Two Major Investigations, One Test of the Law: Erdoğan’s Resolve, Gürlek’s Determination

The record

At a glance: the two cases side by side

Both investigations are being conducted by the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, which Gürlek headed before becoming justice minister.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [9]

21 October: two cases on the same day

On 21 October, President Erdoğan set out his position on the fund crisis at the AK Party’s parliamentary group meeting: “We are dealing with this matter with a surgeon’s precision, placing our nation’s interests above every other consideration.”

That same day, 26 people were detained in the fund investigation and an arrest warrant was issued for Altınbaş Holding owner Nusret Altınbaş. In the Sarıgül investigation, Emir Sarıgül, son of MP Mustafa Sarıgül, was remanded in custody.

There is no proven connection between the two cases. One concerns investors’ savings; the other concerns contracts and promises worth millions of euros allegedly extending from Europe to Turkey. Yet both will be measured against the same principle: economic power or political position should place nobody beyond the law. [15] [22] [23] [2]

The fund case: mapping TL187.7 billion

According to the figures Justice Minister Gürlek announced on 9 October, 141 people and 73 companies across three fund groups gained a total of TL187 billion 653 million. Ninety per cent of the gains were in the Tera and Pusula groups; at Pusula, just 19 people gained approximately TL69.7 billion.

At Pusula, 19 people gained TL69.7 billion

Figures are approximate and expressed in billions of Turkish lira. The actual announced total is TL187.653 billion, covering 141 people and 73 companies. The average per individual is approximately TL275 million at Tera and TL3.7 billion at Pusula.

Source: approximate figures announced by Justice Minister Gürlek on 9 October 2026 (Milliyet, Euronews).

It has not been established that this entire sum constitutes proceeds of crime; the investigation will distinguish which part of the gains arose from manipulation or inside information. According to media reports, the suspicion is that the prices of certain shares were artificially raised, inflating the values of funds holding them, and that those with access to information exited before the decline began. Gürlek says those who sold fund units on 13–16 September, immediately before the liquidation decision on 17 September, were also brought within the investigation.

The figures are growing. According to Gürlek’s statement on 21 October, judicial action had been taken concerning 404 people in the fund investigations; 88 suspects had been remanded in custody and 195 placed under judicial supervision. Forty-two fugitives were being sought. Decisions by prosecutors’ offices imposed restrictions on the accounts and assets of 351 natural persons and 102 legal entities. [9] [25] [1] [8]

Investors first: interim payments

The first stage of Erdoğan’s plan is to return savings to investors. According to the Capital Markets Board’s (SPK) announcement of 1 October, interim payments of up to TL1 million per fund were envisaged, based on the calculated net investment amount, for investors whose entitlement reconciliation had been completed; payments were planned to begin with money market funds. The AK Party’s “Bill on Certain Investment Funds Ordered to Be Liquidated,” submitted to parliament on 9 October, carries the same limit into legislation; the bill is on the plenary agenda.

According to Erdoğan, once the bill before parliament enters into force, “payment procedures will speed up a little more.” [5] [11] [15]

Voluntary repayment: does returning the money close the case?

Individuals and companies whose gains exceed TL100 million are being asked to deposit that amount in voluntary repayment accounts at the Savings Deposit Insurance Fund (TMSF); the money collected will be transferred to victims. One example illustrates measures being applied regardless of political background: the initial list of 141 people subject to restrictions included Fatma Betül Sayan Kaya, a former family and social policies minister in an AK Party government, and her husband İlyas Kaya. According to Karar, the couple deposited approximately TL1.86 billion in investment gains with the TMSF on 5 October, with prosecutorial approval.

İlyas Kaya said he made the repayment because he felt “a troubled conscience”; Sayan Kaya denied the allegations. Both said they had received neither direction nor privileged information. Voluntary repayment does not amount to an admission of guilt; according to Gürlek, it does not close the case either. [7] [10] [26] [8]

An early warning: prosecutors wrote in February 2025; the permission date remains an open question

One of the fund case’s most striking details is that prosecutors noticed the problem early. According to Anadolu Agency (AA), Gürlek said that while he was Istanbul chief public prosecutor, they noticed activity in certain funds and shares in February 2025 and wrote about it: “It had caught our attention; our colleagues wrote to the SPK for permission to investigate, and we even met in person.”

Prosecutors are nevertheless bound by law. Under Article 115 of the Capital Markets Law, investigation of offences defined in or referred to by that Law depends on the Board “submitting a written application to the chief public prosecutor’s office.” In Gürlek’s words: “Permission to investigate was finally given in response to the official request we wrote in August.” According to T24, the “confidential” letter from the prosecutor’s office to the SPK was dated 19 August 2026.

