NextFin News - Turkey's central bank is at the center of a widening corruption scandal after prosecutors arrested a former deputy governor in a probe into tender irregularities at the Interbank Card Center, the payment-systems backbone in which the bank is the main shareholder. The arrests, announced by the Istanbul chief prosecutor's office in October 2025, marked the first time a senior figure from the central bank's own leadership was swept up in a criminal case that began with the bank's internal audit — a sequence that now tests the credibility of Turkey's post-2023 orthodox policy turn as the case advances toward trial.
The Arrests and the Tender Probe
The Istanbul chief prosecutor's office said seven people were taken into custody, including former Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey deputy governor Emrah Şener and former BKM general manager Baran Aytaş. Detention warrants were requested for four further suspects abroad. Ten people were detained on October 10, 2025; seven were jailed and three released under judicial control. Şener was later released under judicial supervision — a requirement not to leave his residence and a ban on traveling abroad — and appeared as a non-custodial defendant when the trial opened on June 30, 2026, at the Istanbul 8th High Criminal Court.
The probe centers on two 2023 BKM tenders: the "smart-card procurement" contract and the "Troy specification and applet software development" contract. The indictment charges nine defendants, including Şener and Aytaş, with forming an organization to commit crimes and membership in such an organization. Prosecutors allege bid rigging, embezzlement and fraud that caused public losses exceeding 100 million lira ($2.4 million at the time). Additional allegations include service purchases made without tender from two companies, meal-card payments to students studying abroad in exchange for purported scientific research, and misuse of a corporate credit card assigned to Aytaş.
The chain of discovery matters. The central bank carried out an audit of BKM in October 2024. That audit flagged suspected misconduct, and in December 2024 the bank filed a criminal complaint with the Istanbul chief prosecutor's office.
"The CBRT and the BKM are meticulously monitoring the ongoing judicial proceedings pertaining to the matter,"the central bank said in a statement.
Şener, 47, denies involvement.
"I have no connection to the tenders or transactions conducted at the BKM,"he told an Istanbul court during the arrest process. His defense at the trial's opening hearing was sharper:
"As deputy governor I served a long time. Until 2023 we brought a card with 0 market share to 30% levels. The firms shown as fictitious turned out to be real."
Aytaş offered a different account of the same tenders:
"We tried to find a manufacturer for the card need but most were foreign companies. We looked for a local company and contacted Enarge. The tender was conducted that way so it could be obtained quickly."
Within days of the arrests, the probe widened politically. Commentators cited in Turkish reporting alleged that former central bank governor Hafize Gaye Erkan was told verbally about the irregularities but did not authorize an investigation, and that the probe was launched only days after her successor, Fatih Karahan, took office in February 2024. The same commentary alleged that Şener occupied the governor's official residence. These are allegations reported in the media, not charges brought by prosecutors, and neither Erkan nor Şener has been charged in connection with them. Erkan left the governor's post on February 2, 2024, after eight months, and was replaced by Karahan.
Why the Case Reaches Beyond One Failed Tender
BKM is the plumbing of Turkey's electronic payments. Established in 1990 and majority-owned by the central bank alongside private banks, it operates the domestic card scheme Troy and processes the country's interbank card transactions. Every card payment in Turkey — whether on a domestic Troy card or an international scheme — clears through infrastructure that BKM helps govern. A corruption case inside BKM is therefore not a peripheral procurement matter; it reaches into the operational core of the monetary authority's payment infrastructure.
The tenders in question were tied directly to the policy priority of the moment: the push to localize payment technology and expand Troy's market share. Turkey has treated a sovereign card scheme as strategic infrastructure since the 2010s, and the 2023 tenders were a key step in that program. Şener's own defense frames the case in exactly these terms — he claims the accelerated tender was necessary to find a domestic supplier when foreign manufacturers dominated. That framing, if accepted, would recast the irregularities as procedural shortcuts in service of a national industrial objective. If rejected, it becomes evidence that policy priorities were used to justify bypassing procurement rules.
Şener's biography is itself a map of Turkey's monetary-policy whiplash. He was appointed deputy governor on September 2, 2016, during the first phase of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's unorthodox experiment with low interest rates. He was reappointed in September 2020, as the central bank cycled through governors and policy credibility deteriorated. His signature still appears on the 200-lira banknote, a physical reminder of the tenure that is now under criminal scrutiny. His removal in July 2023 — part of a three-deputy reshuffle that brought in new deputies under the post-election orthodox team — placed him outside the policy room just as the institution began its sharp pivot. That timing cuts both ways. It means the alleged tender irregularities predate the orthodox reset, which helps insulate the current leadership from direct operational responsibility. It also means the orthodox team inherited a payment-systems entity whose governance problems only surfaced under its own audit — the very test the new leadership now faces.
The Mechanism: Self-Policing as a Credibility Signal
The transmission channel here is institutional self-policing. The sequence — internal audit in October 2024, criminal complaint in December 2024, arrests in October 2025, trial in June 2026 — is the mechanism by which a central bank signals that its own governance is functioning. For a country whose central bank spent years under political pressure to cut rates against inflation, the fact that the institution referred suspected crimes at a majority-owned entity to prosecutors is itself a data point about institutional strengthening.
