Arşiv

📂 Berlin Polisi (LKA 121) – 19 dekabr 2025-ci il tarixli müalicə xətası, sağlamlığa/bədənə zərər vurma və dələduzluqla bağlı cinayət şikayəti – № 251219-1346-467062

On 19 December 2025, I personally went to Berlin Police, LKA 121, and submitted a single criminal complaint. My complaint concerned three matters: medical malpractice (Behandlungsfehler), bodily harm/injury to health (Körperverletzung), and fraud (Betrug). The complaint was registered under reference number 251219-1346-467062. scan_20260623135236-152347.pdf Before preparing the documents, the police officer listened to my account and asked what evidence I had. I showed him the evidence available on my phone. I explained that although I did not have separate formal receipts for all payments, there were WhatsApp communications with the doctors, audio recordings, video and photographic material, treatment records at the clinic, and other evidence capable of establishing the actual treatment, implant procedures and payments. I also showed the police my WhatsApp communications with the doctors. Those communications contain specific information concerning the number of implants and the amounts paid. For example, in a WhatsApp exchange dated 4 February 2025, I informed Dr. Dima that I had paid EUR 2,800 that day, that I had already paid EUR 6,000 in total, and that EUR 4,000 remained outstanding. The other party responded “Ok.” This communication forms part of the evidence I presented concerning the agreement for ten implants at EUR 1,000 per implant and the progression of the payments. There was subsequently also the issue of a separate EUR 1,000 payment for an additional eleventh implant. I further explained that the implant treatment had been carried out in stages. Because of both my financial circumstances and my health, I did not want all of the implant procedures to be performed at once. Under the arrangement, payments and procedures were therefore carried out progressively. For that reason, the WhatsApp communications documenting the sequence of payments and treatment, the clinic’s treatment information, and the other available materials constituted important evidence for examining my complaint. After I showed all of this to the police officer, I was told that all of the video, WhatsApp, audio and other evidentiary materials would not be collected from me that same day. I was told that I would be specifically summoned later and that the evidence would then be taken from me. I was even asked which language I would require for an interpreter. I explained that I speak both Turkish and Russian well, but because my WhatsApp communications and conversations with the doctors were mainly in Russian, I stated that a Russian-language interpreter would be more appropriate. Only after this was the complaint formally documented. The police officer prepared two different documentary versions of my single criminal complaint. The first version, reflecting the full matters I had reported, contained all three issues together: medical malpractice, bodily harm/injury to health, and fraud. A second version was then prepared containing only the allegation of fraud. The police officer showed me both versions. I was given only the version concerning fraud; I was not provided with a copy of the other version containing all three matters. In my subsequent written submission, I also expressly documented that two different versions of the criminal complaint had been prepared and that the broader version covered Behandlungsfehler, Körperverletzung and Betrug. scan_20260623134701-151808.pdf At this stage, the police officer placed a police form in front of me. Although the form contained certain standard identifying information, the section intended for the substantive text/explanation was blank. I was asked to sign this blank form. It was precisely at this point that the officer explained to me that he had prepared two versions: one covering all three matters together and the other concerning fraud alone. He stated that both versions would go to the prosecutor and that the prosecutor would decide which version the case would proceed under. According to the explanation given to me, this was also the reason why I was being asked to sign the form while its substantive section remained blank: the documentation would subsequently be completed according to the prosecutor’s decision. In other words, the manner in which my complaint would ultimately be formally recorded was being left dependent upon a subsequent decision by the prosecutor. I attempted to photograph the blank form that I had signed using my telephone. The police officer did not permit me to do so and told me that I could not take a photograph of it. I was also not provided with a copy of the signed blank form. I was told that a copy would subsequently be sent to me. However, as of 20 September 2026, I have not been provided with a copy of the form I signed, nor have I been informed what was subsequently written into the blank section. I did not raise this issue for the first time months later. In my subsequent written submissions, I specifically raised the preparation of the two different documentary versions during the police interview, the signing of the blank form, the failure to provide me with a copy, and my demand to know what was subsequently entered into the blank section. In my written submission dated 23 March 2026, I expressly asked what had subsequently been written on the blank document that I had signed and requested that a complete copy of that document be provided to me. scan_20260623134701-151808.pdf Nevertheless, from 19 December 2025 through 20 September 2026, the police did not summon me for the promised further submission and collection of evidence. The video material, WhatsApp communications, audio material and other evidence in my possession were not subsequently collected from me. I was not sent a copy of the blank form that I had signed, nor was I informed how that form was subsequently completed or used. I was also not provided with a substantive explanation by the police as to whether my complaint was ultimately recorded and investigated in relation to all three matters or only fraud, or what specific investigative measures, if any, were carried out.