Aydın Doğan

Following a complaint by the securities regulator, Aydın Doğan, his daughter Hanzade Doğan Boyner and two other executives were prosecuted for breach of capital markets legislation. The allegation concerned imports of paper and printing equipment by Hürriyet and Doğan Gazetecilik through offshore companies linked to the family, allegedly resulting in an improper benefit. The defendants were initially acquitted; several Court of Cassation reversals followed, including a 2018 decision finding that the elements of the offence were established. After the proceedings resumed, the case was ultimately discontinued as time-barred in 2019.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Accused

Course of the proceedings

1. Formally charged — Formal charge before the current outcome

In 2018, Aydın Doğan sold Hürriyet, CNN Türk, Kanal D and other media assets to Demirören Group, which was close to the government. Reuters and other outlets placed the transaction in the context of years of government pressure and transformation of Turkey's media landscape.

State of the evidence

Disputed

Legal status — source text

Not applicable

Attribution

Directly implicated

An Istanbul court accepted an indictment against Aydın Doğan and several dozen others concerning Petrol Ofisi imports. The reported charges included fuel smuggling, tax fraud, forgery and criminal organisation. In 2017, Doğan was required to appear and presented his defence.

Attribution

Accused

In September 2015, the headquarters of Hürriyet, owned by Doğan Group, were attacked twice by pro-AKP crowds; an AKP youth leader participated in the first gathering and made threatening remarks about Doğan. Group journalists also received threats, and Ahmet Hakan was physically assaulted in October.

State of the evidence

Documented

In 2015, the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor's Office reopened investigations into the "civilian aspect" of the process of 28 February 1997 and requested information about Aydın Doğan's companies, the privatisation of Petrol Ofisi and its subsequent transactions. It also requested that witnesses be questioned about a phrase attributed to Doğan that he had "brought down" the REFAHYOL government.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated

Following the release of telephone recordings, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan acknowledged in March 2014 that he had asked his Justice Minister to follow a trial involving Aydın Doğan, while presenting this as normal. The recordings and his remarks fuelled a major controversy over judicial independence and pressure on the media owner.

State of the evidence

Admitted by the person

Attribution

Direct responsibility

In 2013, Cem Uzan claimed that during a meeting in Bodrum in 2001, Aydın Doğan had allegedly demanded 38 million dollars to stop hostile publications about his family, and that a recording of the conversation had subsequently been seized by prosecutors. Doğan publicly rejected the allegation as slander and maintained that the meeting had been secretly recorded and then edited for blackmail purposes; he stated that he had initiated proceedings over the matter.

Attribution

Directly implicated

Columnist Emin Çölaşan, dismissed from Hürriyet in 2007 after more than twenty years at the newspaper, subsequently accused Aydın Doğan and his editorial circle of wanting to limit his criticism of the AKP and claimed he had been offered a substantial sum to leave the newspaper. In 2012, Doğan publicly acknowledged having personally decided on the dismissal, while denying any political motive and describing Çölaşan as having become "unmanageable". The two men also engaged in legal disputes over the book published by Çölaşan after his departure.

Attribution

Directly implicated

In 2009, Turkish tax authorities imposed penalties amounting to billions of lira on Doğan Media companies while the group was openly in conflict with the government. The affair raised international concerns about possible political use of taxation against a critical media group.

State of the evidence

Documented

Aydın Doğan and other executives were tried for alleged accounting manipulation relating to the date of the sale of Doğan TV shares to Axel Springer, in a case where sentences of up to three years' imprisonment were sought. In December 2010, the court acquitted all seven defendants because the commission of the offence by the accused had not been established.

Legal status — source text

Acquitted / conviction overturned

Attribution

Accused

Role of the person profiled

Protagonist not prosecuted

In separate proceedings concerning press distribution, the Turkish Competition Authority examined BBD, BİRYAY and YAYSAT, the two major distribution networks associated with the Bilgin and Doğan groups. Its decision of 17 July 2000 found violations of Articles 4 and 6 of competition law, ordered contractual amendments and imposed, in particular, a fine of 990.252 billion old Turkish lira on YAYSAT. BİRYAY's structure and practices continued to be the subject of competition proceedings and administrative litigation in subsequent years.

State of the evidence

Documented

The Doğan media's coverage of the German Deniz Feneri trial triggered an open confrontation between Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Aydın Doğan in September 2008. Erdoğan accused the group of conducting a smear campaign to advance interests linked in particular to the Hilton project; Doğan responded by denouncing a threat to press freedom and describing the Prime Minister's attitude as political blackmail.

State of the evidence

Documented

Legal status — source text

Not applicable

Attribution

Directly implicated

Following an investigation into the prices of political and sports daily newspapers, the Turkish Competition Authority concluded in 2000 that Hürriyet, Milliyet, Sabah, Fanatik and Taraftar-Fotomaç had coordinated their prices through "concerted action" and imposed administrative sanctions on the companies concerned. Hürriyet, Milliyet and Simge belonged to Doğan Group. Administrative litigation continued for several years, with annulments and reassessment of the decision on procedural grounds.

State of the evidence

Documented