A contractor was acquitted in the Jasmine corruption case (see related story) concerning public contracts awarded through the Ministry of Public Housing, Spatial Planning, Environment and Infrastructure VROMI. It’s not the first time (former) politicians and officials found guilty of accepting bribes receive a prison sentence, but parties who allegedly offered such don’t.
The idea here is not to question this particular ruling. After all, the judge found that while irregularities in the first project mentioned were clear, there was no convincing evidence that the contractor intended to bribe the minister or personally gain from the contract awarded.
The verdict further highlighted that the decision to grant the work appeared to originate with the minister and not the contractor, and that related financial transactions could not be definitively linked to bribery.
Regarding a second charge, the court noted inconsistencies in the prosecution’s argument, including a lack of direct evidence linking the contractor to any fraudulent submissions. The relevant bids were incomplete, unsigned and lacked proper registration, further undermining claims that this same contractor orchestrated the process.
Citing legal precedent from the Dutch High Court, the judge emphasised that fraud requires intentional deceptive conduct intended to induce the victim to act to their detriment. After reviewing the full file, the court concluded that the contractor had not personally engaged in such conduct, nor could it be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they knowingly contributed to fraud against the government.
In previous corruption cases involving bigger construction firms, their directors were held accountable but did not always end up in jail either, also because some had already stepped down or been dismissed. Although the companies in question got hefty fines, the impression must be avoided that bribing is somehow less serious than being bribed.
It takes two to tango.
