 5********* and questioned him in a tense tone whether the bag with the GPS device belonged to him and that he learned that the bag with the GPS device was given by Seçil Erzan, that he learned that this person who called was a well-known former football player, subsequently, he called Seçil Erzan and asked 'why she gave the bag to this person,' and Seçil Erzan stated 'this person and his wife are at the bank, don't ever mention that there is money in the bag next to them,' in short, he stated that he understood that the money he gave to Seçil Erzan was given to another former football player. The fact that the claimant continued to deliver additional cash to Seçil Erzan by hand even after this incident, despite the highly suspicious events mentioned above, is a subject that needs explanation.

16) Can the bank ask its customers who want to withdraw money why you are withdrawing your money? Does the bank have the luxury of not making a payment?

It is not possible for the Bank to limit the demands of the deposit customer regarding money withdrawals. In accordance with Article 61 of the Banking Law, Banks are obliged to fulfill the demand of the deposit holder to withdraw their money. For this reason, money withdrawals made from their own accounts were essentially considered normal by the bank, suspicious transactions were questioned, and however, since reasonable explanations were made in the explanations made by the depositors for this purpose without ever mentioning the transactions they thought of doing with Seçil Erzan, the transactions were not subject to suspicious transaction reports.

To explain the subject with an example, a complainant requested to withdraw the money in the amount of approximately 2 million USD in his Currency Protected Deposit account, which had one day left to maturity. Considering the loss the customer would suffer if he withdrew his money and the amount of profit he would provide if he waited only one more day, it was reported that he would suffer a loss of 65 thousand USD, but the customer insisted on withdrawing his money by declaring that he would 'buy a house.' Our branch employee, who suspected that the customer might have been exposed to a fraud incident, went to the customer's house and reminded him of his losses again, although there was no such legal obligation, but the complainant confirmed to our employee that he would 'buy the house he resides in with the money at a very cheap price.' As can be understood from his own statement to the Prosecutor's Office, he delivered the money he withdrew from the bank and took out of the bank to Seçil Erzan's courier in front of a restaurant without receiving any document. As can be understood from the concrete incident, our Bank is making an effort far beyond its legal obligations to protect its customers. The person in question is the complainant who first reported the Ponzi scheme to our Bank on April 7.

17) Does the bank have any responsibility regarding the savings of the complainants who have accounts after they withdraw their money from the teller?

The bank cannot place a restriction or obstacle on the customer withdrawing their money. If the customer wants to withdraw, the bank is obliged to pay the customer's money. Since the money is already in the system, it is the customer's natural right to withdraw their own money. The bank questioning the customer 'why they are withdrawing the money' is also contrary to the Personal Data Protection Law and the Banking Law.

In the event that the account holder withdraws cash from the bank account, that is, takes it out of the banking system, the bank's possession and responsibility over the money disappear. The only condition for this is that the account holder must sign in the event of a cash withdrawal. In practice, the signature of the account holder or the persons they authorize is taken on the receipt regarding the cash withdrawal produced through bank systems. With this practice, the Bank's responsibility over the withdrawn money also comes to an end.

With the withdrawal of the money in cash, the person who owns the money becomes the only person who has both possession and the authority to dispose of the money. The only responsibility and right of use of the cash money withdrawn from the bank belongs to the money owner himself. After this, the bank has no responsibility for the fate of money taken out of the banking system.

For example, the money transferred by the former football player to his brother's account and withdrawn in cash from the branch by his brother was then delivered to a third person who is not our Bank's personnel and was taken out of the bank by this person (It was determined in retrospective camera examinations that this third person is A.Y., who does Seçil Erzan's money carrying transactions and is still under arrest). The speculations made by a complainant attorney in the press as 'my client delivered his money inside the bank' and 'so much money is delivered to someone else in the bank, doesn't the bank notice this?' are baseless and absurd.

18) Is cash withdrawal of over 50 thousand USD subject to audit as stated in her statement?

It is not. Such an audit practice does not exist in our Bank and the sector. The subject regarding transactions of 50 thousand USD and over is being reflected to the public incorrectly. In effective deposits and cash deposits, banks can investigate the source of money deposited into accounts without any limitation according to their own internal practices within the framework of the rules for preventing money laundering. In cash withdrawals, it is not legally possible for the Bank to place such a control on its customers' assets. Every restriction to be placed on deposit withdrawal constitutes the crime of preventing the right of withdrawal of deposit holders according to Article 61 of the Banking Law.

Notifications made to MASAK are only made if the transaction is seen as suspicious. There is no suspicious side to the account holder or the person they authorize withdrawing money from the account.

19) Has there been any suggestion by public institutions and organizations for the bank to pay the money?

The mentioned allegations in the press and social media are completely untrue, and no direction or suggestion has been made to our Bank or any of its executives on this subject by any official authority.

20) Why doesn't the bank pay this amount, which does not hold an important place in its balance sheet size and profitability, and close the subject?

Although the amounts subject to the incident do not have a significant size for a bank and therefore within the size of our Bank's equity; we would also like to present to the public's information that if our Bank, which is a joint-stock company under BRSA supervision, makes a payment for an act that is not embezzlement without any court decision, it would be then that the bank executives making the payment would have committed the crime of embezzlement within the scope of Law No. 5411."

News Source: 12punto