SİTE İÇERİĞİ

Adnan Oktar and the BAV members were absolved from the groundless allegations made against them through rulings regarding the dismissal of proceedings, the lack of any need for further inquiries, or acquittal.

As another psychological warfare technique, various baseless complaints against Adnan Oktar and certain members of BAV have been lodged with many Prosecutor’s Offices. All the inquiries listed below ended in rulings either acquitting Adnan Oktar and BAV members, or the dismissal of proceedings, or else in rulings stating no further investigations were needed. Nonetheless, unfounded allegations are still being made against Adnan Oktar and the BAV membership, again as a psychological war tactic.

1. The Istanbul Public Prosecutor’s Office opened an inquiry, No. 2005/51724, with claims against Adnan Oktar and certain members of the BAV of “setting up a criminal enterprise for financial gain, slander, menaces and insulting language.” As a result of the Prosecutor’s Office investigation, however, it was determined that no offences had been committed and that there was no need for a criminal inquiry.”
2. An inquiry into Adnan Oktar and certain members of the BAV was opened by the Public Prosecutor’s Office under inquiry No. 2005/51725 on the ground of “setting up an enterprise for criminal purposes.” However, no criminal offence was determined and the court ruled that no investigation was necessary.
3. An inquiry, No. 2005/51274, into Adnan Oktar and certain members of the BAV was opened by the Public Prosecutor’s Office on the ground of “setting up an enterprise for illicit financial gain.” However, no criminal offence was determined and the court ruled that no investigation was necessary.
4. An inquiry into Adnan Oktar and certain members of the BAV was opened by the Public Prosecutor’s Office under inquiry No. 2005/27549 on the grounds of “setting up an enterprise to commit criminal acts.” However, no criminal offence was determined and the court ruled that no investigation was necessary.
5. An inquiry into Adnan Oktar and certain members of the BAV was opened by the Public Prosecutor’s Office under inquiry No. 2005/27549 on the grounds of “setting up an enterprise to commit criminal acts, blackmail, menaces and insulting language.” However, a ruling dated 18.10. 05 decided that no investigation was necessary.
6. An inquiry into Adnan Oktar and certain members of the BAV was opened by the Public Prosecutor’s Office under inquiry No. 2005/60013 on the grounds of “setting up a criminal organisation.” However, a ruling dated 18.10. 05 decided that no investigation was necessary.
7. An inquiry into Adnan Oktar and certain members of the BAV was opened by the Public Prosecutor’s Office under inquiry No. 2002/21669 on the grounds of “setting up a criminal organisation.” However, ruling 2003/6120 decided that no investigation was necessary.
8. Following an appeal against the Public Prosecutor’s Office decision not to proceed under the statute of limitations, decision No. 2005/51724 and inquiry 2006/2432, dated, 27.03.06, an investigation by Istanbul Beyoglu Criminal Court No. 3 determined that there had been no violation of the dismissal of proceedings ruling No. 2006/668 and duly rejected the appeal.
9. Following an appeal against the Public Prosecutor’s Office decision not to proceed under the statute of limitations, decision No. 2005/27549 and inquiry 2006/871, dated, 18.10.05, an investigation by Istanbul Beyoglu Criminal Court No. 3 determined that there had been no violation of the law and regulations on the the dismissal of proceedings and duly rejected the appeal.
10. Following an appeal against the Public Prosecutor’s Office decision not to proceed under the the dismissal of proceedings, decision No. 2002/60013 and inquiry 2002/18838, dated, 31.12.02, an investigation by Istanbul Beyoglu Criminal Court No. 3 determined that there had been no violation of the law and regulations on the the dismissal of proceedings and duly rejected the appeal.
11. Following an appeal against the Public Prosecutor’s Office decision not to proceed under the the dismissal of proceedings, decision No. 2002/39606 and inquiry 2003/8860, dated, 30.06.03, an investigation by Istanbul Beyoglu Criminal Court No. 3 determined, under ruling No. 2003/333, that there had been no violation of the law and regulations on the the dismissal of proceedings and duly rejected the appeal.
12. The Istanbul Eyup Criminal Court examined an appeal lodged against the Bagcilar Prosecutor’s Office ruling, No. 2002/21669 dated 15.10.03, regarding the expiration of the the dismissal of proceedings, and under ruling No. 2003/894 inquiry 2004/12, the court decided there had been no violation or contravention of the applicable law and regulations and rejected the appeal.