Legal refutation
Structure of the main charge
The indictments frame the conduct of the corruption investigation as a "judicial coup attempt." The legal refutation runs along the following axes.
Jurisdiction
The Financial Crimes officers acted under judicial orders issued under CMK and PVSK. Police action under judicial order cannot constitute a crime.
Element of TCK art.312: violence and force
TCK art.312 criminalizes "forcibly overthrowing the government or obstructing its operations." Its essential element is force and violence. The file plainly shows that no act of material force or violence materialized during the operation. Police action under judicial order cannot be characterized as "force."
Fabrication of instrumental offenses
TCK arts.132 (breach of confidentiality of communications), 133 (interception of conversations), 134 (breach of private life), 138 (failure to destroy data) cannot apply to communications surveillance conducted under judicial order. Including these articles in the indictment is intended to mask the absence of the actus reus.
ByLock and digital evidence
The principal evidence relied upon in the indictments — ByLock, payphone use patterns, and chat records — is of disputed legality under AYM and ECtHR case law. Yalçınkaya v. Turkey (2023) finds that the use of ByLock alone as evidence violates the right to a fair trial.
Acquittal of the judges
The judges who issued wiretap orders in the Dec 25 file, Süleyman Karaçöl and Menekşe Uyar, were acquitted in their proceedings. The acquittal stands as judicial confirmation of the legality of the wiretap orders — and contradicts the convictions handed down to the officers who executed those very orders.