One
Decision not to indict Cecil Elzan on “restraint” allegations…
The Istanbul Chief Prosecutor’s decision on the absence of need for prosecution reminded that Cecil Erzan had claimed to have been detained by Denizbank officials, but explained that the bank management had not been able to contact Erzan until April 8, 2023.
2
The decision states that Denizbank’s regional manager Sermin Tekin, together with other bank officials, tried to contact Erzan by phone after Arda Turan, whose statement was taken as a witness within the scope of the investigation, said she had been in contact with him. Erzan It is recorded that shortly after this call, Erzan called back on another line and sent Tekin’s address and location via WhatsApp.
3
The judgement stated that it was clear from the correspondence that Erzan was comfortable and free at this point, stressing that he had been communicating with bank officials on separate telephones, had considered all possibilities and was in a position to easily communicate with anyone at any time.
Four
In the verdict, it was stated that Erzan visited the Denizbank Headquarters Building together with defendant Hüseyin Eligül on April 8, 9 and 10, 2023, was tried within the scope of the main case file, and returned to his home in 2023. Once these were assessed, it was reported that Erzan had the opportunity to go wherever he wanted, could escape or contact anyone he wanted by phone.
Five
“No clear and reliable evidence was obtained.”
It was explained that Cecil Erzan did not encounter any negative circumstances when entering or leaving the Deniz Bank headquarters building, and it was emphasized that no conclusive and convincing evidence had been obtained that this crime had been committed, apart from Erzan’s abstract claims that she had been deprived of her freedom.
6
The ruling upheld the allegations against bank officials by Musa Mert Çetin, Selçuk İnan, Emra Çolak, Emre Çolak and İsmail İbrahim Çalar for “depriving people of their freedom,” “destroying, concealing or falsifying evidence of a crime,” and “favoring the bank.” It was noted that the “criminal” charges were also final and conclusive, and no convincing evidence was found.
