[ad_1]
The journalist Fatih Portakal appeared before the judge in the lawsuit filed against him with a request for up to three years in prison for sharing on social networks that could undermine confidence in the banking sector.
About Orange due to the same exchange, ‘insult the president’ It turned out that a second indictment was prepared for the crime.
According to the AA report, the defendant Fatih Portakal, who was not arrested, attended the first hearing held at the 46th Istanbul Criminal Court of First Instance. Also present at the hearing were lawyers from the Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency (BDDK) and the defendant’s lawyers.
Portakal, whose defense was taken, stated that he did not understand why he was here and that he said his post on social media about the president’s words and continued as follows: “You don’t need to be a journalist. It is a question that a person should ask. While Mustafa Kemal Atatürk had made the Tekalif-i Milliye decisions in our lives in the 1921s, he asked people on the condition that their national obligations be paid later, and the president’s statement in 2020 raised the following question : “I wonder if he is wondering something.” This is a simple question to ask only an outsider, not a journalist. If I see the president in front of me ‘You said like this, will there be such an application?’ I ask with my identity as a journalist, not only with my citizen identity. “
‘No due diligence, hostility, no insults’
Expressing that he selectively used each word of the sentence he made, Portakal said: “I thought about every word while writing that message because of my work. I did not specifically use the word seizure. ‘Would you like it’ I ask. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk said in 1921 that the properties of some citizens at that time would be confiscated on the condition that they be returned, but that did not come to mind. Even if there is a reference to Tekalif-i Milliye, there is no claim that it will be seized. This is not possible in 2020. The free market economy is there. I wonder if this could happen … “Fatih, how many deposits do you have, give me what you want, then I’ll pay it.” I’m just asking questions. This is due diligence. I cannot have enmity with the bank. I cannot be insulted. ”
Portakal, who claimed to have done due diligence, demanded his acquittal by not accepting the accusation against him. Speaking after Portakal’s defense, the defendant’s lawyer, Ece Günay, also requested the acquittal of her client, saying that the material and moral element of the crime did not occur.
BRSA attorneys also took the floor and stated that their complaints are ongoing.
The court judge on Fatih Portakal for the same position ‘insult the president’ He said that the accusation was referred to the file with the merger request, but the assessment on the acceptance or rejection of the accusation has not yet been made.
Request ‘Merge files’
The Public Ministry, whose opinion was consulted after the statements, demanded that the request of the representatives of the reporting institution (BRSA) to participate in terms of being harmed by the crime, and that there was legal and de facto contact with the case , which turned out to be a file for insults to the president, demanded the merger of the files.
By announcing its interim decision, the court accepted BRSA’s request to participate in the case.
The court postponed the hearing by deciding that the indictment sent by the Istanbul Prosecutor General’s Office with the request for consolidation should be included in the file for review, and if the files were merged, the parties would be notified.
Of the prosecution
In the indictment prepared by the Istanbul Attorney General’s Office, Portakal’s ‘damage to reputation’ He was requested to be sentenced to a prison term of one to three years in accordance with article 158, which includes his verdict.
Remembering Tekalif-i Milliye in the indictment, in the BRSA petition, in the message that Portakal shared on his social media account on April 6, “We are going through difficult days. Also, don’t ask for money from those who have deposits or savings! Unfortunately, I can’t say it wouldn’t be possible … “ 5411 Banking Law numbered by expressions. ‘reputation protection’ It was said that he violated article 74 entitled.
