{"id":3798,"date":"2015-12-15T02:56:42","date_gmt":"2015-12-15T02:56:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.transparent.com\/dutch\/?p=3798"},"modified":"2021-08-05T19:55:54","modified_gmt":"2021-08-05T19:55:54","slug":"the-teevendeal-a-huge-affair-with-major-consequences","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.transparent.com\/dutch\/the-teevendeal-a-huge-affair-with-major-consequences\/","title":{"rendered":"The Teevendeal: A Huge Affair With Major Consequences"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>June 15, 2000. Top Secret. After years and years of investigation, o<em>fficier van justitie\u00a0<\/em>(public prosecutor) Fred Teeven makes a major decision that he knows is risky. Nobody can know, because he is not authorized to do it. There are rumors that he hoped to\u00a0find evidence and more information about the\u00a0boss of criminal Cees H.,\u00a0<em>de Hakkelaar<\/em>: Johan Verhoek.<\/p>\n<p>Verhoek is sometimes seen as the biggest drugs criminal in Dutch history, and together with Cees H., he made millions in the trade of hasj in the 1990s. The\u00a0<em>drugsbende\u00a0<\/em>(drugs gang) became\u00a0<em>berucht\u00a0<\/em>(infamous)\u00a0for risky, international transports of cocaine and hasj\u00a0that, if they would succeed, were also very lucrative. Verhoek was arrested and imprisoned in 1997, but he was released again in March, 2000.<\/p>\n<p>Cees H., who became very rich with trading drugs himself, was arrested and imprisoned several times, and escaped several times, too. It was assumed that he made 500 million with drugs trade, and was therefore also called the\u00a0<em>Man van Vijfhonderd Miljoen<\/em>. There was, however, insufficient evidence that this money was made by trading drugs. So Teeven decided to do something else.<\/p>\n<p><strong>The Teeven-Deal<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>On that day in June, 2000, Teeven and Cees H. made a deal about H.&#8217;s money that was locked on a Luxembourg bank account. This was a mere 5.5 million\u00a0<em>gulden<\/em> (the Dutch currency before the euro). Some of this money couldthe\u00a0<em>Plukze-wetgeving\u00a0<\/em>(<em>Plukze<\/em> legislation). This legislation allows taking away things or money\u00a0that were\u00a0presumably paid for with money from criminal activities. Thus, in this case, Teeven could take away some of these 5.5 million\u00a0<em>gulden<\/em>. And that he did, with the Teeven Deal. However,\u00a0<em>de deal deugde niet\u00a0<\/em>(the deal wasn&#8217;t sound).<\/p>\n<p>So what was problematic about the\u00a0<em>schikking\u00a0<\/em>(settlement)?<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Cees H. had to pay only 750,000\u00a0<em>gulden\u00a0<\/em>(the Dutch currency before the euro), walking away with a staggering 4.7 million,\u00a0<em>strafkorting\u00a0<\/em>(a lower punishment)<\/li>\n<li>The highest officers of the\u00a0<em>Openbaar Ministerie (OM)<\/em>, Teeven&#8217;s employers, did only\u00a0know about the specifications of this deal after it was closed. They also only allowed Teeven to let Cees H. go with 1-2 million, and said they would have never agreed to a deal like this (mostly because the <em>Belastingsdienst\u00a0<\/em>was not informed).<\/li>\n<li>The\u00a0<em>Belastingsdienst\u00a0<\/em>(the Dutch tax revenue service) was intentionally not informed <em>at all\u00a0<\/em>about the deal, basically making it a\u00a0<em>witwasoperatie\u00a0<\/em>(money laundering operation).<\/li>\n<li>Such a high amount of money would suggest that Cees H. has given information to the\u00a0<em>OM<\/em>, but reducing the amount of the payment\u00a0is not even allowed with a\u00a0<em>schikking<\/em>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><em><strong>Crimefighter Teeven<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<div style=\"width: 554px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><a href=\"https:\/\/flic.kr\/p\/csD1Yq\" aria-label=\"7521375760 D4cc686cdf B\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"\"  alt=\"\" width=\"544\" height=\"363\" \/ src=\"https:\/\/c1.staticflickr.com\/9\/8146\/7521375760_d4cc686cdf_b.jpg\"><\/a><p class=\"wp-caption-text\">Fred Teeven (Image by Floris Looijesteijn at Flickr.com under CC BY 2.0)<\/p><\/div>\n<p>So why was what Teeven did accepted for so long? Back in those days, certain\u00a0<em>officiers van justitie\u00a0<\/em>were seen as\u00a0<em>crimefighters<\/em>: prosecutors who would do their own thing, always\u00a0<em>op het randje van de wet\u00a0<\/em>(on the verge of the law), and sometimes going a bit too far. This deal is an example, and a very big one. Teeven maintained that what he was doing was for\u00a0<em>volk en vaderland\u00a0<\/em>(the people and the fatherland), and back in those days, it was more common that the public prosecutors acted on the verge of the law, however even then, this deal would have been frowned upon.