Public Prosecutor: two separate attachments on Dos Santos’ assets

May 10, 2012 8:01 AM

WILLEMSTAD - Contrary to statements made by Minister of Justice Elmer ‘Kadè’ Wilsoe at the press conference last Tuesday, the Public Prosecutor had indeed submitted two legal assistance requests with the American authorities for attachment on bank accounts from suspect Robbie dos Santos in the ‘Bientu-case’.

In their press report yesterday, the Public Prosecutor gave a detailed explanation on seizing the assets.The dispute between Wilsoe and Piar originates from the discussion on the attachments on the assets of Dos Santos, who is suspected of illegal lottery tickets, money laundering and tax evasion. It regards an amount of almost 30 million dollars on bank accounts from public corporations Ponsford Overseas Ltd and Tula Finance Ltd.

As a result of this dispute Wilsoe revoked the mandate given to the Attorney General in 1993 to act on behalf of the minister regarding mutual legal assistance in criminal cases. The Public Prosecutor states it will respect the minister’s decision and that the Attorney General always observed the mandate since 1993 in the Bientu-case and all correspondence.
 
Following the minister’s statements in the press, the Public Prosecutor issued a detailed report on the entire procedure of the attachment in the Bientu-case. During the investigation in this case, the Public Prosecutor discovered there were large amounts of money in the US that possibly came from money laundering practices.
 
In a closed procedure the Public Prosecutor requested the examining magistrate to place an attachment on these monies. The authorization for such was given on July 14th.
 
Because the Public Prosecutor had strong suspicions that these monies belonged to a legal body, the examining magistrate was requested to place an attachment on these monies. “Therefore two attachments were placed”, said the Public Prosecutor.
 
To place the attachments the Public Prosecutor submitted legal assistance requests with the American authorities. This occurred on July 29th 2011 for attachment number 1 and on February 15th 2012 for attachment number 2.
 
The Public Prosecutor continues: On April 4th the Court in First Instance ruled attachment number 1 is lifted but in his verdict the judge never stated the attachment was unlawful. The attachment was lifted because the Public Prosecutor hadn’t linked the attachment to a financial criminal investigation against the two public corporations. This information was not released earlier in the interest of the investigation, according to the Public Prosecutor.
 
The judge hadn’t dealt with an objection against the second attachment because the suspects’ lawyers hadn’t followed the correct procedure. According to the Public Prosecutor, there’s no decision from the court to lift attachment number 2.
 
To this day, the lawyers haven’t followed the correct procedure. They should have started an objection procedure instead of a criminal procedure. As a result, the authorization of January 19th 2012 for attachment number 2 is still intact, according to the Public Prosecutor.
 
The Public Prosecutor also informed the US on April 4th of the decision of the Court in First Instance and on April 5th the Public Prosecutor requested the US authorization to place attachment number 2 instead of attachment number 1.
 
The Public Prosecutor emphasizes that it hadn’t acted unlawfully in this case but in accordance with a decision from an independent judge. “The Public Prosecutor acted in good faith, in the public interest and in accordance with our laws. Although the Public Prosecutor had informed the Minister of Justice and the American authorities on all aforementioned steps, the minister had sent a letter to the American authorities.”

(Amigoe)