Six years passed and large sums were invested in the Avestruz case investigation. Now it seems that the file handed over by the Public Prosecutor’s Office has left a lot to be desired in the eyes of the Judge and the Court and has reached a very different conclusion than OM. With the exception of one case, where the view was similar, the Court ruled differently in all other cases. Including the case against Benny Sevinger.
Sevinger was charged with six counts of conspiracy to commit bribery; passive omkoping; abuse of office; embezzlement of funds from his Green Cure Foundation; and money laundering.
For the allegations of Oplichting and misuse of functions throughout the dossier the Judge said nothing of the kind. There is no objective proof of this. The fact that he signed the petition does not automatically mean that this is an order to be carried out as Abath and Sue said. After him, he tried the same, but found no fruit. The court ruled that Rojas’ statement was not reliable.
What the Court found to be evidence was a ticket that the Foundation paid for a trip home, which accompanied a meeting in Europe. And that his foundation received a donation from someone who applied for commercial land. That is enough to convict him.
The prosecutor asked for a five-year sentence, and for 10 years he could not participate in elections or hold public office. The court found him guilty of only two charges and handed him the following sentence.
The court concluded that there were no statements in the file from witnesses or suspects that showed they were aware of Sevinger’s own experience with oplichting. Nor is there any objective evidence to show that they conspired to commit the crime, to commit sabotage against Aruba.
In all the petitions the delegate wrote “gaarne uw medewerking”. He appears to be ordering the DIP to comply with the request, based on the statements of Abath and Tsue. But the lawyers pointed out that other businessmen had received the same words on their petition and never found land. So it is not a command.
Passive Omkoping in the Harms case, Susebeek was sued for donations that his foundation received at the time the individuals applied for land.
The final punishment resulted in one year, of which six months was probation, minus the time he served in prison, and three years of probation. Also for five years he cannot participate in elections or hold public office. This decision after six years of investigation does not reflect what the OM wanted to prove and lost face with so much talk.
