PHILIPSBURG — Former politician and founder of the United People’s party (UP) Theo Heyliger will pay the Public Prosecutor’s Office $5 million and await a summons to start serving a 5-year prison sentence, it appears from a press release issued by the prosecutor’s office.
The deal is part of a settlement that puts an end to Heyliger’s prosecution in the Larimar and Catfish investigations. Heyliger will also waive the rights to rental income from several immovable properties.
On May 15, 2020, the Court in First Instance sentenced Heyliger to 5 years of imprisonment for taking bribes and for money laundering. “The accused enriched himself for years as a politician at the expense of the citizens of St. Maarten,” the press release of the prosecutor’s office states.
The Detective Cooperation Team (RST) started a criminal financial investigation to determine whether Heyliger had enriched himself. When that turned out to be the case, the prosecution started a deprivation case against him.
Heyliger’s millions will flow into the Crime Fund. “Opting for a settlement agreement avoids lengthy court procedures for both parties,” the press release states. “The dispossession case is closed and parties will ask the Court in First Instance to declare the case closed on November 1.”
The prosecutor’s office also closed the book on the appeal in the criminal investigations Larimar and Catfish by informing the court that it has no longer interest in continuing the appeal hearings. The court then declared the prosecution inadmissible. The verdicts in both cases have now become irrevocable.
“Ensuring the integrity of the country and the application of the law are important to the fabric of the community,” the press release states. “This case showed how unlawful actions by a single official to whom the care and development of the country has been entrusted, can slow down progress and cause sometimes irreparable damage to the present and the future. The prosecution sees the conclusion o this case as a joint step towards a better future for the country.”
In March 2020, shortly after the Larimar-trial, the board of the UP claimed in a press release that there was no physical evidence against Heyliger and that the charges against him were “frivolous and without ground.” Instead, it pointed its finger to crown witness Ronald Maasdam as “the architect behind corrupt practices among Dutch construction firms.” The UP-board did not stop there: it described its founder Heyliger as “a very small fish” claiming that “they are using their own big fish to try and destroy a St. Maartener who has done do much for this country and who can’t run to Spain.” The board maintained its firm belief in Heyliger’s innocence, saying that it anticipated his full acquittal.”
The Catfish investigation is about Heyliger’s alleged attempt to bribe former Member of Parliament Romain Laville. In exchange for giving up his seat in parliament, and thereby causing the fall of the government, Laville was to receive between $135,000 and $350,000 and to become a minister in the next government.
Larimar is about bribes Heyliger took for awarding contracts to Windward Roads and other construction companies, including Volker Stevin, the company that built the causeway bridge across the Simpson Bay Lagoon.
###
Analysis: Do we need judges?
The out-of-court settlement reached in the Larimar dispossession case involving politician Theo Heyliger raises fundamental questions about the role of courts and judges in the justice system. It’s essential to consider the various aspects of this case to provide a comprehensive analysis and address the question at hand.
1. Legal System and Its Function
The legal system, which includes courts and judges, serves multiple vital functions in society. It is designed to uphold the rule of law, provide a fair and impartial forum for dispute resolution, and ensure that justice is served. Courts and judges play a crucial role in interpreting and applying the law to specific cases, thereby maintaining order and safeguarding individual rights and societal interests.
2. Settlements and Their Place in the Legal System
Settlements are a common part of the legal system, as they can offer a quicker and more cost-effective means of resolving disputes. Parties in a legal case can choose to reach an agreement, often involving financial compensation or other concessions, to avoid the time, expense, and uncertainty of a trial. Settlements can be beneficial in cases where both parties find common ground and agree on terms that are acceptable to them.
3. The Heyliger Settlement
In the case of Theo Heyliger, the out-of-court settlement signifies that Heyliger has agreed to renounce assets and pay a substantial sum to the public prosecutor. This represents a form of restitution and acknowledgment of wrongdoing. It is important to note that the settlement does not absolve Heyliger of his criminal conviction; he will still serve a prison sentence.
4. The Role of Courts and Judges
The question of whether settlements like the one involving Heyliger undermine the role of courts and judges is complex. While settlements allow for the resolution of specific issues, they do not eliminate the importance of the legal system. Courts and judges remain essential for several reasons:
– Legal Precedent: Courts establish legal precedents through their judgments, which help guide future legal decisions. Settlements do not set legal precedents.
– Access to Justice: The legal system ensures that individuals and entities have access to a formal, impartial process for dispute resolution, even if they cannot reach a settlement.
– Criminal Justice: In criminal cases, the role of the court is not just to resolve disputes but also to uphold the principles of justice. Judges determine sentences and oversee the legal process to ensure due process is followed.
– Public Interest: Courts serve the public interest by upholding the law, promoting accountability, and ensuring that justice is served for society as a whole.
– Checks and Balances: Courts serve as a critical component of the system of checks and balances, ensuring that government officials and institutions are held accountable for their actions.
5. Conclusion
In summary, settlements play a role in the legal system by allowing parties to resolve disputes, but they do not render courts and judges obsolete. The legal system, with its courts and judges, remains fundamental to upholding the rule of law, ensuring justice is served, and preserving the public interest. While settlements can be an efficient means of resolving certain issues, they cannot replace the essential functions of the judiciary in safeguarding the principles and integrity of the legal system.
###
PHOTO CAPTION: Judge and court recorder in the Larimar-case held at the Belair Community Center on March 10, 2020. File Photo.
### ADVERTISEMENT ###