This is the under-appreciated side of the story. The scandal is damaging, but the detection mechanism is not. A weak institution hides its own corruption; a strengthening one exposes it, even when the exposure reaches its former leadership. The market has largely treated this as a governance footnote rather than a monetary-policy event — and that distinction is the key to reading what comes next.
The corruption itself is cyclical: a discrete episode with a bounded financial magnitude. One hundred million lira is a rounding error against a central bank balance sheet measured in trillions of lira. Its direct economic impact will mean-revert once the judicial process concludes. But the credibility question it raises is structural, and it cuts in two directions. On one side, the scandal sits awkwardly alongside Turkey's post-2023 orthodox policy reset. That reset depends less on the policy rate — held at 37% since January 2026, after a 100-basis-point cut — than on the perceived integrity of the institutions executing it. A corruption case at a central-bank-controlled entity gives market skeptics a narrative that the orthodox team's institutional house is not fully in order. On the other side, the self-referral is structural evidence in the opposite direction. The audit was conducted under the orthodox leadership; the complaint was filed by that same leadership. The mechanism that caught the problem is the very mechanism the orthodox program promised to install. Separating the two forces is essential: the corruption is the cyclical leg; the functioning of internal controls is the structural leg. Conflating them produces the wrong verdict.
The Second-Order Risk: Political Contamination
The first-order effect of this case is reputational damage to the central bank's image. The second-order effect — the one the market is not pricing — is the risk that the scandal spreads upward to the policy team that has staked its credibility on orthodoxy. The allegations that surfaced in late October 2025 naming former governor Hafize Gaye Erkan are the leading edge of that risk. Erkan's tenure was short and turbulent; she left office in February 2024, and if the investigation begins to implicate sitting or recently-departed leadership beyond Şener, the political cover that has protected the orthodox program could narrow.
Here is the propagation chain: arrests at BKM → reputational hit to the central bank (priced) → allegations reaching the former governor's office (not priced as a policy risk) → political pressure on the current leadership → risk to the credibility of the 37% rate path and the disinflation program. The Turkish central bank has held its policy rate at 37% since cutting it by 100 basis points in January 2026, while revising its end-2026 inflation forecast up to 28%, with a path to 15% at end-2027 and 9% at end-2028 before stabilizing at the 5% medium-term target. That normalization path assumes political stability around the policy team. A widening scandal is the most plausible domestic shock to that assumption.
The lira has already absorbed more than its share of headline risk over the past three years, and the currency's moves in response to corruption news are typically short-lived unless the news touches the policy team itself. That is the asymmetry: BKM executives being tried is a headline; a sitting deputy governor or the governor's office being drawn in would be a regime question.
The Counter-Thesis: A Politically-Timed Prosecution
The strongest case against the interpretation above is that this is selective, politically-timed prosecution rather than genuine institutional self-cleaning. Turkey has a long history of corruption investigations that cluster around political cycles, and the timing — arrests under an administration that has made the orthodox turn its signature economic project — invites skepticism. If the case is politically engineered, then the self-referral narrative collapses: the audit and complaint become tools of factional warfare, and the scandal damages institutions more than the underlying corruption ever did.
That counter-thesis has weight, but the timeline argues against pure political engineering. The audit was completed in October 2024 and the criminal complaint filed in December 2024 — months before the October 2025 arrests, and under a chain of events the bank itself initiated. Political prosecutions typically move from political signal to judicial action; this one moved from internal audit to judicial action. The distinction is not dispositive, but it is the difference between a weaponized judiciary and a functioning compliance function. The falsifying signal is specific: if evidence emerges that the audit or complaint was directed by political actors rather than initiated by the bank's own controls, the institutional-strengthening reading is wrong.
What Comes Next: Scenarios and Signals
Who benefits and who is exposed is clearest when split by time horizon. In the short term, the central bank absorbs a reputational hit and the lira's already-volatile trading range may widen on headline risk; the exposed are the institution's credibility and, by extension, the political capital of the orthodox team. In the medium term, the trial's evidentiary record will determine whether the case is read as self-cleaning or self-inflicted; a conviction with clear documentary evidence of the tender irregularities would close the reputational wound, while a collapse of the case or evidence of political direction would reopen it wider.
In the long term, the structural question dominates: whether Turkey's central bank has installed governance that polices itself even when the target is its own former leadership. The base case is that the scandal remains bounded — the 100 million lira figure is small, the detection mechanism worked, and the orthodox policy path survives because the alternative (a return to unorthodox rate cuts) carries higher political cost than the scandal. The downside case is that the allegations against the former governor's office prove substantiated, drawing the current leadership into the controversy and forcing a reassessment of the institutional credibility that underpins the 37% rate path. The upside case is that a clean, evidence-backed conviction demonstrates that the orthodox team's governance reforms are real, strengthening Turkey's institutional discount over the disinflation program's remaining horizon.
What to watch, in order: the trial's evidentiary record on the two 2023 tenders; whether the allegations against the former governor's office advance beyond media commentary into formal investigative steps; and the central bank's own communication discipline as the case proceeds. The single falsifying signal for the base case is straightforward: if the investigation formally expands beyond Şener and BKM executives to sitting or recently-departed members of the orthodox policy team, the "bounded scandal" verdict is wrong and the credibility premium the market has granted Turkey's normalization deserves to be repriced.
The scandal is a test not of whether corruption existed — it plainly did — but of whether the institution that found it is stronger for having looked.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
