As a result;

1. 1. The claims,
      1. That 7 billion, 40 million USD was siphoned abroad,
      2. That the collection of donation gold was shown as production,
      3. That money was laundered and transferred to a terrorist organisation,
      4. That the Koza Foundation received a 122 million TL transfer from the Eregli Iron and Steel Works were the justifications for the raid on the Koza Ipek Group; were investigated and no crime was found

1. The claims of:
   1. Money laundering,
   2. Smurf village,
   3. Keeping double-entry accounting,
   4. The computers being ‘tired’,
   5. Whether the Bergama gold mine was bought cheaply,
   6. Ipek Media investments, the process for the purchase of Kanalturk,
   7. The establishment of KOZA Ltd in the UK,
   8. Whether the collection of donation gold was shown as production,
   9. Whether speculation was made over the number of licences,
   10. Claims for financing terrorism, that constituted the grounds for appointing trustees on 26.10.2015, were investigated and no crime was found.
2. There is no suspicious source, expense or increase in Tekin Ipek’s assets. The results of the MASAK report dated 04.05.2016 proved that there was no suspicious transaction.
3. Tekin Ipek does not fit any of the criteria that the prosecutor identified as being associated with a terror organisation. Tekin Ipek has neither owned a smart phone on which encrypted communication applications could be downloaded, nor has he held social media accounts such as Twitter, Facebook, etc. He has at no time and in no place ever commented on political issues either; not once in his whole life.
4. Tekin Ipek has never held a position in Ipek Media. Tekin Ipek has never held a position in the Ipek Media in the Group and besides he had no interest in it.Moreover, Ipek Media is a platform. Everyone is responsible for what they write and say. Tekin Ipek is no more responsible for what’s written in the media than a share holder of Twitter Inc. is responsible for a message that a Twitter user writes. It is important to remind people here, that among the journalists who have made programmes and written for Ipek Media, there are people from all walks of life, some of whom are actively working in the media, a broad spectrum of people from ministers in different parties to a rector in the Turkish Military Academy. A full list of people who have worked in Ipek media is included in the appendix.
5. It is impossible for him to be accused as a manager. In addition to the fact that there was no crime committed by the companies, he did not undertake any responsibilty or carry out any activity other than implementing the decisions of the assembly in his managerial role. It was stated in this indictment that the senior/top management and the employees that he assigned jobs to did not take part in any activities other than those in their job descriptions.
6. Despite the spotless MASAK report dated 04.05.2016 which stated that, “we were clean”, there is no explanation as to why his freedom and assets were taken from him on 25.04.2016. It is not only a legal but also a humane obligation to put an end to this unjust treatment which violates the Constitution and human rights and which has become torture.
7. There is no false signature printed on behalf of someone or anyone who claims so. There is no forgery in any private documents either. All the persons on behalf of whom the prosecutor claimed I printed their signatures, stated in their written statements that the signatures belonged to them and that they were not making any complaints. There is no loss in question, either. All the signatures printed either belong to the persons who signed them or were signed by proxy. As there is no one who stated otherwise, it is impossible to understand why the prosecutor even includes this charge in the indictment.

As one of the largest and most profitable groups in Turkey, what else have we done other than founding a university, giving registered and official aid to people in need without discriminating against anyone, showing that we stand by our state by donating tens of millions of TL to schools and mosques in order to fulfill what we feel to be our social responsibility? Moreover, on 07.01.2016, although the YOK report revealed that it had found no adversities in regards to Ipek University when the group was in the management of the trustees, it was confiscated only 6 months later without any justification.

There can be no excuse for the persecution that my family and I have been forced to experience over the past 3 years, despite the fact that for my entire life I have always been a respectful and law-abiding citizen; that I am in poor health as stated in doctor reports, and that my family has never been to a police station.

It is clear that the institutions within the Koza Ipek Group, which were established by our deceased father and which we have built up over the last 70 years, with no priviliges from the state; earned by the sweat of our brow, are very attractive.

