>> Other Languages ------------------------ Türkçe

119–3/380
33817
TURKISH REPUBLIC

İSTANBUL 2ND HIGH CRIMINAL COURT

FILE NO: 2006/26                                                        ACQUITTAL
DECREE NO: 2007/7
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR CASE NO: 2003/19113

ON BEHALF OF TURKISH NATION
REASONED DECISION

PRESIDENT: SALİH ÖZTÜRK 20709
MEMBER: NAŞİD GÜREL 22838
MEMBER: NURAN YALINBAŞ 36079
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: ORHAN ERBAY 27986
SECRETARY: ŞAFAK ÜSTÜN 65942

PLAINTIFF: K.H
INTERVENING PARTY: Ebru Şimşek
COMPLAINANTS: 1- Fatih Altaylı and 2-Celal Adan, 3- Mehmet Ağar, 4- Şirin Erdilek, 5-Tuğçe Toras, 6- Seçkin Pililer, 7-Banu Akıncıoğlu, 8- Sabriye Akıncıoğlu, 9- H.Can Akıncıoğlu, 10- Okan Erdem Akıncıoğlu, 11-İlhan Ulaş, 12-Makfire Vanioğlu, 13-Güzide Aydoğmuş, 14-Selma Kıral, 15- Kubilay Göktan, 16- Kemal Orhun Fişek, 17- Mustafa Tarık Binaltı, 18- Güngör Kurunç

LAWYERS: Attorney Rezzan Aydınoğlu, Attorney Nalan Kuğuoğlu

DEFENDANT: ERKAN SEYHAN, son of Şahin and Nurşen, was born in 31/03/1968 in ADAPAZARI, registered and resident in Sakarya, Centre, Orta District.
DEFENSE LAWYER: Attorney Kerim Kalkan, Darülaceze cad. Bilaş iş merkezi A Blok No: 31 Şişli/İstanbul
Attorney Fatih Doğan

DEFENDANT: SERDAR DAYANIK, son of Salih Yüksel and Fatma, was born in 13/06/1968 in ISTANBUL, registered and resident in Istanbul, Eminönü, Hocapaşa District.
DEFENSE LAWYER: Attorney Orhan Kerim İşcan

DEFENDANT: SEMİH SELMAN MARANGOZOĞLU, son of İbrahim and Süheyla, was born in 01/07/1971 İSTANBUL, registered and resident in İstanbul, Eminönü, Hacıkadın District.

Seal-signature sealed and signed
1/5 1/5

DEFENSE LAWYER: Attorney Kerim Kalkan, Darülaceze cad. Bilaş iş merkezi A Blok No: 31 Şişli/İstanbul
Attorney Fatih Doğan

DEFENDANT: MEHMET ALİ BAHADIR GÜVEN, son of Yılmaz and Kadriye Ayla, was born in 20/04/1970 İSTANBUL, registered in Istanbul, faith, Sofular District. TO BE SEIZED

DEFENDANT: BÜLENT TATLICAN, son of Zeynel and Ayşe, was born in 13/03/1967 in YALVAÇ, registered and resident in Isparta, Yalvaç, Sücüllü Aşağı District.
DEFENSE LAWYER: Attorney Naci Kaplan

DEFENDANT: NURİ ÖZBUDAK, son of Sina and Tülin, was born in ANKARA 01/11/1966, registered and resident in İstanbul, Şişli, Meşrutiyet District.
DEFENSE LAWYER: Attorney Kerim Kalkan, Darülaceze cad. Bilaş iş merkezi A Blok No: 31 Şişli/İstanbul
Attorney Fatih Doğan

CRIME: Forming an organisation to commit a crime and participating in its management, deriving personal gain with coercion.
DATE OF CRIME: 12/11/1999
DATE OF DECREE: 22/01/2007

As a result of the trial at our court about the defendants whose detailed identification information stated above:

CLAIM:
It was decided to combine the file of our court with the case no 2004/337, and with the criminal case which filed with no 2004/500 to 7th High Criminal Court about the Defendants: Nuri Özbudak, Semih Selman Marangozoğlu, Erkan Seyhan, Serdar Dayanık, Bülent Tatlıcan and Mehmet Ali Bahadır Güven, by the indictment of Istanbul Public Prosecutor with case no 2003/23411 and on 16.12.2003, for the crimes of forming an organisation, participating the management this organisation and deriving benefit with threat. In accordance with this decision, the file that was sent to our court was registered with the case no 2005/155 and on 23.6.2005 it was decided to combine this file with the file case no 2004/337 by reason of individual, actual and legal connection. However, during the execution of the file with case no 2004/337; it was decided by final court decision with the decision no 2005/230 that the court, on 24.11.2005, case no 2004/337 for Adnan Oktar and his 34 friends, was dissolved by the statutory limitation and it is determined that the court for the defendants; Nuri Özbulak, Semih Selman Marangozoğlu, Erkan Seyhan, Serdar Dayanık, Bülent Tatlıcan and Mehmet Ali Bahadır Güven was decided to split and the segregated file was registered under 2006/26 case no at our court.

