PHILIPSBURG--At present, Minister of Justice Nathalie Tackling is not able to present a list of government-funded crime prevention projects to Parliament. “There are no formal project proposals submitted to the Crime Prevention Fund by organisations," Tackling said in response to questions from “The Daily Herald”.
Based on Article 5 of the National Ordinance establishing a Crime Prevention Fund (CPF) for St. Maarten, in force since October 10, 2010, the Ministry of Justice is required to present a policy plan each year along with the Ministry’s budget, indicating the projects that qualify for funding from the fund during the budget year. According to paragraph 2 of Article 5, the expenditures of the fund are the costs associated with the preparation and implementation of the projects identified in the policy plan.
Since its inception, the St. Maarten Crime Prevention Fund has remained shrouded in opacity, with no explanation provided for the fluctuations in its balance over the years, no up-to-date policy plan, and no communication to nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) or the public regarding which community projects may qualify for financing through the fund.
In response to questions posed by “The Daily Herald” on March 19, 2025, Minister Tackling provided an update on June 2 regarding the current state of the Crime Prevention Fund and its financial management.
"At present, there are no formal project proposals submitted to the Crime Prevention Fund by organisations," Minister Tackling said. "Therefore, a comprehensive list of projects is not yet available for presentation."
However, she noted that incidental payments may still be made from the fund to support ad hoc initiatives. "These are evaluated on a case-by-case basis and approved by the secretary general and myself, provided they align with the broader goal of combating crime in the general interest."
The minister confirmed that an update will be shared once a formal list of approved projects becomes available.
As of June 2, 2025, the current balance of the Crime Prevention Fund stands at Cg. 4,046,915.33. "Please note, this amount does not reflect the total balance of the account, as it also includes subsidies from the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations BZK related to the ‘Strengthening the Border’ projects," Tackling clarified.
The BZK subsidies currently total Cg. 3,749,340.22, bringing the combined account balance at Banco di Caribe (BDC) to Cg. 7,796,255.55. "These subsidies are kept administratively separate from the regular Crime Prevention Fund income and expenses," she added.
On the topic of how deposits are processed, Tackling explained, "Card payments made at the Prosecutor’s Office are deposited directly into the Crime Prevention Fund account, as the card machine is linked to that account. Cash payments are handled by the Receiver’s Office, and online payments can be made either to the Crime Fund account directly or to the Receiver’s Office account."
Asked about the amount of outstanding fines, Tackling said, "That figure cannot be disclosed at this time. Reports are generated annually and include the number of fines issued and the amount of money received in that calendar year. Since older fines can be paid at any time, the payments received during the year may not reflect fines issued in that same year."
She emphasised the role of the Prosecutor’s Office OM in tracking and managing fines: "The OM uses a system to register and update fines issued by [the St. Maarten Police Force – Ed.] KPSM. However, for payments made via the Receiver’s Office or online banking, individuals must submit proof of payment – such as a screenshot or receipt – so the OM administration can update the system accordingly. Without that, the fine may remain marked as unpaid."
Regarding how withdrawals are made from the Crime Prevention Fund, Tackling outlined a strict approval process: "Withdrawals are made according to the CPF manual, which governs the procedures for submission, assessment, approval and payment. An official advisory always forms the basis of any allocation, and the six-eyes principle is applied at all times."
"The process begins with review and signature by the Ministry of Justice controller, followed by the secretary general, and finally by me as Minister," she said. "Each approved decision is also formally registered in the DIV system for administrative tracking."
While St. Maarten currently lacks a formal steering group on crime control, Tackling confirmed that its creation is planned. "The establishment of a steering group and its role in the governance of the Crime Prevention Fund are included in the Crime Prevention Fund policy plan [currently in development].”
The minister’s confirmation that no projects have yet been funded from the Crime Prevention Fund comes amid long-standing concerns over the fund’s administration. In 2019, the Law Enforcement Council published a report with six recommendations for improving the Crime Prevention Fund. A follow-up review in 2021 found that only one of those recommendations had been implemented.
As part of the 2020 country package agreement for strengthening the rule of law in St. Maarten, the Dutch government included a requirement for improved administration and oversight of the Crime Prevention Fund. This included a mandate that all recommendations from the Law Enforcement Council be adopted and that an independent body be assigned to monitor compliance. At the request of the justice minister, the Council itself was appointed to that role and conducted a follow-up inspection in 2022.
In that report, the Council reiterated five key recommendations: consistent fulfilment of legal obligations; development of an up-to-date policy; establishing legal safeguards in national legislation to manage risk; raising public awareness about the fund; and improving both physical and digital administrative systems.
Of these, only the recommendation to improve administrative registration had been partially fulfilled by early 2021. By mid-2022, the Council concluded that there had been no further progress. The compliance rate remained stagnant at just 25%.
It remains unclear what the compliance rate is to date.
