[ad_1]
The defendant Fatih Portakal, who was not arrested, attended the first hearing 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.
The defendant, whose defense was taken at the hearing, stated that he did not understand why he was here and that he said on his social networks sharing the president’s word: “There is no need to be a journalist. It is a question that a person should question. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk made the Tekalif-i Milliye decisions in our lives in the 1921s. ” The declaration of the President of the Republic in 2020 raised the following question: “ I wonder if something will be done. ” This is a simple question that only an outsider will ask. If I see the president in front of me, you said that, will there be such an application? I ask with my identity as a journalist, not only with my citizen identity. “He used the expression.
Stating that he selectively used each word of the sentence he made, Portakal said: “Because of my work, I thought about each word while writing that message. I did not specifically use the word ‘grab.” Mustafa Kemal Atatürk said in 1921 that some of the Citizen properties would be confiscated on the condition that they be returned, but this did not occur to me. It is not. The free market economy is in the middle. Could it be that “Fatih, how many deposits do you have, give me what you want? I’ll pay it later. “I’m just asking questions. This is the determination of the situation. I can’t be hostile to the bank,” he said.
The defendant without arrest, who said he did due diligence, did not accept the accusation against him and demanded his acquittal.
Speaking after the defense of Fatih Portakal, the defendant’s lawyer, Ece Günay, demanded the acquittal of his client, saying that the material and moral element of the crime did not occur. Attorneys for the client’s Banking and Supervisory Board (BDDK) also took the floor and stated that their complaints are still ongoing.
A COMBINATION OF TWO CLAIM FILES IS REQUESTED
The court judge said that due to the same exchange, an accusation was brought against Fatih Portakal for “insulting the president”, the accusation was sent to the file with the request for a merger, but the evaluation on acceptance or the rejection of the accusation.
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 be legal and real contact with the case, that It turned out to be a file for insults to the President, he demanded the merger of the files.
By announcing its interim decision, the court accepted BRSA’s request to participate in the case.
TRIAL POSTPONED
The court decided that the indictment sent by the Istanbul Prosecutor General’s Office with the request for consolidation should be placed in the file for review and, if the files were merged, the court postponed the hearing.
In the indictment prepared by the Istanbul Prosecutor General’s Office, the suspect Fatih Portakal was asked to be sentenced to a prison term of 1 to 3 years in accordance with article 158 of Banking Law No. 5411, which includes the provision on “damages to reputation “.
In the indictment, in the BRSA petition, in the message Portakal shared on his social media account on April 6, and the subject of the complaint, Tekalif-i Milliye was reminded: “We are going through difficult times. I can’t say that people with deposits or savings are not asked for money! . “It was stated that she violated article 74 of Banking Law No. 5411, entitled” protection of reputation. “
In the indictment, Banking Law No. 5411 entitled “Protection of reputation” of article 74 “Press Law” or by one of the radio, television, video, Internet cable transmission or electronic information communication tools and similar transmission tools to break the reputation of a bank o A problem that may damage its reputation or wealth cannot be deliberately caused or disseminated in this way. “The violation of this provision is expressed in article 158 of the same law, “Those who violate article 74 of this law are sentenced to prison from one year to three years and a judicial fine of up to 2,000 days. It is increased by a rate.” It was recorded that it was arranged as.
Article 74 of the Banking Act of the legislator of the reputation and credibility of the banking industry protection and to undermine the reputation of BRSA of the whistleblower reports made to block the prosecution highlighted that purpose, Fatih Orange said that sharing the Turkey’s new type of coronavirus (Covidien-19) It was reported that it did so in the field of fighting the epidemic.
In the accusation, “Taking into account the basis of article 74 of the Banking Law and the environment of our country’s struggle with Covid-19, the perception that the state may request that the suspect be shared as an excuse for the epidemic of coronavirus, and that the money of depositors and savings in banks can be returned after the epidemic and It has been concluded that it is intended to form an opinion and this situation may undermine confidence in the banking sector. ”was evaluated.
