The conviction of a former Minister of Spatial Development, Infrastructure and Environment (later Spatial Development, Integration and Infrastructure) of Aruba for co-perpetrating fraud against the State of Aruba, passive bribery (allowing himself to be bribed), and embezzlement can be upheld. This is the advice of Advocate General (AG) Paridaens to the Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) in one of her opinions issued today. She also considers that the convictions of two co-defendants for, among other things, bribing the minister can remain in place.
The case against the minister
The Joint Court of Justice found that companies linked to one of the minister’s co-defendants (a person affiliated with his political party) submitted applications to the minister for leasehold rights. These companies were essentially empty at the time of application and therefore had little to no value. The co-defendant’s plan was to sell the shares at a large profit once the lease options were granted.
The minister’s role was that he fast-tracked these applications despite backlogs affecting other applicants, thereby preventing a standard administrative review under existing policy.
Additionally, the minister accepted gifts from his co-defendants while he was deciding on their requests for leasehold rights—constituting passive bribery. He also used funds from a foundation managed in his name, intended for his election campaign, to pay for a private trip by his wife, which the Court classified as embezzlement.
The Joint Court sentenced the former minister to 48 months in prison, 12 of which suspended, and barred him for six years from holding public office or being elected to representative bodies. His two co-defendants received sentences of 30 months (10 suspended) and 24 months (12 suspended). All three appealed to the Supreme Court.
Appeal arguments
The minister’s lawyers argue that he cannot have defrauded Aruba because he represents the state. They also claim there is insufficient evidence that he controlled the cheque used for his wife’s trip or that foundation money was misused.
AG’s conclusion
AG Paridaens rejects these arguments, stating that the lower court sufficiently substantiated the convictions. She finds that the minister cannot be equated with the State of Aruba and that the evidence shows foundation funds were indeed used for a private purpose.
She also rejects the appeals of the co-defendants.
Therefore, the AG advises that all convictions and sentences be upheld.
Supreme Court ruling
The Supreme Court’s decision is provisionally scheduled for 14 April 2026.
An AG opinion is an independent legal analysis and recommendation; the Supreme Court is free to follow it or not.
What can we learn from this case? It is very important to look closely at whether this same modus operandi is still continuing in the current government, especially under the management of Ministers Gerlien Croes and Geoffrey Wever with the developments “perhaps that are taking place? the so-called ‘new politics in old bottles.’