Payments, a rival and a success fee: SICPA’s fight to retain Türkiye’s tax-stamp contract

The record

On the evening of 19 February 2014, the CEO of Trasseo Capital SA, registered in Monthey, Switzerland, reported that he had made payments for five “perpetual loan contracts”, totalling €450,000. He sent the message and payment confirmations to Bruno Frentzel, an executive at Swiss security-ink and tax-stamp supplier SICPA SA (CH).

Shortly after 1am, Frentzel forwarded them to Hakan Arıkan, general manager of SICPA’s Turkish joint venture, SICPA-Assan. His note read: “You can communicate the wire transfer numbers to Y.”

The joint venture was fighting to retain the contract it had held since 2007 to operate Türkiye’s tobacco and alcohol tax-stamp system. Seven months later, it won a new five-year contract worth TL359 million.

The documents obtained by The Ledgers show payments routed through a Swiss intermediary, a proposed success fee tied to SICPA winning the tender, and a SICPA executive promising to honour “all commitments” while saying he would “not write anything at this stage”.

A contract worth defending

SICPA’s partnership with the Kibar family’s Assan group had won the Turkish Revenue Administration’s original tender in late 2006. Its five-year contract ran from 2007 to 2012. [1] [2]

In 2012, Gate Elektronik and its French partner Prooftag won the next tender with a TL217 million offer, TL107 million below SICPA-Assan’s. SICPA-Assan challenged the award. An administrative court annulled it; in 2013, the Council of State upheld that decision by three votes to two, according to contemporaneous reporting. [3]

The procurement account places Lettra among the purchasers of tender documents in February, but not among the bidders. It did not participate in September. The later contract’s value and signature date appear in a parliamentary document discussing questions raised by opposition MP Akif Hamzaçebi. [4]

€450,000 through a Swiss intermediary

Trasseo had consultancy agreements with five individuals in Türkiye. One was Yavuz Bacacı, who signed his emails on behalf of Lettra Teknoloji. The copy reviewed by The Ledgers takes effect on 1 February 2014, two days before the tender. The other four individuals are not named here because their roles have not been established.

Under the agreements, Trasseo acts for an unnamed “Principal” whose identity it may choose never to disclose. The text describes Trasseo as an entity unrelated to that Principal, while making the services directly relevant to Trasseo’s obligations under its contracts with the Principal. The Principal has audit rights and ownership of the work.

The services include developing a track-and-trace system in Türkiye with functions similar to a system used by Trasseo’s customer. Intellectual property passes to that customer. SICPA-Assan operated Türkiye’s tobacco and alcohol tracking system in 2014. SICPA did not answer whether it was the unnamed Principal.

The agreements also prohibit competition with Trasseo, the Principal or their affiliates in security inks, brand protection, and systems identifying, authenticating and certifying products and documents. The restriction applies during the agreement and for 12 months afterwards. A later SICPA consultancy draft describes its business in strikingly similar terms.

At 16:02 on 19 February, Trasseo CEO Umar Khan sent Frentzel five signed and scanned consultancy agreements, introducing the message with “As discussed”. Frentzel forwarded the material to Arıkan within two hours. The payment email and the reference to “Y” followed that night. The email does not identify Y.

One payment instruction is included in the documents. It asks Credit Suisse to transfer €90,000 from Trasseo to one of the five individuals, with a transaction date of 20 February 2014. Although Khan’s email refers to loans, the instruction’s payment reason is “per consultancy contract 1 feb 2014”.

A separate agreement between Trasseo and Lettra is also dated 1 February. It says Lettra has already received €500,000 in full for software development exclusively benefiting Trasseo’s customer.

“Thanks for the support”

On the morning of the February tender, Frentzel sent an email headed “Tender turkey this morning”. He described SICPA as the only bidder at 11am, said formal approval was still needed, and expressed confidence that the company would remain the incumbent for another 10 to 15 months. He referred to a TL45 million price for 10 months and a small discount, then thanked the recipients for their support.

The procurement account lists three bidders that day: SICPA-Assan, Gate Elektronik and Eksim. The tender was later cancelled for lack of a valid offer. SICPA did not explain the discrepancy between that account and the “only bidder” description.

Lettra, Gate and the 13.6% fee

On 24 February, Bacacı emailed Frentzel, copying Arıkan, and asked him to use his Lettra address: “I’m using the Gate email only for the Turkish ID Card Project.” Gate had competed against SICPA in the tenders discussed here.

Bacacı said he was still waiting for a contract for the next project and was dissatisfied with the process. Frentzel replied within an hour: “I will not write anything at this stage I honour all commitments and I work according my agenda That’s my way”. He forwarded the exchange to Arıkan, adding that he was not at Bacacı’s orders.

