The Justice Test in the Fund Scandal: Are Figures Close to the Government Being Given Special Treatment?

By Gökhan Turhan

The fund scandal, affecting the savings of hundreds of thousands of investors, has become a case that tests not only financial oversight but also political accountability and the principle of equality before the law. The scope of the investigation, the timing of regulatory interventions, and allegations involving figures linked to the government are among the issues on which the public expects clear answers.

The $18 Billion Fund Crisis: How Did Such a Major Shock Occur?

The fund crisis in Türkiye’s capital markets remains a significant development that has shaken small investors’ confidence.

The Capital Markets Board of Türkiye (CMB) decided on September 17, 2026, to liquidate 131 funds managed by seven portfolio management companies. According to the disclosed figures, these funds had 455,758 individual investors. The total value of their assets was reported to have reached approximately $18 billion.

At the center of the investigation are unusual price movements in certain stocks, the concentration of funds in particular shares, and the impact of these transactions on fund valuations. Prosecutors are examining suspicions of market manipulation and money laundering.

The first question that needs to be answered is straightforward: Which oversight mechanisms were operating before a crisis of this scale emerged in the capital markets? When were the unusual price movements first detected? If warnings had been issued earlier, which institutions received them, and how were they handled?

The answers concern not only the outcome of the investigation but also the state’s responsibility for financial oversight.

Is Organised Crime Part of the Case? The Legal Process Must Be Transparent

One of the main issues in the debate over the fund investigation is the claim that the case has not been treated as organised crime.

However, information made public about the investigation calls for a careful examination of that claim. Reports indicate that the investigation includes allegations of establishing or joining a criminal organisation, aggravated fraud, laundering proceeds of crime, and violations of the Capital Markets Law.

It would therefore be inaccurate to claim that organised crime allegations are entirely absent from the case. Nevertheless, the fact that the investigation is being handled by a particular prosecution office must be distinguished from the specific offences attributed to the suspects and the evidence against each individual.

The central issue is not simply which offences appear on the list of allegations. It is how thoroughly investigators have established the links between the transactions in question, the flow of money, the decision-making processes, and any coordinated actions that may have taken place.

If evidence points to ongoing relationships between multiple individuals, involving a division of roles and a common criminal purpose, the legal implications must be explicitly assessed in the case file. Such a structure must neither be presumed to exist in advance nor dismissed without examining the evidence.

The public should be informed about the legal nature of the investigation through prosecutorial statements, court decisions, and concrete evidence—not speculation.

Figures Linked to the Government: Is the Investigation Being Applied Equally to Everyone?

One of the most politically sensitive aspects of the fund crisis is the reported status of Fatma Betül Sayan Kaya, a former Minister of Family and Social Services and an AK Party deputy chair, and her husband, İlyas Kaya, as suspects in the case.

According to information made public, the couple’s transactions involving shares in Özata Denizcilik and the profits allegedly obtained from those transactions have come under scrutiny. In statements given as suspects on October 8, Kaya and her husband denied receiving any guidance or privileged information concerning their share transactions.

An essential legal principle must be emphasised at this stage: being named as a suspect in an investigation does not mean that a person has been proven guilty. Allegations must be tested against evidence, and the right to a defence must be protected.

The same legal principle, however, applies to everyone, regardless of political position.

The inclusion of a person linked to the governing party in an investigation should mean that the case is handled according to the law, free from political interference—not that the individual is protected because of their political identity. Equally, nobody should be declared guilty solely because of their political connections.

The public wants to know: On what dates did the suspects carry out the transactions? What relationship, if any, has been established between those transactions and the price movements of the relevant shares? Have investigators examined what information informed the investment decisions? Have the relationships between the suspects and other parties in the case been investigated?

These questions must be answered on the basis of evidence in the case file, not political affiliation.

Does Voluntary Repayment Eliminate Liability?

Another development concerning the Kaya couple involved reports that they had transferred the portion of their investment returns exceeding their original capital into a voluntary repayment account established by the Savings Deposit Insurance Fund (SDIF).

Justice Minister Akın Gürlek stated on October 6 that compensating for twice the amount of the damage could be relevant to the application of effective remorse provisions, but that this would not mean the investigation was closed.

This distinction is extremely important.

Returning money may help address the losses suffered by investors. However, repayment, criminal liability, the legality of the transactions, and the potential liability of other individuals are separate matters.

The basis on which the repayment amount was calculated, the legal consequences it may produce, and the conditions under which the same approach would be available to other suspects in comparable circumstances must be clarified.

Under the law, what matters is not whether a person is close to the government or associated with the opposition, but their conduct and proven responsibility. Repayment mechanisms must not be exempt from the principle of equality.