The approximately 18 months between the two letters raises the question of what steps the SPK took and when. Professor Rauf Karasu of Hacettepe University writes that inaction in the face of clear violations, or an unreasonable delay, may constitute “administrative service fault.” The SPK rejects the criticism: it said it took account “even of information notes” emailed by Borsa Istanbul, and that 96 of the 174 people it had referred for criminal investigation in 2026 were connected to fund transactions.

T24 also alleged in its report published on 22 September that the confidential letter had been leaked to Pusula Finans Holding; no official statement addressing that allegation was found in the sources reviewed. The “comprehensive report” Erdoğan expects from the State Supervisory Council (DDK) will also be important in answering these questions. [8] [14] [18] [21] [6]

The Erdoğan–Gürlek relationship: what do the records show?

In the fund case, the connection between Erdoğan and Gürlek can be traced through official documents and recorded statements.

Erdoğan’s plan has three stages: paying investors their savings; holding those who “obtained unfair and excessive gains” through manipulation accountable before the courts; and preventing a similar crisis. Erdoğan said every necessary institutional, individual and legislative step would be taken following “the comprehensive report to be prepared by our State Supervisory Council” and “other work conducted in line with our instructions.”

The division of roles is also clear in these documents. Political leadership sets the framework; the Fund Coordination Board coordinates liquidation, while the DDK examines transactions. Chief public prosecutors’ offices conduct the investigations; independent courts will decide whether offences were committed.

No comparable connection exists in the Sarıgül case. That investigation began with complaints by two German citizens; no public statement by Erdoğan or Gürlek about this case was found in the sources reviewed. There is no document showing that both cases were opened under the same political instruction. Their common denominator is the application of the same rules of law. [17] [16] [8] [9] [15] [1]

A principle that works in both directions

In the same speech, while criticising the opposition’s position, Erdoğan emphasised a two-way principle: “Just as reaching for the nation’s property is a grave crime, making baseless accusations of corruption against honest, honourable and dignified people is equally a grave crime and an equally great disgrace.” The distinction between an allegation supported by documents and an unfounded accusation is also fundamental to investigative journalism. [15]

The Sarıgül case: companies, a bank and a boat

On 16 October, the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office announced that it had opened an investigation following allegations by complainants identified as “German citizens K.P. and M.B.” that “transactions to launder large sums of money of unknown origin were conducted through companies established domestically and abroad.” Among the allegations listed in the statement were an €80 million contract, the promise of a €1 billion fund and a boat sale for €1.5 million.

Many of the details appear not in the official statement but in a purported prosecutorial information note shared on social media on 16 October. T24 and Gazete Oksijen reported the note on 21 October; no statement from the prosecutor’s office confirming or denying it was found in the sources reviewed. The note relays the complainants’ account. [2] [19]

The €80 million contract: North Gayrimenkul

According to the information note, the complainants say a group of companies was established abroad after discussions and entered into numerous contracts with “North Gayrimenkul İnşaat ve Sanayi Ticaret Anonim Şirketi, which is directly connected with the individuals named.” The note says the “most important of these was an investment contract worth €80 million.” The complainants allege that obligations were not met and that they were defrauded.

No publicly available record of North Gayrimenkul’s ownership structure was found; no statement by the company was found in the sources reviewed. Sarıgül says they met the complainants with the idea, “Could we bring investment to Turkey?”, and describes the projects as “fabricated and intended to defraud.” On 20 October he said, “The companies alleged to have been established were not established.” [19] [20]

The promised €1 billion fund: a meeting attended by a bank manager

According to the official statement, the complainants allege a promise to move a €1 billion fund abroad through credit, “using public power and influence.” The information note connects this promise to an online meeting. According to the note, the complainants allege that Mustafa Sarıgül, at a meeting also attended by a person described as a Denizbank branch manager, said he would bring a €1 billion fund abroad “through a credit arrangement.” The meeting’s date has not been disclosed; no statement by Denizbank on the matter was found in the sources reviewed.

This allegation is what distinguishes the case from an ordinary commercial dispute: a promise by an MP to use “public power and influence.” Sarıgül categorically denies it: “Public officials exercise public power.” Emphasising that he is an opposition MP, Sarıgül says: “The individuals were not given public contracts, land, loans, etc. No such promise was made.” The allegation can be tested against the meeting recording, bank correspondence and loan applications. [19] [20]

The €1.5 million boat

According to the information note, the complainants allege that a boat registered in Britain was transferred to Emir Sarıgül for €1.5 million but that the price was not paid. Takvim reported that the boat was in Göcek and worth $5 million. No specific statement from the Sarıgül side about the boat was found in the sources reviewed. [19] [24]

Custody and parliamentary immunity

On 19 October, 15 people, including Mustafa Sarıgül’s son Ömer Sarıgül and former wife Aylin Kotil, were remanded in custody; two were released under judicial supervision. His other son, Emir Sarıgül, was remanded on 21 October. According to media reports, five more people, including Sarıgül’s close-protection officer, were detained on 22 October.

