On September 11, 2025, Turkey awoke to news that would send shockwaves through its media and business landscape: Haberturk, one of the country’s largest television news broadcasters, had been seized by the state. The move, reported by outlets including ABC and the state-run Anadolu Agency, was part of a sweeping investigation into allegations of fraud, tax evasion, and money laundering tied to Can Holding, a sprawling conglomerate with interests across media, education, energy, hotels, health, construction, and logistics.
The confiscation didn’t stop at Haberturk. Show TV, another prominent broadcaster, also found itself under state control. In total, 121 companies belonging to Can Holding were seized and transferred to the state-run Savings Deposit Insurance Fund, a body typically tasked with managing assets in cases of financial wrongdoing or insolvency.
According to a statement from the Kucukcekmece Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office in Istanbul, the investigation had uncovered a complex web of financial misconduct. Investigators discovered, the statement said, that “large amounts of money of unknown origin were entered via companies operating under Can Holding,” with these funds then shuffled between different entities to hide their origins. The authorities allege that forged documents were employed to reduce tax liabilities, and that some of Can Holding’s activities were “directly financed with criminal revenues.”
Arrest warrants have been issued for 10 people, including senior executives within Can Holding, signaling that the state’s pursuit of accountability is far from over. The legal process is likely to be lengthy and closely watched, given the high profile of the companies and individuals involved.
The breadth of Can Holding’s operations cannot be overstated. The group’s reach stretches across some of the most critical sectors of the Turkish economy. Its media arms, including Haberturk and Show TV, have long been fixtures in Turkish households, delivering news and entertainment to millions. Its ventures in education, energy, health, and construction have made it a significant player in the country’s development and infrastructure.
Yet, the events of September 11 have cast a long shadow over these achievements. The allegations, if proven, would point to a pattern of egregious financial misconduct at the heart of one of Turkey’s most influential business empires. The use of forged documents to reduce tax liability, as alleged by prosecutors, suggests a deliberate effort to evade the state’s oversight. The claim that some activities were directly financed with criminal revenues raises even more troubling questions about the extent and nature of the alleged wrongdoing.
In the immediate aftermath of the seizures, both Haberturk and Show TV continued to operate as usual. On Thursday morning, programming remained uninterrupted, and the tone of coverage did not appear to shift dramatically. This continuity, at least on the surface, belies the turmoil behind the scenes and the uncertainty facing employees, viewers, and the broader Turkish public.
One aspect of the story that has drawn particular attention is the political context. Haberturk, like the majority of major media outlets in Turkey, is known for its support of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government. This alignment, critics say, is symptomatic of a broader trend: the increasing consolidation of media under pro-government control. According to Reporters Without Borders’ 2024 press freedom index, Turkey ranks 158th out of 180 countries, a stark indicator of the challenges facing independent journalism in the country. The organization notes that about 90% of Turkish media is now under government influence.
The seizure of Haberturk and Show TV, then, is not just a business or legal story—it’s a media story, and a political one. For some, the state’s intervention is a necessary response to serious allegations of financial crime. The Kucukcekmece Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office made its position clear, stating that the investigation was driven by evidence of fraud, tax evasion, and money laundering, and that the steps taken were required to protect the integrity of the Turkish economy and legal system.
Others, however, see the events through a different lens. In a country where press freedom has been steadily eroded, and where the vast majority of media outlets are already seen as being under government sway, the confiscation of yet another major broadcaster raises concerns about further narrowing of the public sphere. Reporters Without Borders, in its annual assessment, has repeatedly warned that the environment for independent journalism in Turkey is among the most restrictive in the world. The group’s 2024 report highlighted that “some 90% of media in Turkey was under government influence.”
The fact that Haberturk largely supports the government complicates the narrative. On the one hand, the broadcaster’s editorial line has often been in harmony with official positions, which might suggest that the seizure is not motivated by a desire to silence dissent. On the other hand, the sheer scale of the state’s involvement in the media sector, coupled with the legal rationale for the latest confiscations, has fueled speculation about the boundaries between law enforcement, business, and politics in contemporary Turkey.
For the Turkish public, the immediate impact of these events may not be felt in their daily news consumption—at least not yet. Both Haberturk and Show TV continued broadcasting as usual in the hours following the seizures. But beneath the surface, the landscape is shifting. Employees of the affected companies face an uncertain future, as do the many businesses and institutions that have dealings with Can Holding’s far-reaching network.
For observers abroad, the story is a window into the complex interplay between business, media, and state power in Turkey. The allegations of financial crime are grave and, if substantiated, would represent a significant breach of public trust. At the same time, the context in which these events are unfolding—a media environment already dominated by pro-government voices, and a political climate marked by tension over press freedom—adds layers of complexity to an already dramatic story.
As the investigation continues, all eyes will be on how the Turkish authorities handle the legal proceedings and the management of the seized companies. The outcome will have implications not only for those directly involved, but for the broader questions of transparency, accountability, and freedom of expression in Turkey. For now, the country waits, watching its television screens—and wondering what comes next.