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Consequences of the publication<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The consequences of the deal were manifold, and they are still unfolding. When\u00a0the Dutch journalistic TV program\u00a0<em>Nieuwsuur\u00a0<\/em><a href=\"http:\/\/nos.nl\/nieuwsuur\/video\/622106-geheime-witwasdeal-teeven-en-crimineel.html\">brought the deal to light<\/a>\u00a0on March 11, 2014, and reported everything that was wrong with it, it became a big debate and political affair. Teeven was now s<em>taatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie\u00a0<\/em>(junior minister of Security and Justice), and thus climbed higher in the ranks of the ministry responsible for such deals. He responded first that then\u00a0<em>minister van Veiligheid en Justitie\u00a0<\/em>Ivo Opstelten was responsible, since it was his ministry.<\/p>\n<p>Just two days later in a\u00a0<em>kamerdebat\u00a0<\/em>(chamber debate: a debate in the\u00a0<em><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.transparent.com\/dutch\/dutch-political-system-in-a-nutshell\/\">Tweede Kamer<\/a><\/em>, the lower house of the Dutch Parliament), Opstelten said that Cees H. had only two millions at his disposal, and that he left with just 1.25 million.<\/p>\n<p>On April 4, 2014,\u00a0Piet Doedens,\u00a0<em>voormalig advocaat\u00a0<\/em>(former attorney) of Cees H., declared in the news paper\u00a0<em>Volkskrant<\/em>: &#8220;allemaal lulkoek wat Opstelten verkondigde&#8221; (All rubbish what Opstelten declared).<\/p>\n<p>At the end of May 2014, an employee of the Ministry, who was commissioned to investigate what the actual amount was that was transferred, gave his findings to Opstelten. He said that he does not know the actual amount, but he is sure that it could not have been 2 million. Since he was to look for &#8220;<em>het bonnetje<\/em>&#8221; (the bill), the whole affair around the bill is now known as\u00a0<em>de bonnetjesaffaire\u00a0<\/em>(the bill affair). 2 weeks later, Opstelten declared in the Tweede Kamer that there was no trace of\u00a0<em>het bonnetje<\/em>. Fred Teeven himself &#8220;<em>had onvoldoende herinneringen aan de feitelijke afwikkeling van de\u00a0financi\u00eble schikking.<\/em>&#8221; (had insufficient memories of the factual chain of\u00a0events of\u00a0the financial settlement.)<\/p>\n<p>In November 2014,\u00a0Anouschka van Miltenburg, the\u00a0<em>kamervoorzitter\u00a0<\/em>(chair of the Second Chamber) received a letter from a\u00a0<em>klokkenluider\u00a0<\/em>(whistleblower) that contained many answers to the questions that\u00a0<em>kamerleden\u00a0<\/em>(members of the Second Chamber) had, including the exact amount of\u00a0<em>het bonnetje<\/em>, the 4.7 million.<\/p>\n<p>In January 2015, The same TV program that brought the deal to light,\u00a0<em>Nieuwsuur<\/em>, gets the letter, and starts investigating. Within the ministry, the journalists\u00a0find several sources of all payment details. On March 4, 2015, <a href=\"https:\/\/vimeo.com\/121302570\">another episode<\/a> of the program brings light to the new findings. In it, a calculation of the tax and the fine which should have been applicable to the 5.5 million, resulted in an amount of 6.4 million which should have been for the state:<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/vimeo.com\/121302570\">https:\/\/vimeo.com\/121302570<\/a><\/p>\n<p>On March 8, 2015,\u00a0<em>het bonnetje\u00a0<\/em>was found on the systems of the Ministry. It was found quite easily, and confirms the 4,7 million.<\/p>\n<p>And one day later, this happened:<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=QF7jX6trJaM\">https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=QF7jX6trJaM<\/a><\/p>\n<p>Opstelten and Teeven resign. They are replaced by party colleagues Ard van der Steur as minister and Klaas Dijkhoff as\u00a0<em>staatssecretaris<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Prime Minister Mark Rutte supports Teeven, saying that he did not think it was necessary for him to resign. However, since Opstelten failed to bring\u00a0<em>het bonnetje\u00a0<\/em>to light, he should have resigned, and thus agrees with that.