Is there any justification in legal or humane terms for seizing the hotels, the planes, the gold mines, the cheese farms, the cars we owned and our offices and assigning them to others, as they have been for the past 3 years. Is there any justification for removing our names from the schools and the mosques that we donated to the state, for even freezing our personal bank accounts and confiscating the houses that we lived in?
Is there any moral or conscientious explanation for my imprisonment for two years without trial after the MASAK report which stated that “we are spotless” and which was submitted to the prosecutor 3 weeks after I was taken from my home, while I was in the middle of a legal battle with the trustees for the wrongdoings they were committing and by whom we were encircled.

My request:
The investigation that the prosecutor started on 05.09.2014, was ended with the MASAK result report that was submitted to the Prosecutor’s Office inclusive of all the subjects on 04.05.2016. There was no crime found.

When the prosecutor should have ended the trusteeship and dropped the case on 05.05.2016, what was he waiting for when he could not have known about the decree law that would be issued a month and a half later?

When all the subjects of the investigation had been investigated and conclusions had been drawn, the only period that was not investigated as of 27.07.2017 when the decree law was issued, and the group had been under the management of the trustees for a year, is the period of the trustee management. Despite this, the prosecutor based his indictment solely on this decree law after it was issued on 27.07.2016 as if there were no trustees in the companies; as if the companies had not been investigated, and as if the investigation had only just started.
However this time he was too late. Because the confiscation that the prosecutor has asked for in his indictment has already been carried out by the decree law, which executes the legislative and the executive activities together, and there is no material request left which the prosecutor could ask for.
As there was no income identified as earned by crime in the companies, and when the institutions had already been confiscated before the prosecutor asked for that; what does the prosecutor want, on behalf of whom and why?
There is nothing that the prosecutor could ask for from the companies because the assets that he counts as crime have already been confiscated.
Confiscating all the 22 companies which operate in different fields, owing to the fact that there is a media company in the group, and holding the managers responsible for the activities in companies that they didn’t work for and for the decisions of the decision making bodies in which they were not a member, can only be insane.
The prosecutor, on behalf of the state, has no authority or right to ask for money from the managers in the name of the companies. Because the only people who could ask for money from the managers in the name of the companies are the owners of the companies.

How could any person or any institution other than the shareholders have the right to object when the owners of the companies come together in a lawful manner and decide the salaries that they are going to pay to the managers, the bonuses out of the profit, the amount of donations, and the fields that they are going to operate in? If there was any objection in the family or in the company, they would have objected in the legal time allowed, and they would not have cleared those who they saw as responsible for these actions in the next assembly. Up until today, there hasn’t been a single case opened by the shareholders against the decisions made by the assembly. All the managers have been cleared at the end of the terms. To open a case against the managers is legally impossible.

If there is any proceeding to be done on behalf of the state, it would be to start a legal proceeding to revert Ipek Media and Ipek University that were confiscated under the management of the trustees appointed by the state, back to their owners. Because, it should be remembered that during the period that started with the appointment of trustees and ended with the decree law, all the audit reports referring to the previous years are positive and all the donations made to the university were made under certain conditions.

In the indictment of the prosecutor, it is clear that 1.5 billion TL, the money which it is still unclear how this sum was calculated by the prosecutor, and which he asked for from the managers, is an unauthorised, illegal, unjust, and fabricated request. In addition to this, it is legally imperative that until this wrongdoing is discovered legally, our money and assets outside the request of the prosecutor should be restituted to their owners, as the court legally cannot ask for more monetary punishment than the prosecutor has asked for.

At least double the amount of 1.5 billion TL that the prosecutor asked for is present as cash in the coffers of our companies.

It is clear that I don’t pose a risk of escaping the country, as I am someone who returned to Turkey of my own free will and submitted my passport when there was a ban on me travelling abroad and did not attempt to escape during the following months and as someone who was found at the address I resided at when searched for.

All the documents relating to the companies have been seized. The companies have been under the management of the trustees for almost two years. There is no remaining proof to be collected, and no proof that could potentially be taken away anymore.

When the existence of my health problems have been established in official doctor reports, I request that my freedom and my assets, taken from me without any legal justification, be restituted to me.