Terrorism and Criminal Organisation Accusations
The allegation of fraud
Unfounded
Claim
Fact
The accusation belongs to the case file whose hearings began on 22 January 2019. In the process opened by the 30 January 2018 operation, the indictment changed once the terrorism charges did not hold; the new indictment contained the charges of forming a criminal organisation and of fraud.
Fraud is an offence with settled elements: a deceived victim and a benefit that has changed hands are required. In this file neither exists.
- No victim. Even though the operation dominated the national agenda, to date not a single person has come forward to say that the foundation defrauded them.
- No benefit. According to the MASAK report in the file, no increase of unexplained origin was found in the account movements of those on trial.
The claim that the scholarships were not actually paid could have been settled the same day by hearing one of the students who received a scholarship as a witness. The list of the students was in the foundation's records, and those records had been seized in the search. Even so, not a single student was heard.
As for the fixed assets said not to appear in the records, they are not the property of the foundation; they are items whose rights of use were transferred to the foundation under contract. Their large number shows that people bought materials out of their own pockets and brought them in.
Finally, the indictment contradicts itself: in many places it states that the foundation's expenses were shown as low. Yet whoever commits fraud shows expenses as high and pockets the difference. No one can draw money out of an expense shown as low.
Which case file, which date?
In the process opened by the 30 January 2018 operation, terrorism charges were raised first; when these did not hold, the file changed hands. The indictment whose hearings began in Adana on 22 January 2019 contained two charges: forming an organisation for the purpose of committing crime, and fraud. Alparslan Kuytul and Ali Alagöz were tried in this file while in detention.
What kind of offence is fraud?
Fraud is obtaining a benefit to someone's detriment by deceiving them. It has two legs: someone who is deceived and a gain that changes hands. In this file both legs are empty.
No one deceived. For twenty-four years the foundation operated in many provinces of the country. The operation dominated the national agenda, a trustee was appointed to the foundation, its name was in the newspapers for days. In such an atmosphere, if there were anyone who had been wronged, they would have been expected to come forward. In the year and a half from 30 January 2018 to the summer of 2019 there was not a single person who filed a fraud complaint about the foundation.
No gain. There is a MASAK report in the file, and the report states that no increase of unexplained origin was found in the account movements of those on trial. The great majority of those on trial were working for the minimum wage.
The scholarship claim: one witness would have been enough
The indictment asserted that the scholarships the foundation had reported paying were not actually paid. This is the claim in the file that could be resolved most easily: had any one of the students receiving a scholarship been summoned and heard, the answer would have been obtained the same day. The students are identifiable, their lists are in the foundation's records, and the police have seized those records.
For a year and a half not a single student was heard. When the way to confirm a claim and the way to refute it are this open and are not used, it means that no one wants the claim tested.
The fixed-asset claim
It was asserted that a large number of fixed assets were present in the foundation's building, that some of them did not appear in the foundation's records, and that fraud was committed in this way. The reason they do not appear in the records is simple: those items are not the property of the foundation. Their rights of use were transferred to the foundation under contract; ownership remained with their owners.
What is more, finding more material in an institution than expected is a sign not of fraud but of sacrifice: people bought it out of their own pockets and brought it in.
Where the indictment refutes itself
The logic of fraud is well known: expenses are shown as high, and the part not paid is embezzled. In this file the indictment has written the exact opposite. In many places it is asserted that the foundation's expenses were shown as low; for example, it is written that the rent for the foundation's building was shown as low.
An expense shown as low leaves money over for no one. In building the charge of fraud, the indictment has turned its own evidence upside down.
The list of what was not done
While the detention dragged on, what should have been done in the file was not done:
- The secret witnesses, whose identities were known to the court, were not heard.
- The donation receipts seized by the police were not examined; nor were the samples the lawyers submitted to the court.
- The students given scholarships were not summoned.
- The Ministry of National Education reports and the court rulings establishing that the sealed houses were dwellings were not read.
The inspection report of the Directorate General of Foundations further states that Kuytul did not take part in the management of the foundation and that for this reason he cannot be held responsible for the transactions carried out. Despite this he was tried in detention.
The dates on this page belong to the process opened by the 30 January 2018 operation. Other headings from the same file: the criminal organisation claim, the fake receipt and embezzlement claim, the illegal dormitory claim.