ANKARA — A far-reaching criminal complaint filed by Turkey’s main opposition party has placed the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor, Akın Gürlek, at the center of one of the most serious judicial corruption allegations in recent years, raising profound questions about integrity, accountability, and the rule of law within the country’s highest prosecutorial ranks.
The complaint, submitted to the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, accuses Gürlek of systematic violations of asset declaration laws, illicit enrichment, unlawful income generation, and conflicts of interest incompatible with judicial office, all allegedly committed while holding senior positions within the judiciary and executive bureaucracy .
Allegations Strike at the Core of Judicial Ethics
At the heart of the complaint lies Turkey’s constitutional and statutory asset declaration regime, designed to prevent corruption among public officials. Under Article 71 of the Constitution and Law No. 3628 on Asset Declarations and the Fight Against Corruption, judges and prosecutors are subject to strict transparency obligations covering not only their own assets, but also those of their spouses and dependent children.
The filing argues that Gürlek’s financial activities are manifestly incompatible with his lawful income, triggering the legal presumption of “unjust enrichment” under Article 4 of Law No. 3628 .
Secret Bank Safe Deposit Box and Unexplained Cash Flows
One of the most striking allegations concerns Gürlek’s purported rental of a safe deposit box at a private bank branch in Ankara, coupled with repeated cash deposits allegedly unconnected to any declared income source. The complaint notes that the existence of such a safe deposit box — and its contents — should have been disclosed in mandatory asset declarations, yet allegedly was not.
Opposition lawyers argue that the concealment of assets, particularly cash or valuables stored outside the banking system, is a classic indicator of corruption and money laundering, warranting immediate scrutiny by financial intelligence authorities .
Illegal Dual Office and Foreign Corporate Income
The complaint further alleges that Gürlek illegally held a remunerated board membership in ETIMINE SA, a Luxembourg-based subsidiary of Turkey’s state-owned Eti Maden, while simultaneously serving as Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor.
Turkish law expressly prohibits judges and prosecutors from engaging in any secondary income-generating activities. Despite this prohibition, Gürlek allegedly continued to receive income from the foreign company for approximately ten months after assuming prosecutorial office — conduct described in the filing as both unlawful and constitutive of unjust enrichment.
Deeply Discounted Luxury Property Deal Raises Red Flags
Perhaps the most politically explosive allegation concerns Gürlek’s acquisition of a luxury apartment in Istanbul’s “Tema İstanbul 2” residential complex. According to the complaint, the property was purchased in 2024 for approximately ₺9.8 million, at a time when comparable units reportedly had market values approaching ₺30 million.
The property was later sold for ₺40 million, prompting allegations that the original purchase price was artificially suppressed to confer an illicit benefit. The transaction was allegedly completed without collateral, guarantors, or verifiable payment flows, an arrangement the complaint describes as “contrary to the ordinary course of life” for a public official .
Compounding concerns, one of the developer companies involved reportedly appears in the indictment of a high-profile political trial overseen by the very prosecutorial office Gürlek heads — raising serious questions about judicial impartiality and quid pro quo relationships.
Attempted Purchase of ₺95 Million Luxury Villa
The complaint also details an attempted purchase of a luxury villa in Istanbul’s Etiler district valued at over ₺95 million, again allegedly far beyond any plausible lawful income attributable to a career public official. Lawyers argue that even the initiation of such a transaction constitutes evidence of unjust enrichment under Turkish anti-corruption law.
Calls for Immediate Investigation and Asset Scrutiny
The filing demands the immediate involvement of financial intelligence units (MASAK), banking regulators, land registry authorities, and notaries, as well as the seizure and review of all asset declarations, bank records, and transaction histories.
Under Law No. 3628, prosecutors are legally obligated to initiate investigations ex officio once credible indications of unjust enrichment emerge — a provision the complaint explicitly invokes, placing institutional pressure on authorities to act
A Test Case for Judicial Accountability
Beyond the individual allegations, legal observers note that the case represents a stress test for judicial independence and self-accountability in Turkey. When the head of the country’s largest prosecutorial office is accused of corruption, the credibility of the justice system itself is inevitably at stake.
Whether the investigation proceeds transparently — or stalls — may prove decisive in shaping domestic and international perceptions of Turkey’s commitment to combating corruption at the highest levels of state power.
Background: Prosecutor at the Center of the Opposition Crackdown
The revelations come amid an intensifying judicial offensive against Turkey’s main opposition, led by the very office headed by Akın Gürlek. Since his appointment as Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor in 2024, Gürlek has overseen sweeping investigations targeting municipalities governed by the Republican People’s Party (CHP), resulting in the detention or arrest of at least 11 opposition mayors. Among them is Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s most prominent political rival, whose arrest in March 2025 coincided with the CHP’s internal presidential nomination process. Opposition figures describe the prosecutions as politically engineered, accusing Gürlek of using prosecutorial power as a tool of political suppression rather than impartial law enforcement .
Prior Corruption Allegations and Claims of Impunity
The allegations of illicit enrichment and unlawful income are not the first to shadow Gürlek’s career. In June 2025, CHP leader Özgür Özel publicly accused him of benefiting from public resources and political patronage long before assuming his current role. These claims included the prolonged personal use of a luxury vehicle paid for by the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality during the pre-2019 AKP administration, as well as access to assets and lifestyles allegedly far exceeding a public servant’s lawful income. Human rights organizations and former judges argue that Gürlek’s rapid promotions—despite multiple rulings overturned by Turkey’s Constitutional Court for rights violations—illustrate a broader system in which judicial loyalty is rewarded with impunity, while dissenting political actors are aggressively prosecuted
Categories: Turkey Human Rights Blog