Seal-signature sealed and signed

2/5

                                                                                                                        2/5

In the statement of Public Prosecutor on the case, the followings were commented and requested;
 The severance of the case, since the defendant Mehmet Ali Bahadır Güven could not be arrested and interrogated, and the continuation of the sentence of absentia,
The verdict of acquittal for the defendants Nuri Özbudak, Semih Selman Marangozoğlu, Erkan Seyhan, Serdar Dayanık, Bülent Tatlıcan by the reason that there were no certain sufficient and reliable proofs against their conviction for the crime of forming an organisation to commit crime, of being included in the management this organisation.,
The postponing of final decision about the criminal case file against the defendant Bülent Tatlıcan for the crime of deriving benefit with threat in accordance with ( Turkish Criminal Code no 765, the 192/first article) law no 4616 article 1/4.

The Attorneys of the intervening party, Ebru Şimşek: They stated that they are complainant against the defendant Mehmet Ali Bahadır Güven and the other defendants are not included in the crime of deriving benefit with threat committed against Ebru Şimşek.

DEFENSE
As the defendant Mehmet Ali Bahadır Güven could not be arrested, his interrogation was not made.
The defendants in their defence stated that; The Science Research Foundation (Bilim Araştırma Vakfı) was founded in accordance with the laws and operated in conformity with the codes. During the activities of the foundation; neither Ebru Şimşek’s nor anyone else’s the photos were not taken secretly, their videos were not monitored, and the videos were not montaged and used as blackmail and threat against anyone, and Ebru Şimşek had sexual affairs with others in return for money and they had witness statements related to this issue, and the cameras at Silivri farm were not hidden cameras, the police recorded as if there were hidden cameras, the movable or immovable estate, checks, jewellery, car, or money donations to the foundation were made voluntarily by the people, there were no used force, blackmail or threat related to this issue.
As a result, it was stated that there was no sexual exploitation against anyone, they did not derive benefit from threats and blackmail with financial or political purposes, that the Science Research Foundation was founded legally and its activities were publicly known, that they do not accept the statement made at the police station in the preliminary period, that these statements were taken by force under pressure, that the police who used force were determined to be convicted by the court on duty and that the defendants requested a verdict of acquittal from the claimed crimes.
PROOFS

Seal-signature sealed and signed                                                                                             3/5

ASSESSMENT AND LEGAL GROUNDS:
As the defendant Mehmet Ali Bahadır Güven could not be arrested, his interrogation was not made.
Other defendants pleaded that they did not commit the claimed crime.
The attorneys of the intervening party, Ebru Şimşek stated that they are complainant against the defendant Mehmet Ali Bahadır Güven on account of the blackmailing crime and the other defendants did not take part in the crime.

According to the law no 4616, related to the crime of blackmailing, in accordance with all the pertinent proofs for this crime are gathered and the defences of the defendants, the statements of the participant attorneys of Ebru Şimşek, CD images related to Ebru Şimşek watched, besides the statement of the expert Nedim Tarhan who presented his views on the CD images of Ebru Şimşek, the statement of the expert Çağlar Göksu about the house where the videos related to Ebru Şimşek were taken, expressions of the witnesses of the defendants who gave statements about the relationships of Ebru Şimşek that are: Özgür Aydemir, Ahmet Ali Yıldırım, Alkas Çakmak, Alper Çakmak, Tacettin İnce, Yavuz Coşkun, İbrahim özcan, Ecevit Şahin; by the reason that for the suit filed against the defendant Bülent Tatlıcan for the crime of deriving benefit with threat (blackmail), it is determined that the claimed crime of the defendant was not conclusively a reality and as it is in favour of the defendant,  it is concluded that the verdict of acquittal is to be taken for the defendant instead of the cancellation of the final decision for the court in accordance with the law no 4616.

