Hazinedar vows return as Istanbul laundering inquiry reaches former mayor

The development makes a former elected official a publicly named suspect in a substantial financial inquiry. It does not establish his involvement in the alleged money trail. The published accounts leave a central question unanswered: which acts, transactions or documents do investigators attribute to Hazinedar personally?

Reports published on November 13, 2026, described police-detention orders covering 17 suspects. Sözcü listed the two people still sought as Ç.K. and H.M., and reported journalist Barış Yarkadaş’s identification of H.M. as Hazinedar. By November 14, there was no confirmation that Hazinedar had returned to Turkey, been detained or appeared before a court. No definite return date had been announced.⁠1⁠5⁠30

The terminology matters. The orders concern gözaltı, police custody for investigation, rather than tutuklama, a judge’s separate decision to imprison someone pending trial. The reports do not establish the later court outcomes for this group of 15. Neither the orders nor the detentions determine criminal responsibility.⁠2

The Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office is investigating suspected criminal-organization membership, laundering criminal proceeds and bribery. Prosecutors allege that companies established inside and outside Turkey handled large sums of unclear origin, used money inconsistently with investment agreements and conducted transactions intended to give criminal proceeds a lawful appearance. These remain allegations under investigation. The published account does not explain whether every suspect faces every allegation.⁠2

TRT Haber’s account reproduces an earlier prosecution statement saying the inquiry began over allegations involving people identified as German citizen K.P. and M.B. It also sets out four financial claims made by complainants: an €80 million contract, a €100 million transfer, a promise involving a €1 billion fund and a €1.5 million boat sale.⁠2

The billion-euro allegation concerns a promise to move a fund abroad through credit, using public power and influence. A promise is not proof that the money moved. Nor are the four figures a set of verified losses that can responsibly be added together. They describe different alleged transactions or commitments; none is individually assigned to Hazinedar in the published material.⁠2

That distinction is particularly important in a case whose financial scale can easily overwhelm its evidentiary detail. Large figures explain why an inquiry demands scrutiny. They cannot substitute for showing what a particular suspect is alleged to have done.

The broader case also involves lawmaker Mustafa Sarıgül. TRT Haber reported that allegations concerning him were sent to Ankara prosecutors for separate consideration. His name’s prominence in coverage should not obscure that jurisdictional distinction—or turn the Istanbul operation into proof of allegations against him.⁠2

Hazinedar’s initial response came through Yarkadaş, who said he had spoken with him. According to the account published by Sözcü, Hazinedar said police had gone to his residence that morning and pledged, “I will return to my country.” He denied having a commercial relationship with Sarıgül and said, contrary to public understanding, that he was not Sarıgül’s lawyer.⁠1

His subsequent written statement was more explicit about what he did not know. He said he learned of the detention order while abroad and understood that it concerned the investigation involving Sarıgül, but had not yet learned the substance of the accusations against him. As a lawyer, he said, he would return to Turkey to give his explanation and answer them. That is a commitment to return, not a dated travel plan or confirmation of a completed journey.⁠5

His fuller defense also qualified the categorical claim about not being Sarıgül’s lawyer. Hazinedar acknowledged representing Sarıgül, alongside other party members, in litigation over expulsions from the Republican People’s Party, or CHP, in 2005. He said the lawyer-client relationship was confined to those proceedings and was not ongoing.⁠3⁠5

He denied commercial partnerships or benefit-sharing arrangements with Sarıgül, his family or their companies, and denied an ongoing legal role for those interests or Şişli Municipality. He also said he had not met Sarıgül for eight years. Those are specific claims in his defense; the available reporting does not independently settle their entire financial or professional relationship.⁠3⁠5

Hazinedar likewise disputed the suggestion that Sarıgül had installed him as Beşiktaş mayor. He said CHP executive bodies chose his 2014 candidacy after another proposed candidate was vetoed. While acknowledging that Sarıgül may have influenced the nomination, he denied running the municipality on his behalf or providing commercial advantages. He described his tenure as three years and nine months.⁠3⁠5

Hazinedar also invoked earlier proceedings. He said he had faced about 400 preliminary inquiries and investigations, that official examinations found no criminal personal enrichment, and that a separate prosecution ended in acquittals in 2024 on organized-crime, bribery and extortion allegations after roughly five months in custody. Aydınlık reported these assertions while noting that the supporting documents had not all been independently examined. They are part of his defense, not an adjudication of the present inquiry.⁠3

For now, the confirmed development is a public identification and an outstanding police-detention order—not Hazinedar’s capture, a judicial remand or a finding of guilt. His promised return would move the process forward. It would not, by itself, answer the question at the heart of the case: what evidence connects him to the alleged wrongdoing?