<\/p>\n<p>Also, the\u00a0<em>Tweede Kamer\u00a0<\/em>declared to set up a committee that would research the whole affair once more. This became the\u00a0<em>Commissie-Oosting<\/em>, chaired by ex-ombudsman Marten Oosting.<\/p>\n<p>This committee presented its findings last week, on December 9. This is the\u00a0conclusion:<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=6xIU-6QXvwk\">https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=6xIU-6QXvwk<\/a><\/p>\n<p>The deal was\u00a0<em>geen fair deal\u00a0<\/em>(no fair deal).<\/p>\n<p>And now, there are more consequences: On Sunday, this happened:<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=zRUq6X-IkQM\">https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=zRUq6X-IkQM<\/a><\/p>\n<p><em>Kamervoorzitter\u00a0<\/em>Van Miltenburg declared that she resigned, too. Apparently, she read the whistleblower letter she received, but still decided to shred it.<\/p>\n<p>This means that three very important members of the VVD Party lost their position due to this deal and the negligent way this was dealt with.<\/p>\n<p>And now? Wednesday, there is a debate on this deal in the Tweede Kamer, also with Prime Minister Mark Rutte. It will be interesting to follow what this deal will still do.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<img width=\"350\" height=\"233\" src=\"https:\/\/blogs.transparent.com\/dutch\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/11\/2015\/12\/7521375760_d4cc686cdf_b-350x233.jpg\" class=\"attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image tmp-hide-img\" alt=\"\" decoding=\"async\" loading=\"lazy\" srcset=\"https:\/\/blogs.transparent.com\/dutch\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/11\/2015\/12\/7521375760_d4cc686cdf_b-350x233.jpg 350w, https:\/\/blogs.transparent.com\/dutch\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/11\/2015\/12\/7521375760_d4cc686cdf_b-768x512.jpg 768w, https:\/\/blogs.transparent.com\/dutch\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/11\/2015\/12\/7521375760_d4cc686cdf_b.jpg 1024w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 350px) 100vw, 350px\" \/><p>June 15, 2000. Top Secret. After years and years of investigation, officier van justitie\u00a0(public prosecutor) Fred Teeven makes a major decision that he knows is risky. Nobody can know, because he is not authorized to do it. There are rumors that he hoped to\u00a0find evidence and more information about the\u00a0boss of criminal Cees H.,\u00a0de Hakkelaar&hellip;<\/p>\n<p class=\"post-item__readmore\"><a class=\"btn btn--md\" href=\"https:\/\/blogs.transparent.com\/dutch\/the-teevendeal-a-huge-affair-with-major-consequences\/\">Continue Reading<\/a><\/p>","protected":false},"author":110,"featured_media":4418,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"content-type":""},"categories":[27714],"tags":[358797,358795,122,358796],"class_list":["post-3798","post","type-post","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news-2","tag-miltenburg","tag-opstelten","tag-politics","tag-teeven"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.transparent.com\/dutch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3798","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.transparent.com\/dutch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.transparent.com\/dutch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.transparent.com\/dutch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/110"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.transparent.com\/dutch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3798"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.transparent.com\/dutch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3798\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7433,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.transparent.com\/dutch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3798\/revisions\/7433"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.transparent.com\/dutch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4418"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.transparent.com\/dutch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3798"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.transparent.com\/dutch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3798"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.transparent.com\/dutch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3798"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}