Election fraud hearing postponed until April 14

February 18, 2014 10:57 AM
PHILIPSBURG--Judge Coen Luijks decided Monday to postpone the hearing in the so-called Masbangu case involving election fraud, until April 14.
 
He ordered the Prosecutor’s Office to reopen the investigations where the involvement of United People’s (UP) party is concerned. The additional investigations led attorney-at-law Cor Merx to file a recusal request against the Judge.
 
This case concerns possible irregularities during the first general election in Country St. Maarten, which was held September 17, 2010.
 
(Former) officials of the then Police Force of St. Maarten, St. Eustatius and Saba G.P.W. (49), R.C.H.J. (62), C.C. (45) and A.R.W.M. (43) were summoned to appear before Judge Coen Luijks on Monday.
 
Three of them are suspected of voting for UP in exchange for money, whereas G.P.W. is suspected of attempting to receive money for their vote, Prosecutor Maarten Noordzij said Monday.
 
UP party representative R.H. (60) is accused of giving money to the police officials in exchange for their votes.
At the start of Monday’s proceedings, attorney-at-law Janna Westra requested postponement of the hearing of her client R.J. for medical reasons. Her client is recovering from surgery, Westra said.
 
Filling in for attorney Eldon Sulvaran, lawyer Shaira Bommel also asked for a postponement because her Curaçao-based colleague did not have sufficient time to study R.H.’s case file.
 
Attorneys Cindy Marica and Cor Merx insisted on their client’s cases being heard Monday, with Merx announcing he would present two preliminary pleas.
 
G.P.W was not represented by an attorney. She said she did not require legal assistance.
 
Prosecutor Noordzij did not object to a postponement, but said the Prosecutor’s Office would like to handle all cases jointly.
 
After a brief recess, Judge Luijks said a preliminary hearing in this case would be held on April 14, during which the lawyers could submit requests for the hearing of witnesses and other additional investigations.
 
In the meantime, the Prosecutor’s Office has to add several documents to the case file. The Judge ordered the Prosecutor’s Office to further investigate UP’s involvement in this case, for instance by hearing more witnesses.
According to the Judge the case file contained contradictory statements where UP’s involvement in the alleged fraud was concerned.
 
The Prosecutor’s Office stated it could not be established that UP party had bribed or attempted to bribe persons. However, suspect R.H. had said he had acted on the orders of UP party leader Theo Heyliger.
 
The Judge said the Prosecutor’s Office had stated it could not be established that UP had committed punishable acts, whereas it had filed charges against party representative R.H. This constituted a serious contradiction, according to the Judge.
 
The Judge also wanted the Prosecutor’s Office to explain why it took almost three years and six months before this case was brought to Court.
 
The Chief of Police and Chief Prosecutor requested the Attorney General’s approval of an investigation on October 28, 2010. The request was granted in November 2010, “but only on August 6, 2012, the Chief Prosecutor asked the Attorney General’s permission for a criminal investigation. This time-frame raises questions,” said Judge Luijks.
 
The National Detectives (Landsrecherche) completed the investigation in this case on February 14, 2013, but the suspects were not summoned until one year later. This may have implications for the so-called reasonability of the time-frame permitted by law between the date of the alleged crime and the actual court hearing.
 
Attorney Merx firmly disagreed with Monday’s proceedings. He challenged the Judge, whom, he said, was “going too far.” Merx called the Court biased. “The Court is cutting the ground from under my feet. My client’s defence is built on exactly these deficiencies in the case file,” said Merx.
 
Attorney Marica supported Merx in challenging the judge. She stated she had also noted a number of faults which should lead to her client’s acquittal.
 
The Court of Appeals is to handle the recusal request. It is not yet known when this hearing is to take place.
 
(The Daily Herald)
 
Related article:
 
 
 

Lawyer Roeland Zwanikken considers legal action against ABN AMRO Bank

May 08, 2021 6:14 PM
THE HAGUE--Attorney-at-law Roeland Zwanikken at St. Maarten’s BZSE law office is considering legal action against the intention of the Dutch ABN AMRO Bank to close the bank accounts of its clients in the Dutch Caribbean.

Fiscaal onderzoek bij notariskantoren vinden doorgang

May 07, 2021 8:04 AM
In het Antilliaans Dagblad: Fiscaal onderzoek bij notariskantoren
WILLEMSTAD – De fiscale onderzoeken bij de notarissen vonden en vinden, ondanks de beperkingen van Covid-19, weer doorgang en de medewerking aan de kant van notarissen en adviseurs is daarbij ‘over het algemeen goed’.

Juridische miljoenenstrijd tussen BNP Paribas en Italiaanse prinses verhardt

February 22, 2021 4:51 PM
  • Bezit van Italiaanse Crociani-familie op Curaçao mag van rechter worden verkocht
  • De Crociani's ruziën al jaren met BNP Paribas over een claim van $100 mln
  • Curaçaos trustkantoor United Trust heeft 'geen enkele relatie meer' met Camilla Crociani
Een Italiaanse prinses met zakelijke belangen in Nederland heeft het onderspit gedolven bij diverse rechtbanken in een langslepend conflict met zakenbank BNP Paribas.