SKM responds: promised €1 billion either did not exist or had a questionable source, group claims

The record

According to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, the money-laundering investigation involving members of the Sarıgül family began with a complaint by two people identified as “German citizens K.P. and M.B.” The initials of two partners in the SKM Group, made up of Sinan Çampınar (German-Turkish), Kai (German) and Marc (Swiss), correspond to those abbreviations. However, the prosecutor's office describes both complainants as German citizens, while the partner whose initials correspond to M.B. is Swiss. In its German-language answers to 16 questions, dated 19 October, SKM says it approached prosecutors and filed a complaint over threats; it does not explicitly confirm that the initials refer to its members.

What does SKM say?

Money-laundering accusation: SKM says it did not file a complaint accusing anyone of money laundering. It says it merely reported circumstances that raised suspicion and left the legal assessment to prosecutors.

€1 billion: According to SKM, allegations that its projects were fictitious are intended to distract from the issue that “investment funds of up to €1 billion reported to us either did not exist or came from questionable sources.” SKM also writes that it suspects its projects were intended to be used “to explain to supervisory authorities” the movement of those funds.

Four telephone calls: “Our partner Sinan Çampınar and we were seriously threatened by Emir Sarıgül in four consecutive telephone calls.” The group also alleges that Mustafa Sarıgül expressed “severe fantasies of violence” in another call.

Fraud accusation: “Where, exactly, is the SKM Group's supposed fraud?” The group says the projects belong exclusively to SKM and its business partners, and that Sarıgül and North (which SKM describes as Sarıgül's company) “have never held, and do not now hold, any stake” in them.

€500 million: The group alleges that the projects to which Sarıgül had “committed” suffered damage “up to and including total loss,” and that the overall loss exceeds €500 million.

The figures: Who says what?

• SKM's replies: Up to €1 billion in “reported” investment funds and alleged losses exceeding €500 million. - Complainants' allegations in the prosecutor's statement: An €80 million contract; a promise to transfer €1 billion abroad through a loan by “using public power and influence”; and a €1.5 million boat sale. - Allegation reported by the media (Takvim, Haber 7; 18 October): A luxury yacht in Göcek valued at $5 million was allegedly transferred into Emir Sarıgül's name as “collateral,” without payment of its price.

“We did not file a complaint accusing anyone of money laundering, let alone organized fraud. We merely reported circumstances that raised suspicion to the Turkish prosecutor's office.”

— SKM Group, 19 October 2026

Where was the money supposed to come from?

According to SKM, the relationship established through Sinan Çampınar broke down because of “unfulfilled investment promises” and “proof of capital that contained no documentation showing a legitimate source.” The partners say they moved a holding structure established in Germany to Istanbul at the Turkish investor's request, and incurred substantial expenditure on the African and European projects to which Sarıgül had committed.

For a secured project loan discussed with a credit institution, SKM says the bank repeatedly requested additional documents; the correspondence contains no final approval. SKM is cautious on this point: “Missing documents alone are not proof that the money comes from an unlawful source.”

Hotel and marina projects: “Total loss”

According to SKM, the European hotel and marina projects are a “total loss” and might only be rescued “if the outstanding sums are paid immediately.” Related projects involving a 50 MW solar power plant and battery storage have also suffered damage. Yet in the preceding paragraph of the same response, SKM writes that it is not “announcing in advance a final loss figure or a definite total loss.”

The threat allegation and journalist Ağırel

On 16 October, the prosecutor's office said the complainants alleged that they had sent information and documents to journalist Murat Ağırel “for publication as news,” and had been threatened “after these were passed on to the relevant individuals.” The statement does not say who passed on the documents. SKM's allegation of threats is not linked in its replies to the documents given to Ağırel; whether the two accounts concern the same events is unknown, and the allegations have not been verified.

According to media reports, Ağırel tried to verify the allegations by putting them to the Sarıgül family's lawyers, and did not publish them because he could not confirm them. The complainants filed a complaint against him for “not publishing the story and leaking the documents” (soL). Ağırel is not named in SKM's replies.

Why did they go to prosecutors?

According to SKM, Sarıgül and North did not respond to company letters and also ignored letters from a German lawyer. The only reply came from North's lawyer and contained “accusations.” SKM says it wanted prosecutors to examine the truth of those accusations and intends to seek compensation through civil proceedings after the criminal process.

Note: In our 18 October bulletins, we wrote that the letters from Munich had gone unanswered. SKM also says the lawyers' letters were ignored, but adds that a single reply arrived from North's lawyer, without identifying which letter it answered.

What does the Sarıgül side say?

16 October: “The matter is a commercial business dispute. […] The origin and authenticity of the documents are questionable.”

Social media (T24, 19 October): “No public tender, land, credit, etc. was given to these individuals.” Sarıgül says it became clear, “albeit belatedly,” that the investment projects were “fictitious and intended to defraud”: “The only injured parties in this affair are my family and me.”

He accuses the other side of blackmail. After “failing to obtain results from their direct and indirect blackmail,” he says, the individuals contacted Ağırel and filed complaints against members of the family and Ağırel.

He maintains that the documents, contracts, bank receipts and notarizations were “fake” and “fabricated.” In the statements we were able to access, there is no direct response to the specific threat allegations.

The Ledgers' note

SKM's reply sharpens the central question in this case: Did €1 billion actually exist, and if so, where did it come from? According to SKM, the money either did not exist or its source was questionable; according to Sarıgül, the projects were “fictitious” and the other side was engaged in blackmail. Bank records, contracts and the judicial process—not statements alone—will show which account is supported by documents.

The replies also raise new questions. SKM says it did not complain against anyone for money laundering, yet suspects its projects were intended to be used to explain the movement of funds. It alleges losses exceeding €500 million, yet writes in the same text that it is not “announcing in advance” a final loss figure.

Seeking to verify allegations by putting them to the other side is part of a journalist's professional duty; it cannot, by itself, be treated as a crime.

Status when the 19 October 2026 bulletin was prepared

16 October: Detention orders were issued for six people, five of whom were in custody. Allegations concerning Mustafa Sarıgül were to be sent to the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor's Office “for separate assessment.”

Evening of 18 October: Emir Sarıgül went to the police and surrendered after his lawyer returned from abroad.

Morning of 19 October: Together with 12 people detained later, 17 people, including Ömer Sarıgül, Aylin Kotil and journalist Murat Ağırel, were taken to the courthouse. No decision had been announced when the bulletin was prepared.

Questions awaiting answers

For the Sarıgül side

• How does Emir Sarıgül respond to the allegation of threats in four calls, and Mustafa Sarıgül to the allegation of “fantasies of violence”? - Who owns North? Where was the sum of up to €1 billion supposed to come from? - Which document is alleged to be fake, and why? What evidence supports the blackmail allegation? - Was the price of the yacht in Göcek paid?

For the SKM Group

• Where is the itemized breakdown of the claimed €500 million loss? - Are K.P. and M.B. members of your group? Did you file a complaint against Ağırel, and if so, why?

Based on reporting from: The Ledgers · Bulletin / Special Report 3 · SKM written replies · 19 October 2026; T24 / ANKA · Mustafa Sarıgül’s statement · 19 October 2026; T24 / AA · Court referral and the prosecutor’s 16 October statement · 19 October 2026; soL · Murat Ağırel and the investigation · 19 October 2026; Takvim · Yacht allegation · 18 October 2026; Aydınlık · Archive photograph used as portrait reference · 26 October 2023.