On 14 May, Akman circulated a consultancy draft between SICPA Security Solutions SA and Lettra. It carried an effective date of 1 September 2013, more than eight months earlier. A comparison document set out the parties’ positions.

Both columns proposed a 13.6% commission and made entitlement conditional on SICPA or an affiliate winning the customer’s new tender. SICPA wanted the percentage calculated on net revenue, with no payment below an annual TL40 million threshold. Lettra proposed a TL35 million threshold plus VAT. SICPA proposed a bank guarantee securing its obligations.

A 13.6% share of a five-year contract worth TL359 million amounts to approximately TL49 million.

An undated term sheet, written from the consultant’s perspective, lists responsibilities including winning the tender, Turkish-law advice, marketing advice and information about competitors. It says the consultant’s responsibilities finish successfully when SICPA wins the tender. It also seeks a five-year commission guarantee from a third party and coverage of tobacco and alcohol tracking purchases by public bodies, including direct procurement.

On 30 May 2014, Arıkan listed companies participating in the Turkish Revenue Administration’s consultation on draft specifications. Beside Lettra he wrote, in Turkish: “gate adına katılan ikinci bir firma”—a second company participating on Gate’s behalf.

A US company and an escrow proposal

The consultant’s term sheet asks SICPA to guarantee five years of commission through a third party. It also says SICPA will send an escrow-account draft in advance, to become effective when SICPA wins and signs the tender.

A week after the consultancy draft circulated, a letter dated 21 May 2014 authorised Bacacı to enter into contracts for Avialift LLC inside and outside Türkiye. The letter was notarised in Forsyth County, Georgia, in the United States.

A draft escrow agreement between SICPA Security Solutions SA, Avialift LLC and a notary in Lausanne provides for SICPA to deliver a cheque of up to €4.5 million to secure the consultant’s commission.

The Ledgers asked SICPA about an escrow agreement and any money going to Avialift, and why a Turkish procurement arrangement involved a US company. Neither SICPA nor Avialift responded.

“Make sure we control the decision”

A year before the payment emails, SICPA-Assan was contesting the award of the 2012 tender to Gate. On 4 January 2013, a lawyer told Arıkan that the appeal had been registered with the Council of State’s 13th Chamber, Türkiye’s highest administrative judicial body.

Arıkan relayed the news to Frentzel and colleagues the next day, anticipating a decision within four to six weeks and hoping for a favourable result. On 6 January, Frentzel forwarded the exchange to Akman with the note: “For information . make sure we control the decision”.

The email does not explain what he meant or what Akman was expected to do. SICPA did not answer questions about the note or Akman’s role. Reporting in September 2013 described the chamber’s three-to-two decision upholding the annulment of Gate’s award. [3]

SICPA’s record and Turkish law

In April 2023, Switzerland’s Office of the Attorney General ordered SICPA SA to pay CHF81 million: a CHF1 million fine and a CHF80 million compensatory claim. It found organisational deficiencies that enabled employees to bribe officials in Brazil, Colombia and Venezuela. A former sales manager received a suspended 170-day prison sentence; proceedings against the CEO and principal shareholder were discontinued. [5] [6]

In 2021, SICPA had also paid CHF135 million to resolve its legal issues in Brazil. [7] SICPA did not appeal the Swiss penalty order, but disputed its grounds. Its published response says the corporate finding does not mean the company itself committed, wanted or accepted former employees’ or consultants’ conduct, and describes subsequent compliance reforms. [8]

Article 17 of Türkiye’s Public Procurement Law prohibits conduct affecting competition or procurement decisions, including offering agreements to bidders. Bid rigging is an offence carrying a prison term of three to seven years under Article 235 of the Turkish Penal Code. Whether any arrangement described here meets a statutory test is a question for the competent authorities and courts.

No response recorded before publication

The Ledgers sent SICPA ten detailed questions on 25 October 2026 and set a deadline of 17:00 Swiss time on 30 September 2026. They covered Trasseo, the nature of the payments, the “only bidder” email, Lettra and Avialift, and the 2013 Council of State note. The company was told its response would be published in full or fairly summarised.

Related questions were also sent at the same time to Kibar Holding, SICPA’s partner in SICPA-Assan, and to Lettra Teknoloji.

None had responded by publication. It does not allege wrongdoing by the other bidders merely because they participated, and will publish responses received.

About this investigation

The Ledgers obtained internal company emails from 2013 and 2014, Trasseo agreements, a bank payment instruction, a SICPA–Lettra consultancy draft together with a document comparing the parties’ positions, an undated term sheet, an Avialift authorisation letter, and Turkish Revenue Administration procurement records.

The tender numbers, dates and bidders in the records match publicly available sources, including the parliamentary document and press reports cited here. The email chains are consistent both with their attachments and with one another.