Former Minister of Family and Social Policies Fatma Betül Sayan Kaya, whose name came to the fore in connection with transactions involving Özata Denizcilik shares as part of the fund investigation, and her husband İlyas Kaya allegedly returned approximately 2.2 billion liras to the bank account reported by the Ministry of Treasury and Finance.
According to allegations reflected in the public domain, the couple invested a total of 163 million 46 thousand liras in the shares and earned approximately 2 billion 170 million liras from the sales. These figures were not announced by official authorities as finalized transaction records.
YENİ Party Deputy Parliamentary Group Chair Murat Emir argued that the return of the money did not mean innocence, asking why the Kaya couple were not included on the SPK (Turkey’s capital markets regulator) list of criminal complaints concerning OZATD and why their statements had not been taken. Emir said that, under SPK 107/3, twice the benefit obtained must be paid, and stated that the payment would not halt the investigation into misuse of information under Article 106 of the SPK law. Emir also called for the source of the money, the buyers of the shares and telephone contacts to be examined.
Why it matters
Rather than easing the financial debate in the public domain, the return of the money brings to the fore the question of what it means in terms of legal responsibility. Because making a payment does not mean that the allegations have been confirmed or that the investigation has ended; the fact that the transaction amounts have not been finalized by official authorities also requires assessments to be made cautiously. Another aspect of the debate is clarifying who was included in the process, and on what grounds, in relation to the SPK’s relevant criminal complaint and its investigation into misuse of information. The source of the money, the counterparties in the share purchases and sales, and whether communication between the parties was examined are among the main outstanding questions that will determine whether the matter remains merely an issue of returning the money.