The Scales Are Not Balanced: A Prosecutor's Decision, a Munich Letter and a Missing Suspect on One Side; an Undocumented Accusation on the Other

The editorial

SPECIAL REPORT 2 · EDITORIAL · THE OTHER SIDE OF THE SARIGÜL CASE — 18 October 2026. This article contains the editorial opinion of The Ledgers.

Since 16 October, we have heard two statements from Sarıgül's side: “A commercial business dispute” and “an ugly smear campaign”. The other party to the dispute is the SKM Group, comprising Sinan Çampınar (German-Turkish), Kai (German) and Marc (Swiss). The three partners say the relationship they established with Sarıgül's circle for a marina and hotel project in Licata, Sicily, turned into a dispute as soon as they began asking about the source of the funds. This account is one-sided. But it is also the only account consistent with the documents in The Ledgers' possession.

What is on the record on Sarıgül's side?

• An investigation by the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office into “money laundering” and “threats”; six detention orders, five detentions. The allegations concerning MP Sarıgül were referred to Ankara.

• Two lawyers' letters prepared to be sent from Munich on 12 and 21 November 2025. Both remain unanswered. According to the letter, Ömer Sarıgül also refused to provide information.

• Bayern Holding 24 GmbH, described as Kotil's company, whose registration has not been completed (i.G.); two notary appointments in Munich; a draft contract alleged to have been prepared in Mustafa Sarıgül's name.

• Emir Sarıgül: First came “He will turn himself in”; the next day came “I cannot reach him”. He has not been seen for three days. In January 2026, he was sentenced to imprisonment over the allegation that municipal funds had been provided to DHKP/C (the judgment is not final); around the same time, it emerged that he was in London while saying “I am in Levent” (Sözcü, 23 January 2026).

What is on the record on SKM's side?

• Mustafa Sarıgül's verbal accusation of fraud. Which transaction, what amount, which document: none was disclosed.

• The allegation that “a €100 transaction was recorded as €100 million”. No bank receipt or case-file contents were shown.

• By contrast, what SKM did is documented: through a lawyer, citing German anti-money-laundering legislation (GwG, TraFinG), it asked about the beneficial owner and source of funds, set a deadline and, when no reply came, went to the judicial authorities.

• An unresolved point: Are the complainants identified by the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office as K.P. and M.B. the SKM partners? The initials match, but the citizenship information (Marc is Swiss) does not. This has not been verified.

The Ledgers' view

Would a party committing fraud ask the other side's lawyer about compliance with anti-money-laundering legislation? Would it request the identity of the companies' beneficial owner, notarial deeds and draft contract in writing? Would it go to the prosecutor's office when no reply came?

In this case, it is clear which side is asking questions and which side remains silent. Questions sent from Munich a year ago are now the subject of an investigation file in Istanbul. Throughout this period, Sarıgül's side has not produced a single document; it said “slander” and “forged document”, but did not say which document was forged or why. His son, who is subject to a detention order, meanwhile disappeared instead of giving a statement.

A detention order is not a finding of guilt; we write this in every report and will continue to do so. But the presumption of innocence is not a right for a party asked for documents to withhold them. If the allegations really are slander, the way to refute them is clear: bank receipts, registry records, notarial deeds and a statement.

A party asking questions with documents and a party making accusations without documents cannot be placed on an equal footing. If the Sarıgül family wants to speak, let the documents speak first.

We await a response from Sarıgül's side

• Why did the letters dated 12 and 21 November 2025 go unanswered?

• Why was Bayern Holding 24 GmbH i.G. established, and who is its beneficial owner?

• In which transaction, and involving what amount, did the SKM partners commit fraud? Where is the documentation?

• Which document is forged? Who produced it?

• Where is Emir Sarıgül, and why is he not giving a statement?

We also asked the SKM Group: Are you K.P. and M.B.; did the allegation concerning a €1 billion fund originate with you? Responses will be published as they arrive.

This article contains the editorial opinion of The Ledgers. The SKM Group's account is one-sided. A detention order and an investigation are not findings of guilt; there is no final judicial ruling against anyone named, and the presumption of innocence is fundamental. The January 2026 conviction of Emir Sarıgül is not final. The individuals and organizations named retain their right of reply; any statements received will be published verbatim.

Based on reporting from: The Ledgers · Bulletin / Special Dossier 2 · 18 October 2026.