Robbie Dos Santos (Photo courtesy Antilliaans Dagblad).
By Jacqueline Hooftman
PHILIPSBURG--Businessman Robbie Dos Santos was effectively “dragged by the hair” into the Lissabon investigation, his attorneys Niels van der Laan and Olga Kostrzewski argued in court this week, questioning both the origins of the case against him and the strength of the evidence presented by prosecutors.
On Tuesday, defence lawyer Van der Laan delivered an extensive plea requesting the full acquittal of Dos Santos. The attorney contended that the investigation against his client developed without a clear legal basis and that the evidence cited by prosecutors fails to demonstrate criminal intent.
The Lissabon investigation centres on alleged bribery involving former Member of Parliament Rolando Brison. Prosecutors claim that Dos Santos transferred money and attempted to provide benefits to Brison in exchange for political assistance.
The defence, however, argued that the case file contains no proof of such an arrangement and that investigators expanded the scope of the investigation to include Dos Santos without clear justification. Dos Santos himself told the judge on Monday at the start of the hearing: “I still can’t understand why I am here.”
The investigation
According to the defence, Dos Santos was not initially considered a suspect when the Lissabon investigation began. His name only surfaced after investigators discovered that he had transferred funds to Brison through prepaid cards issued by the financial service Melkar.
Authorities identified approximately US$8,310 in transfers between the two men.
From that moment onwards, the defence argued, investigators increasingly focused on Dos Santos even though there was no clear indication at the time that the transfers were linked to criminal activity.
Van der Laan told the court that the case file does not clearly document when or why Dos Santos became a suspect. “There is no police report that marks the point where suspicion arose,” he said.
Despite that absence, investigators requested extensive financial records relating to Dos Santos from Melkar as early as March 27, 2023. The request sought the full transaction history connected to his account.
Prosecutors said the request was meant to determine whether Brison had received payments from Dos Santos and to trace the origin of those funds.
The defence argued, however, that investigators already possessed the relevant information because the incoming transfers were visible on Brison’s Melkar card. “Those payments were already known,” Van der Laan said. “Requesting the sender’s entire transaction history, therefore, added little to the investigation.”
Instead, the lawyers described the request as a “fishing expedition.”
Parallel investigation
Melkar delivered the requested records to investigators on March 31, 2023. According to the defence, it was not until mid-June of that year that a formal police report was drafted regarding the information.
Soon afterward, investigators produced a report suggesting that Dos Santos might play “a decisive role” within Melkar.
The defence said that development was unusual because Dos Santos had still not been formally designated as a suspect in the Lissabon investigation.
Around the same period, authorities launched a separate criminal enquiry known as the Belgrado investigation. In that probe, Dos Santos, Melkar and businessman Nazir Abaidallh were officially named as suspects in July 2023.
However, the defence pointed out that Dos Santos was not questioned in that investigation until October 2024 – more than 18 months later. The Belgrado investigation ultimately ended without charges and was dismissed in May 2025.
Late notice of suspicion
Dos Santos himself only learned that he was considered a suspect in the Lissabon case in August 2024, when he was summoned for questioning. During that interrogation, he was informed that he was suspected of offering bribes to Brison beginning in January 2014.
The defence described that time frame as puzzling. Brison was not even a public official at that time. Using such an early starting point, the lawyers argued, suggests what they called an overly broad “dragnet suspicion.”
Even the indictment later filed by prosecutors lists June 25, 2018, as the start date of the alleged criminal conduct – another detail the defence said is difficult to reconcile with the evidence cited in the case. The payments at the centre of the investigation, the lawyers emphasised, occurred only in 2022 and early 2023.
Cryptocurrency explanation
A central element of the prosecution’s case concerns a series of transfers made from Dos Santos’ Melkar card to Brison’s Melkar card. Investigators identified 11 transactions in 2022 totalling approximately $9,310. The transfers ranged from $1 to $2,000 and occurred over a nine-month period.
During his police interrogation, Dos Santos explained that the transfers were connected to cryptocurrency transactions between him and Brison.
Brison offered investigators a similar explanation, saying he regularly traded cryptocurrency with several individuals. Despite those statements, the defence argued that investigators did not conduct further analysis to determine whether the Melkar transfers corresponded to crypto transactions. “There is no email, no WhatsApp message, no conversation suggesting these payments were gifts,” the lawyers told the court.
Crypto activity
The defence also pointed to several indications in the case file suggesting that both men were actively involved in cryptocurrency. Brison had publicly advocated for the use of crypto in St. Maarten and had discussed the possibility of installing a cryptocurrency ATM on the island.
Investigators also discovered a crypto wallet on Brison’s phone along with screenshots showing blockchain transactions originating from that device.
According to the defence, some of those screenshots showed transfers to a wallet address associated with a crypto ATM. Yet despite the presence of that information, investigators did not perform any technical analysis of the wallet or the blockchain transactions. “That wallet address is right there in the file,” Van der Laan said. “But no one investigated it.”
Test transactions
The defence also highlighted the pattern of several Melkar transfers cited in the indictment. On two occasions, small amounts – such as $1 or $10 – were sent first, followed immediately by a much larger transfer of $999 or $1,000.
