SXMElections.com

PHILIPSBURG--The criminal cases against former Minister Maria Buncamper-Molanus (47), her husband Claudius Buncamper (52), notary F.E.G. (71) and co-suspects I.A.H. (46) and T.O.W. (69), continued on Wednesday, with a focus on a breach in the handling of the case and what it should mean going forward.

A preliminary ruling on the point of view presented by the lawyers is expected to be given on Wednesday, September 16.

Longstanding charges entail involvement in fraud, forgery of documents and participation in a criminal organisation, relating to a transaction regarding a piece of land that had been given on long lease.

Former case Prosecutor Gonda van der Wulp also charged the Buncampers and I.A.H. in June with suspicion of having created another financial construction between October 1, 2011, and May 28, 2015, to conceal legal ownership of 245 shares of the company Central Mix Concrete N.V. with a total value of US $1,387,500.

New Prosecutor Dounia Benammar relayed that two house searches had been carried out on June 26, 2015. Initially meant for the office of one witness, the search extended to the Buncamper house in light of items found, which prompted the then-case Prosecutor to verbally instruct the second house search. The judge of instruction also said verbally that the search was allowed, but because of circumstance was not able to attend.

Pictures of documents were made during the search, but by the Prosecutor, not by investigators. After the search, items found were discussed by phone with the judge of instruction, but neither the photos taken nor their content were discussed. Only afterward did the then-case Prosecutor realise that some photos taken could have breached lawyer-client confidentiality, Benammar said.

This meant that the photos represented not just a breach in the execution of the search, but in the clients’ privacy.

The then-Prosecutor sent the photos to the Chief Prosecutor, as well as to Benammar in her capacity as research-prosecutor. The Chief Prosecutor reviewed them and concluded that three could possibly qualify as confidential.

The term “possibly” was used because one included topics that still needed to be discussed with the Buncampers’ attorney, Jairo Bloem. The Chief Prosecutor printed, sealed and stored the pictures.

Benammar said that while she browsed the photos, which had been sent as attachments, she had come across the documents in question, but immediately stopped reading once she realised that one photo contained confidential information. This was after reading the first paragraph of the text that began with “Jairo” or “beste [dear – Ed.] Jairo.” Benammar said she had no further knowledge of the content of the photos.

In this case the norm was violated by the Prosecutor herself, she said. A Prosecutor is meant to protect the rights of the accused, while respecting procedures.

However, it can be argued that there is no disadvantage as a result. After all, the confiscated documents were not added to the dossier and the then-case prosecutor stated in a report that they had not been studied, Benammar said.

Therefore, it is very unlikely that the breach would have favoured the prosecution and worked against the defendants, which is what the defence is trying to make look plausible. However, it is doubtful that the defence has been hurt, she said.

For safety’s sake, the Prosecution opted to appoint another case prosecutor to avoid the appearance of favouritism.

Ultimately it comes down to the question of what value should be attached to the norm violations committed by a prosecutor during a search in which that person took charge in the absence of the judge of instruction.

All of this leads Benammar to conclude that Judge Peter Lemaire should declare the Prosecution’s case against the Buncampers inadmissible in relation to the second summons concerning the money laundering offence.

However, the same should not apply to suspect I.A.H. for the same charge, Benammar said, as the violation does not affect him.

She pointed out that the case circumstances were quite unique and that the judge needed to consider how heavily the consequences weighed.

It also should not affect the right of the Prosecution to pursue the first summons against the Buncampers, as they are accused of multiple actions between two summonses and because the investigation concerned applies only to the money laundering. It had been decided in June to keep the cases separate.

Attorney Geert Hatzmann argued on the part of I.A.H. that if evidence were considered to be contaminated, contained information meant for a lawyer and might possibly be dismissed for the other suspects in the same case, this also affected H.’s case. Therefore, it would be unfair and too strongly determined by coincidental circumstances if he were treated differently.

Hatzmann argued that the situation felt as though Government was abusing authority and spoke of frustration to this end – using an article he called “convincing,” called “Nobody believes in the Police.” If the Government and Justice officials do as they please, it opens the door to a police-state, he said.

Attorney Bloem insisted that witnesses should be heard, three in particular, on Wednesday, but this did not happen. Because of technical difficulties, there was a delay in presenting his point of view, but he then submitted a document for review and presented his side.

Amongst Bloem’s arguments was that the summonses should not be separated and that the matter needed to come to a close soon. He criticised the handling and investigation of the case, including the fact that one of the searches was of someone’s office, when the person initially had been put forward as a witness.

He said the law was supposed to protect people from having to trust someone’s good judgement and that he was supposed to believe Benammar on her word that she had not read the confidential document through.

He added that photos also allegedly had been taken by another person, which Benammar said she did not believe had happened, and that this issue had come to light only after Buncamper pointed it out to him.

Another point of disagreement was that Benammar believed that Buncamper had not been at his house during the search, but Buncamper was visibly upset at the statement and Bloem asserted that he, Buncamper-Molanus and their son all had been present.

Bloem criticised Prosecutor Benammar at one point for “choosing” his points to which she would react. She in turn said she was addressing what had been talked about and not everything contained in the long document.

Notary G. was absent due to illness, and has not had a lawyer present so far. Previously, he had told the court he could do very well without one.

Initial charges

Buncamper-Molanus ran on the United People’s (UP) party slate for the August 29, 2014, parliamentary election, but is a former Democratic Party ((DP)) Minister of Public Health, Social Development and Labour.

The case against the Buncampers came to light in December 2010 when documents surfaced in which it was revealed that they had sold the economic rights to a plot of land they held on long lease to a company named Eco Green N.V., against payment of $3,000,000.

Buncamper-Molanus had obtained the right of long lease of the Government property against annual payment of approximately $10,000 in April 2008, while she was a member of the then-Executive Council. Three days after Eco Green was established, with figurehead T.O.W. appointed as company director, the Buncampers sold the economic rights to the land to this company.

T.O.W. was a former Department of Public Works employee. Claudius Buncamper was head of this department for years.

The Buncampers also are charged with tax evasion in relation to payment of profit tax on behalf of Eco Green over the years 2009, 2010 and 2011, and failure to file income tax correctly during 2009 and 2010.

They were charged with forgery of several documents, including a commercial lease agreement between Eco Green and St. Maarten Building Supplies N.V., mortgage documents and a deed concerning the right of long lease.

The Prosecutor’s Office holds all suspects, with the Buncampers leading them, as members of a criminal organisation involved with forgery, tax evasion and the destruction of evidence, it was stated in the indictments.