Official bribery, money laundering
The Weert resident had access to confidential information through his position with the police. Between August 2011 and September 2015, he regularly searched a specific police system for information about various individuals and ongoing investigations. The suspect did not need this confidential information for his work. He shared the information to warn others outside the police organization and inform them about those investigations and the investigative resources deployed. This included the three convicted co-defendants. The 47-year-old man helped him by making his home available as a safe house, hiding confidential information, and allowing his computer to be used to read or edit information. In addition, he made it possible for the police officer to meet with buyers of information (including the two other suspects) in the safe house. The four suspects were thus jointly guilty of repeatedly violating official secrets. By consulting the police system countless times without any reason related to his work, the police officer also committed computer trespass. The court further ruled that the police officer and the two suspects from Veldhoven formed a criminal organization engaged in the violation of official secrets and computer trespass.
According to the public prosecutor, the former police officer accepted money for providing confidential information. However, the court ruled that there was insufficient evidence that he received money or that it was offered to him. He was therefore acquitted of this charge of bribery, as were his co-defendants. The former police officer did, however, allow himself to be 'paid' in the form of a promise of future cooperation in the trade in encrypted phones and diamonds. He was also guilty of money laundering. He frequently deposited large amounts of cash (totaling more than €70,000) into various bank accounts and was unable to provide a logical explanation for the origin of this money. The court ruled that the money was criminal and that the defendant knew this. He also had two false passports in his possession. The 47-year-old co-defendant laundered more than €235,000 in cash and was in possession of a false identity card and a false driver's license. In addition, three prohibited "jammers" were found in his home.
Trust damaged
In determining the sentence, the court took into account that the Weert resident had seriously damaged trust in and the reputation of the police. An incorruptible police force is an absolute requirement for the functioning of the rule of law. The man seriously violated the trust placed in him for many years. In a number of cases, he actually frustrated police action, as a result of which perpetrators of criminal offenses (partly) got away with their crimes. This also involved large-scale criminal investigations. The suspect should take serious responsibility for this, but from the outset he has maneuvered himself into the role of victim and refuses to take any responsibility for his actions.
No reduction in sentence
The court sees no circumstances that should be taken into account in favor of the former police officer. His counsel pointed out, among other things, the disadvantage that the defendant would have suffered from the exorbitantly negative media attention surrounding this case. According to the defense, this was partly due to the actions of, among others, the former chief of the national police and the former Minister of Justice and Security, which caused the coverage to reach unprecedented proportions. The chief of police called the defendant "the rottenest apple of all time," while the minister said that a very severe sentence should be imposed. The court ruled that the defendant had brought this media attention upon himself, as he was the one who had committed serious criminal offenses over a long period of time. The high level of attention also reflects the extent to which the defendant's actions had shocked the legal system.
Trias politica violated
The statements made by the former chief of police and the former minister preempted the court's ruling. These statements seem to fit in with the current climate in which even high-ranking government officials and politicians feel compelled to comment on criminal cases that are not before them for judgment. This regularly results in the separation of powers (trias politica) being flouted. In this case, too, a government minister and a police chief should be expected to respect this separation of powers. However, the court did not feel hindered by such statements in administering justice in this criminal case, and the defendant was not denied the right to a fair trial.
Heavier sentence
The court imposes a heavier sentence than the one demanded by the public prosecutor. (Even though the demand is equal to the sentence, the court imposes this sentence for less proven facts). In addition to a prison sentence of 5 years, the defendant is prohibited from holding public office for 10 years. According to the law, this is the maximum term. The court opts for the maximum term because society must be protected for as long as possible against the suspect's possible return to public office. This is mainly due to the brazen manner in which he violated the trust placed in him in the performance of his public duties as a police officer. The court also orders his detention. According to the court, there is a risk of flight because the man now lives with his current wife in Ukraine.
