This is the initial view I had when the NOS reported on a debate in the chambers on a case that had occurred 14 years ago (at http://nos.nl/artikel/622822-teevendebat-loopt-met-sisser-af.html). In the first 7 seconds I was hit by two questions that my mind raised
- Does this have any current bearings?
- Why, is the person who was involved not part of the proceedings?
Let’s take a look at what happened.
In 2000 Fred Teeven, who was the District Attorney at that time made a deal with Drug criminal Cees H. a deal which ended the criminal with a nice pay check, no taxation and no prison. The tax office knew nothing of the deal and this case was given a prompt wave of visibility.
This is pretty much it. There were additional loops of misinformation on how this was all about 5-6 million, which was countered that the total amount was 2 million (750,000 of this amount was kept by the Dutch government as a settlement fee).
This all got started by the current Dutch opposition. This entire case shows the same level of nonsense that Australia is currently getting from the Labor party. All wind and no real case (Australian Labor left huge bills, no resolutions and no prospects), not unlike the Dutch opposition they are crying like little girls because they are not at the governing table. They squandered by in-fighting and now they are all on the sidelines.
Why am I having this debatable point of view?
This is always a good question. This all started for whatever reason with a case that is 14 years old. Seems like an initial way to be a whiny little politician, whoever started this). Yet, that is not the whole truth either. When we consider the source (at http://nieuwsuur.nl/onderwerp/622023-geheime-witwasdeal-teeven-en-crimineel.html) other facts come to light. Here we see “Als je naar de richtlijn kijkt waarin duidelijk staat dat er afstemming moet plaatsvinden met de Belastingdienst” this was stated by the Dutch Professor Zwemmer from the Faculty of Law of the University of Amsterdam (translated: “If you look at the guidelines, it is clearly stated that an adjusted view is set together with the taxation services”, which might contradict the statement, yet, a guideline is not set in stone. what does the law state?
The case was when Article 20b of Dutch Criminal Law allowed for it. That legal option of making deals with criminals was scrapped in 2001, but the article was in active in 2000.
There is another side to this. When we consider the following paragraph from Nieuwsuur, we see the following: “Advocaat Jan-Hein Kuijpers bevestigt vanavond in Nieuwsuur dat de deal volgens alle afspraken is uitgevoerd. Omdat Kuijpers zelf niet van witwassen beschuldigd wilde worden, moest het geld via een justitie-rekening verlopen. Kuijpers: ‘Ik had voorgesteld en ook wel bedongen dat het geld uit het buitenland eerst naar justitie zou gaan en dan naar die vriend van mijn cliënt, waardoor het spierwit was. Sowieso, of het nou wel of geen drugsgeld was of zwart geld of grijs geld of wat dan ook.’ Uiteindelijk is er een bedrag van tussen de vijf en zes miljoen gulden daadwerkelijk via deze constructie overgemaakt, bevestigt Kuijpers“.
(Translated) “Lawyer Jan-Hein Kuipers confirmed in Nieuwsuur that the deal had been processed according to the accepted arrangement. As Kuipers wanted to avoid accusations of laundering, the money would be processed through an account of the Justice department. Kuipers: ‘I had proposed and stipulated that the funds from abroad would first go to the Justice department, after that to my client’s friend, making the funds snowy white. Whether it was drugs money or not, whether it was black money or grey or whatever’. In the end an amount between 5 and 6 million was transferred via this construction, confirms Kuipers“.
This all leaves me with a few questions. What on earth is a Lawyer doing spilling the beans to this extent on a talk show? As well as the fact that we have two sides to the amount, was it two million, or 5 to 6 million? If we accept what Nieuwsuur mentioned: “Vervolgens zal het OM het geld via een rekening van het Openbaar Ministerie ‘terstond aan H.’ overmaken. En dat alles onder de expliciete voorwaarde van ‘volstrekte geheimhouding’ waarbij ook ‘de nationale en/of internationale Belastingdiensten en/of Fiscale autoriteiten’ niets van de deal mogen weten”
(Translated) “After that the Public Ministry will transfer the money via an account of the Public Ministry ‘swiftly to H.’ all this under explicit conditions of ‘complete secrecy’, whilst keeping the national and international tax offices unaware of the deal”
So, again, why is this Lawyer Kuipers singing like a canary on a talk show? Even more questionable is how international tax offices are kept in the dark, whilst they knew that the money came from non-Dutch accounts. It seems weird that international tax evasion could be part of this deal in 2000.
We can waste time on whether these events were all known or not and whether this was all legally arranged or not. It is a 14 year old case and the facts could have been checked before the House of Representatives booked overtime which might cost the taxpayers even more. I am not debating whether it was right or wrong to proceed, but in the view I have, this was another goose chase by the opposition to bring embarrassment to Minister Opstelten (who is the current minister of justice and Security) as well as secretary Teeven of Justice and Security, who was the District Attorney in those days and would not have been politically responsible anyway (which answered the second question I initially had).
I remain on the fence, even though I still see this (to some extent) as an exercise from the prissy opposition, the questions remain valid. Yet, what was the point to take a case, which could have been easily defended in the House of Representatives to begin with. What was the end game and why is there a discrepancy between 2 and 5-6 million?
That last part is still an issue of some debate. There are additional questions that rise when we consider the Dutch article (at http://www.vn.nl/Archief/Justitie/Artikel-Justitie/Teeven-sloot-al-in-1998-deal-met-Cees-H..htm), which gives a lot more validity for the opposition to call for a debate in the Dutch version of the House of Representatives, yet the fact that this is coming to light 14 years later is also quite weird. That side is shown to some extent when we look at the last lines of the article “Dat alles is weliswaar geen sluitend bewijs dat Cees H. nog steeds in criminele zaken zit, maar bij justitie kijken ze in ieder geval met argusogen naar de handel van de beroepscrimineel. En dat plaatst de ‘gift’ van Fred Teeven uit 2000 toch in een vreemd daglicht“.
(Translated) “Al this does not lead to evidence that Cees H. is still criminally active, but the Justice department is looking with an eagles eye towards the wheeling and dealing of this professional criminal, which places the ‘gift’ from Fred Teeven in 2000 in a strange daylight”
When we look back at this, then we see a seldom seen application on the cost of doing business. The talkative lawyer (who seemed to forget the meaning of complete secrecy), the muddy view on the exact amounts of money involved (the difference between 60,000 and 20,000 bills of 100) and in rear sight the time passed before certain people started to ask questions. Consider that all but the heaviest category of crime can still be prosecuted (5th category), other crimes would have passed the prosecutable expiry date, in that light, why bring this case forward?
For political points against a District Attorney who, according to the issues, had acted within his scope of abilities? Nieuwsuur does report an issue in the way the deal was pushed through after the fact (2 months after the fact) and the signature came from Ben Swagerman, who is in the Dutch version of the House of Lords and he is the head of corporate security of the Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM). I do agree, that certain questions should be asked, yet, they should have been asked at least 6 years ago, not now. At this point there are several points that imply that this was about something else, not just about this case. So will the Dutch audience get treated to a second round of ‘sudden revelations‘ in a later episode of the program Nieuwsuur?
Time will tell, but when they do, I will take another look at this case.
Lawrence van Rijn - Law Lord to be 