In the case file of our court numbered  2004/337, by the indictment of Public Prosecutor of Istanbul State Security Court on 11.1.2000 with preliminary no 1999/2525; in the indictment it is claimed that Adnan Oktar, Fırat Develioğlu, Emre Nil, Halil Hilmi Müftüoğlu, Mustafa Kemal Gül, Hasan Basri Güler, Uğur Örmen, Ferhat Terkoğu, Ufuk Özturgut, Hatice Tijen Öztemir, Alev Ulaşaoğlu, Meltem Arıkan, Korkut Yasa, Kartal iş, Turgut Aksu, Altuğ Müştak Berker, Burak Sanver, Seçim Köse, Tarkan Yavaş, Ali Suat Kütahnecioğlu, Tolga Horoz, Adnan Tınarlıoğlu, Emre Çalıkoğlu, Bahattin Selçuk Hazineci, Atilla Menevşe, Mesut Soltay, Muhammet Cihat Gündoğdu, Mehmet Murat Atmaca, Murat Terkoğlu, Gökalp Barlan, Ersin Alacadağ, Bekir Murat Sarıaslan, Esragül Efeoğlu, and Hüseyin Avni Cem Yüce, who are known as Adnan Hocacılar (followers of Adnan Hodja) in public, and yet they formed an organisation under the name of Science Research Foundation officially, under the guise of Islamism and behind the image of scientific researcher and adherent of Ataturk's policy. This organisation interpreted the religion of Islam according to their whims, changed the religious rules by themselves, decreased the number of namaz (ritual prayer) firstly to three a day and then two, and tried to make people dependent to them by presenting the opportunities and temptation or blackmail, conspiracy, and threats, and among other things they exploited these people economically and sexually. In order to make these, it is claimed that they used repressive methods and tried to make people dismay, threaten, suppress. In the course of the trial that Celal Adan, Mehmet Ağar, Fatih Altaylı, Ebru Şimşek, Şirin Erdilek, Tuğçe Doras, Seçkin Pililer, Banı Akıncıoğlu, Sabriye Akıncıoğlu, H.Can Akıncıoğlu, Erdem Akıncıoğlu, İlhan Ulaş, Makfire Vanioğlu, Güzide Aydoğmuş, Selma Kıral, Kubilay Göktan, Kemal Orhun Fişek, Mustafa Tarık Binatlı, Güngör Kurunç were stated as complainants;
The cases file with the case no 2005/155 which is processed to our court for the defendants Mehmet Ali Bahadır Güven, Bülent Tatlıcan, Serdar Dayanık, Erkan Seyhan, Semih Selman Marangozoğlu, and Nuri Özbudak, and the file with the case no 2004/337 were combined as there is individual, actual and legal connection between these files.
Seal-signature sealed and signed                                                                                             4/5

After however, the reason that the statutory limitation arose related to the case which were being processed about the defendants in the case file with case no 2004/337, the file with case no 2005/155 which were decided to be combined were decided to be split this time and the files were registered under case no 2006/26 and the trial was processed based on this case. It was understood in the file with the case no 2004/337 that the complainant except Ebru Şimşek and Fatih Altaylı withdrew their complaint and did not accept their statements at the police station.

It is concluded that in accordance with the defense of the defendants, statements of the defence witnesses and experts and the statements of the complainants and witnesses which were heard related to the file case no 2004/337 in the course of trial, and the proofs that were severally stated above in the proves part, and the sufficient, certain and convincing proofs were not found for defendants' conviction about their committing the alleged crime of forming an organisation, being a member or director of this organisation, and therefore the conclusion is reached and determined that these crimes were not proven and the decision below were taken for the acquittal of the defendants from this crime.

THE DECISION:

In the presence of the defendants Erkan Seyhan, Semih Selman Marangozoğlu, Nuri Özbudak and defence lawyers Attorney Kerim Kalkan and Fatih Doğan and the participants attorneys Rezzan Aydınoğlu and Nalan Kuğuoğlu, in the absence of the other defendants and defence lawyers and participant Ebru Şimşek; the decision, which was open to court of Appeal in 7 days in conformity with the request partially and taken in consensus, were read and explained clearly before Public Prosecutor. 22/01/2007

Turkish Republic ISTANBUL 2ND HIGH CRIMINAL COURT
Seal-signature sealed and signed Member 22838 signature-signed
Member 36079 signature-signed Secretary 65942 signature-signed

Hereby, it is certified that this copy is the true copy of the original, it was finalised without appeal of the final decision for the defendants Erkan Seyhan, Semih Selman Marangozoğlu and Nuri Özbudak on 30.01.2007, for the defendant Serdar Dayanık on 21.02.2007 and for the defendant Bülent Tatlıcan on 28.02.2007.
19. 03.2007
Secretary Affairs Directorate
Seal-signature-sealed and signed
5/5