The Central Question: Why Were Oversight Mechanisms Not Activated Earlier?

One of the most important aspects of the fund crisis in terms of political accountability is when the unusual transactions were first detected.

According to a statement issued by the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office on October 8, the Capital Markets Board was asked to provide information and documents on August 19 following unusual movements in certain funds and shares. Decisions concerning the liquidation of the funds were subsequently made on September 17.

This chronology is important for understanding the launch of the investigation and the decisions that followed. However, it does not, by itself, prove that no earlier warnings were issued or that every institution acted in a timely manner.

This is where the public’s unanswered questions begin.

From what point did the unusual price movements become sufficiently significant to attract attention? Had any reports, complaints, or technical assessments previously reached the relevant institutions? If so, what action was taken? What powers did the regulatory authorities have to intervene?

The answers concern more than the suspects in the investigation. They also concern the functioning of regulatory institutions and the effectiveness of public oversight.

In a country where institutions are responsible for protecting investors’ savings, their duty does not begin and end with taking action after a crisis erupts. Identifying risks in time, implementing necessary safeguards, and explaining oversight procedures transparently are also part of their public responsibilities.

Of course, the available information does not, by itself, establish that any public official deliberately neglected their duties. But that does not mean the oversight process should be exempt from scrutiny.

What If the Opposition Had Been at the Centre of the Same Scandal?

One of the most important tests in Türkiye’s political and legal debates is whether the same legal standards are applied to different political sides.

The questions the public should ask when a fund investigation involves figures linked to the government should be no different from those raised if opposition politicians were implicated in a similar case.

What would happen if a financial crisis of the same scale were linked to the executives of an opposition party or their associates?

Political controversy might intensify rapidly, calls for resignations might emerge, and demands for accountability could grow. But these are possibilities, not established outcomes of an event that has not occurred.

The real issue is whether there is concrete evidence that opposition figures face a stricter legal standard while government figures benefit from a more lenient one.

If investigations involving opposition municipalities or politicians result in swift and extensive judicial action, cases involving figures linked to the government should receive the same degree of legal scrutiny. The reverse is equally true: investigations targeting the opposition must also respect the evidence, the right to a defence, and the presumption of innocence.

The standard of justice cannot change according to who holds a political advantage or disadvantage.

If allegations involving a figure close to the government are not investigated properly, the resulting damage to public confidence will extend beyond that individual. However, reaching such a conclusion requires a concrete assessment of the investigation’s progress, decisions, and evidence.

The Government’s Political Responsibility: Opening an Investigation Is Not Enough

The government’s responsibility is not limited to announcing that an investigation has been launched or that certain individuals have faced judicial action.

Ensuring the reliability of capital markets, guaranteeing that regulatory institutions operate independently and effectively, taking conflict-of-interest allegations seriously, and answering to the public are also part of political accountability.

A crisis affecting hundreds of thousands of investors raises questions that go beyond individual transactions. The public deserves an explanation of where the oversight system failed, whether early-warning mechanisms functioned, and what measures will be introduced to prevent similar incidents.

Rather than presenting the investigation itself as a political achievement, the government should adopt an accountable approach to explaining how the system reached this point.

Calling for an investigation to remain free from political interference does not mean that political responsibility cannot be questioned. Judicial responsibility and political responsibility are different matters. Determining whether a person has committed a crime is the role of the courts; assessing failures in the oversight system and the responsibility of political leadership is a legitimate public concern.

Conclusion: The Law Must Hold Both Government and Opposition to the Same Standard

While the investigation into the fund crisis continues, it would be wrong to reach definitive conclusions, condemn people whose guilt has not been established, or make criminal accusations based on political connections.

Equally, allegations involving figures linked to the government must not be pushed into the background because of political sensitivities.

Given the reports that organised crime allegations are included in the investigation, reducing the debate to whether such charges appear in the case file is insufficient. The central questions are how thoroughly the allegations are being investigated, how the evidence is being assessed, why oversight mechanisms may not have been effective earlier, and whether the same legal standards are being applied to all suspects.

Considering what political and legal consequences might follow if an opposition figure faced the same allegations is a legitimate way to examine the possibility of double standards. But this examination must not treat assumptions as evidence.

A state governed by the rule of law is neither one in which only the opposition is held accountable nor one in which only the government is scrutinised. It is a system in which everyone is subject to the same rules, regardless of political identity.

Genuine accountability in the fund crisis requires more than tracing where the money went. It demands an explanation of why oversight did not work in time, an evidence-based assessment of everyone who may bear responsibility, and clear proof that political power does not stand above justice.

Small investors are not asking for special treatment; they want their savings protected. The public is not asking for privileged individuals; it is asking for the law to be applied equally.