The allegations concerning Mustafa Sarıgül, Yeni Parti MP for Erzincan, will be sent to the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office “for separate consideration.” Under Article 83 of the Constitution, except in cases of flagrante delicto requiring a heavy penalty and certain circumstances in which an investigation began before the election, an MP may not be “detained, questioned, arrested or tried” without a parliamentary decision.

Sarıgül denies all the allegations. He says the matter is “a commercial business dispute” and calls the complainants’ “documents, contracts, bank receipts and notarised certifications” “false and manufactured.” He also denies the alleged movement of money: “Not even €1 has been brought into Turkey or taken out of Turkey.” [2] [3] [12] [13] [20]

A shared family name is not a proven connection

The family of Nusret Altınbaş, for whom an arrest warrant was issued in the fund investigation on 21 October, previously had a marriage connection with the Sarıgül family: Emir Sarıgül’s former wife, whom he divorced by mutual consent in 2019, is from the Altınbaş family. No statement by the authorities establishing a connection between the two cases was found in the sources reviewed. [27]

What we know and what we do not

Official statements say a great deal, but many decisive questions remain unanswered.

The Ledgers asks

Accountability begins with clear answers to clear questions. The questions that need answering for accountability are:

To the SPK

1. When and how was the prosecutor’s February 2025 letter answered?

2. On what date was permission to investigate granted in response to the official request dated 19 August 2026?

To the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office

3. Who provided liquidation information to those who exited funds on 13–16 September? Is the allegation that the confidential letter was leaked being investigated?

4. Does the information note shared on social media on 16 October belong to the prosecutor’s office?

To the TMSF

5. How much money has been collected in voluntary repayment accounts to date, and when will it be distributed to victims?

To the presidency

6. Will the State Supervisory Council’s report be made public?

To Mustafa Sarıgül and Emir Sarıgül’s lawyers

7. Is there an official finding or expert report concerning the documents you call “false”? Was the €1.5 million boat paid for?

To the complainants

8. Have recordings or documents concerning the meeting at which the €1 billion promise was allegedly made been submitted to the authorities?

To North Gayrimenkul and Denizbank

9. What is your response concerning the contract and meeting in which you are named in the information note?

To Altınbaş Holding

10. What is your response to the arrest warrant for Nusret Altınbaş and the allegations concerning share transactions?

Conclusion: determination in action, the final word with the judiciary

In the fund case, the state made a commitment and took action: 88 remands in custody; asset restrictions on 351 natural persons and 102 legal entities; gains returned to the TMSF; a decision on interim investor payments; and a DDK examination initiated on the president’s instructions. In the Sarıgül case, the allegations and the defence of “false documents” are before the judiciary.

Completing this effort depends on three things:

Evidence-based indictments and independent court decisions.

Investors recovering their savings and victims receiving compensation for their losses.

Publication of the DDK report showing what the institutions did.

The Ledgers will continue to follow these cases. The documents and final judicial rulings will have the last word.

Based on reporting from: Justice Ministry · Investigation totals · 21 Oct 2026; TRT / AA · Emir Sarıgül remanded · 21 Oct 2026; Ankara Masası · Report of five new detentions · 22 Oct 2026; SPK · Original liquidation scope and investors · 23 Sep 2026; SPK · Interim-payment conditions · 1 Oct 2026; SPK · Response on warnings and criminal referrals · 6 Oct 2026; SPK · Voluntary refund accounts · 1 Oct 2026; AA · Gürlek on chronology and refunds · 6 Oct 2026; TRT / Sabah · Gürlek’s TRY 187.653bn figures · 9 Oct 2026; Karar · Kaya refund report and denials · 10 Oct 2026; TBMM · General Assembly agenda, bill 2/3939 · 22 Oct 2026; TBMM · Sarıgül’s Yeni Parti affiliation · 4 Aug 2026; Constitutional Court · Constitution, Article 83; TBMM · Capital Market Law, Article 115, enacted text · 6 Dec 2012; DHA · Erdoğan’s parliamentary group speech · 21 Oct 2026; Presidency · Fund Coordination Board and DDK review · 29 Sep 2026; Justice Ministry · Akın Gürlek’s official biography · 11 Feb 2026; T24 · Report on confidential letter and alleged leak · 22 Sep 2026; T24 · Sarıgül case and reported information note; T24 / ANKA · Mustafa Sarıgül’s denials; Haber7 · Rauf Karasu’s legal opinion · 5 Oct 2026; Habertürk · Detentions and Nusret Altınbaş warrant · 21 Oct 2026; TRT · Prosecutor’s statement on 26 detentions · 21 Oct 2026; Takvim · Reported boat location and valuation · 20 Oct 2026; Ensonhaber / Sabah · Gürlek’s fund-group figures · 9 Oct 2026; AA · Letters allowing Kaya account transfers · 6 Oct 2026; Şamdan / Bülent Cankurt · Emir Sarıgül’s account of the divorce · 26 Nov 2019.