Historically, Ottoman finance was built on a strong centralized structure and a detailed tax system. However, over time, institutional weaknesses, bribery and corruption emerged in various areas of this structure. This corruption, which affected many areas from tax collection systems to bureaucratic appointments, can be explained not only by individual moral deviations but also by systemic and structural reasons. The creation of new administrative and financial institutions with the modernization efforts since the Tanzimat also aimed to combat corruption through centralist reforms; however, practices in the provinces and political interventions limited the effectiveness of these institutions. Especially during the Tanzimat and Sultan Abdülhamid II periods, institutional weaknesses in the management, control and distribution of public resources caused corruption to become a systemic problem.

The main purpose of this study is to examine the phenomenon of bribery and corruption in the Ottoman economic modernization process together with its institutional roots and to analyze the effects of this phenomenon on state finance, administrative structure and public trust in a historical context. The study examines the structural problems that emerged in the fiscal organization and the effectiveness of the control mechanisms starting from the classical period, through the Tanzimat reforms and the reign of Sultan Abdülhamid II, and discusses why the institutional transformation efforts in public finance were not fully successful. In this context, the main areas of analysis are the balance between central and provincial organizations, the vulnerability to abuse of practices such as refugees and iltizam, unethical practices in concession relations with foreign capital, and the performance of financial audit institutions. The findings of the study reveal that corruption and bribery mechanisms in the Ottoman Empire were a multi-layered problem area that directly affected not only the financial system but also public trust, bureaucratic legitimacy and economic development processes.