Statement from Atilla Baltaş's lawyer regarding the Terim Fund case: 'That person is my client'

A statement regarding the allegations has been issued by the lawyer for businessman Atilla Baltaş in the Terim Fund case. While stating that Baltaş is a victim, Karadağ said: "The person whom Seçil Erzan claimed before the High Criminal Court that she was expecting money from, and that if that money had arrived, the incident would not have been uncovered yet, is my client Atilla Baltaş."

"WE WILL PURSUE LEGAL ACTION"

The statement included the following remarks:

"As is known, Denizbank Levent Branch Manager Seçil Erzan, who has been on the agenda in recent days, was arrested following complaints alleging that she defrauded numerous wealthy individuals, including well-known figures from the world of football, by embezzling the money handed over to her.

One of the people whose money was taken is my client, businessman Atilla BALTAŞ. Since the investigation came to light, many reports far from the truth have been made in both print and visual media regarding the incident, and some individuals have attempted to undermine the process and discredit my client by making malicious, intentional, and baseless reports about him. We share with the valued public that we will apply for the necessary legal remedies as soon as possible regarding these reports, which have gone so far as to accuse my client baselessly and intentionally, and which have strayed from the purpose of journalism.

"IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY ESTABLISHED"

My client Atilla BALTAŞ is a reputable businessman who has been conducting various commercial activities for many years, both personally and through his companies, primarily in the restaurant and real estate sectors.

We observe with regret that the aforementioned news content includes baseless suspicions and statements such as 'The person named Atilla BALTAŞ should be investigated, does he have the money, is he a loan shark, did he try to kidnap Seçil ERZAN,' etc. For this reason, it has become necessary to make this statement to eliminate the information pollution and to inform the public correctly.

As is known, since my client is not a party to the indictment subject to the case opened at the Istanbul 41st High Criminal Court, we cannot take part in this case as a party. Bank Manager Seçil ERZAN, who is within the scope of the file reflected in the press, stated at the first hearing held in this court that she gave her first statement to the prosecutor's office under the direction and pressure of the Bank. Some of the statements she made under direction and pressure, which are contrary to the truth, are about my client Atilla BALTAŞ. It has been clearly proven within the scope of the file that what the bank manager said about my client is far from the truth. It has become necessary to make our detailed explanations regarding the fact that these are not true.

"HE HANDED THE MONEY TO ERZAN"

1-) In the audio recordings submitted to the file of one of the victims, Arda TURAN, which are thought to have been recorded just 1 day before Seçil ERZAN was arrested, my client Atilla BALTAŞ was asked about by Arda TURAN; Seçil ERZAN gave evasive and again untruthful answers, saying, 'That poor man has received half, three-quarters of his principal, etc.' This fact alone proves that my client did not receive his money as stated in the directed testimony, but as in his petition subject to the complaint.

2-) Regarding the 'Loan Shark' remarks about my client; although my client Atilla BALTAŞ is a businessman who has been trading for many years and works with many banks, he has not deposited money into an interest-bearing account in even a single bank, nor has he earned interest income. This truth is easily understood when his personal accounts and those opened on behalf of his companies at banks are examined. This clearly reveals my client's sensitivity regarding interest. As we stated in our complaint petition, my client did not give the money to Seçil ERZAN to earn interest, but with the expectation of a FUND return starting with the so-called Fatih TERİM, which is granted to private individuals and directed by the bank's senior management. In other words, my client handed the money to Seçil ERZAN in response to the claims that he provided a profit to the so-called Fatih TERİM that was specially created and did not contain interest income.

"HE INFORMED AND WARNED DENIZBANK"

3-) None of my client and the other victims know each other. He did not transfer money to the so-called fund at anyone's direction. It has also emerged that bank manager Seçil has told similar things to many people in the process so far, but has said different things depending on the person. For example, knowing my client's stance against interest, the statement in the form of FUND profit share/gain became an argument to convince him.

4-) My client ensured that the incident in question was uncovered and that the bank learned about the incident. In this sense, it has been ignored that he made a great contribution to preventing irreparable grievances by preventing both the bank and other people from becoming victims. My client ensured this situation as follows;

A-) My client informed and warned Denizbank A.Ş. with the warning letter of the Bakırköy 63rd Notary Public dated 07.04.2023 and numbered 08488. This warning of ours is in the investigation file.

"IT IS OBVIOUS THAT IT DOES NOT CONTAIN A 253 PERCENT INTEREST PROMISE"

B-) Again, on 07.04.2023, we immediately filed a criminal complaint with the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office and exercised our legal right. On the same day as our complaint, Attorney Dr. Hediye ERGİN also filed a complaint on behalf of the victim Bülent ÇEVİKER for a similar reason. As can be seen, my client Atilla BALTAŞ was the first to inform the bank about this issue, and he is the first person to take the incident to the judicial authorities along with the other complainant and ensure that the incident was uncovered. In this way, despite the fact that my client Atilla BALTAŞ was the first to make the notification and complaint against Denizbank and Levent Branch Manager Seçil ERZAN, suspecting him is the product of an irrational understanding. Moreover, the money bag, which was reflected in the press and contained a tracking device and was given to Semih KAYA by the bank manager, which was delivered inside the bank before the incident, also belongs to my client. The definitive evidence that the money was delivered inside the bank could be revealed in this way.

5-) When the documents my client received in return for the money he gave are examined, it is obvious that it does not contain a 253% interest promise as alleged. When the document we submitted to the prosecutor's office file is examined; in return for the principal of 1,500,000.00 USD (one and a half million dollars) given, only a return of approximately 23,000.00 USD (twenty-three thousand USD) was promised at the end of the term. It is very clear that this return remains within legal limits and is reasonable. While saying these, the way other victims gave money or the accuracy or inaccuracy of their claims is not known by us. As stated in the BRSA report, everyone's concrete case varies within itself.

HIS LAWYER PREVENTED HIM FROM GIVING THE MONEY!

6-) The person whom Seçil Erzan claimed before the High Criminal Court that she was expecting money from, and that if that money had arrived, the incident would not have been uncovered yet, is my client Atilla BALTAŞ. My client accepted this request of ERZAN, who told my client just before the incident that he needed to deposit a little more money into the fund with various excuses, and although the money in question was delivered to me as his attorney to be delivered as an attorney; he could not deliver the money because I, as his attorney, did not approve it personally. The only reason I could take initiative in this regard is that I have served the entire family in terms of legal services and our sincere dialogue at the family level that has been formed with the client for a long time. The suspicion that arose in me occurred after it was revealed that the money was given to Semih KAYA with a tracking device, and in this direction, the client was persuaded again and the necessary notifications and criminal complaints were made.

As we explained above, although my client is a victim due to this incident, it is not possible to accept that he is put under suspicion by being put in the same category as those who are alleged to be 'LOAN SHARKS' without accusing anyone, and that news is made by evaluating the suspect's statements, which she specifically stated were directed, as if they were true. We think that all the baseless statements alleged against the client stem from the anger felt at the client's uncovering of the incident. In this regard, we wish for everyone to act in accordance with the presumption of innocence and the right of individuals not to be stigmatized, regardless of who the party is.

News Source: 12punto