Van der Laan argued that this pattern is common in cryptocurrency transactions. Users often send a small amount first to confirm that a wallet address is correct before transferring a larger sum – a practice known as a “test transaction.”
“That behaviour makes perfect sense in the context of crypto,” the defence argued. “It makes far less sense if the payments were intended as bribes.”
Blockchain records
In May 2025, the defence presented prosecutors with evidence of four cryptocurrency transactions that closely correspond to four of the Melkar transfers cited in the indictment.
The transactions took place on April 4, 2022 – when transfers of $1 and $1,000 were recorded – followed by transfers of $495.06 on April 29 and $986.90 on May 21.
According to the defence, these transactions were verified on the public blockchain, where all cryptocurrency transfers are recorded.
Prosecutors acknowledged that the transactions exist but questioned whether they prove that Brison was the sender.
The defence rejected that criticism, noting that screenshots of the transfers included the label “To Robbies,” referring to Dos Santos, and that the funds were received at the same wallet address.
To strengthen their claim, the defence asked an independent bailiff to verify the blockchain data. The bailiff confirmed that the transfers were visible on the blockchain and had been received at the specified wallet address. “The probability that four blockchain transactions would randomly match the dates and amounts of the Melkar transfers is negligible,” Van der Laan said.
Timeline challenges
The defence also argued that the timeline of events undermines the prosecution’s bribery theory. According to the lawyers, most substantive discussions between Dos Santos and Brison about political matters – including proposed banking legislation – occurred well before the payments cited in the indictment.
Case documents show that many of those exchanges date back to May 2020, nearly two years before the Melkar transfers in 2022. “Chronologically, it is difficult to connect payments in 2022 to conversations that took place years earlier,” Van der Laan said.
Other alleged counter-performances mentioned in the case file occurred later in 2023, which again weakens the idea that they were linked to the earlier payments.
Van der Laan emphasised that no communication shows Dos Santos expecting anything in return. “There is not a single message, email or conversation where Dos Santos places a payment or a hotel discount in the context of a quid pro quo,” he argued.
Ordinary discussions
The defence also cited examples of conversations between the two men that they said reflect normal political dialogue rather than bribery.
In one exchange, Dos Santos asked whether Brison knew anyone in Anguilla who might be interested in a lottery project. Brison contacted the prime minister there but was told there was no interest. When Brison relayed that response, the matter ended.
“That is not how someone behaves if they believe they have paid for influence,” the defence said.
Other discussions show the two men exchanging views on political topics, including the planned introduction of the Caribbean guilder. In some instances, Brison even disagreed with Dos Santos.
According to his attorneys, this demonstrates that the relationship was not one in which Dos Santos exerted influence over the politician.
Cash deposit
The defence also addressed a US $1,017 deposit made on February 18, 2022 to Brison’s Melkar card.
Dos Santos explained that he sometimes acted as an intermediary for individuals who wished to deposit cash. In those cases, he would arrange for the funds to be credited digitally to their Melkar cards.
Brison confirmed that he once gave Dos Santos cash which was later credited to his card.
Records show that Dos Santos transferred more than $42,000 through Melkar to various individuals, including acquaintances involved in cryptocurrency trading.
In that broader context, the defence argued, the transfers to Brison do not appear unusual.
Hotel discount
Another allegation concerns a purported hotel discount at the Sonesta Ocean Point Resort. Prosecutors claim that Dos Santos attempted to arrange a reduced rate for Brison.
The defence argued that the case file contains no proof that any discount was actually granted.
The allegation stems from a brief chat exchange in which Brison asked whether Dos Santos knew someone at the resort who might be able to secure a better rate. Dos Santos replied that he would check.
According to the defence, the conversation ended there. “There is nothing in the file showing that a discount was ever arranged,” the lawyers said. “There is also nothing indicating that Brison stayed at the hotel under such conditions.”
Investigators never contacted hotel staff, requested reservation records or verified whether a booking had been made, the defence added. Moreover, Dos Santos was never asked about the allegation during his police interrogation.
No link
The defence further argued that prosecutors have failed to identify any official decision or action by Brison that could be linked to the alleged payments. Under bribery law, prosecutors must demonstrate that a gift or benefit was provided with the intention of receiving a favour.
But the defence said the case file identifies no concrete act that Brison performed on behalf of Dos Santos. “There is no evidence of a quid pro quo,” the lawyers said.
The lawyers also emphasised that Brison, as a member of Parliament, did not have executive authority to grant permits, licences or government contracts. Such powers lie with ministers or civil servants. “In practical terms, a member of Parliament cannot grant the type of favours that are typically associated with bribery,” Van der Laan argued.
Brison has publicly advocated for reforms to the banking system in St. Maarten, including legislation aimed at guaranteeing access to bank accounts and regulating banking fees. Even if Dos Santos supported those ideas, the defence said, that does not constitute a personal benefit.
Ultimately, the defence told the court that the prosecution’s case rests largely on assumptions rather than concrete proof. Investigators failed to thoroughly examine the explanations offered by Dos Santos regarding the cryptocurrency transactions and included allegations such as the hotel discount without conducting basic verification, the lawyers argued. “The file simply does not contain sufficient proof of bribery,” Van der Laan concluded.
The court is expected to deliver its judgment on April 29.
