Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
  
2013NL01
The Netherlands
South-Holland
Rijswijk
1990
1990
Conflict of (private and public) interests through sideline activities
National
Administrative (appointed)
None
Welfare
Public-Private
No.
Mr. van Hurck was an official at the ministry of Public Health, Welfare & Culture, at the department responsible for refugee, minorities and asylum affairs. As such the department was also in charge of finding accommodation for asylum seekers and had to deal with private businesses offering the accommodation. In 1990 Van Hurck resigned from the ministry and immediately became the owner of a private business dealing with the housing of asylum seekers. This business had been one of the organizations with which the ministry had previously worked. The case led to much debate in the media and in parliament about a perceived conflict of interests whereby Van Hurk used knowledge and contacts acquired as a public official for his personal business venture. According to the minister nothing illegal had been done by Van Hurck. As a result, Van Hurck was not prosecuted or reprimanded. The case did lead to an internal investigation to review standards concerning 'secondary activities'. Attention was paid to the question how to prevent public officials from concealing extra offices and positions. The case thereby shows the emergence of changing and more stringent rules concerning additional positions.
  
2013NL02
The Netherlands
North-Holland
Amsterdam
1975
1975-1977
Corruption: Bribery
Local
Administrative (appointed)
None
Justice
Public-Private
Yes, and convicted.
In the 1970s, bureau Warmoesstraat - a police office in the heart of the Amsterdam red light district - was faced with serious problems. Since the 1960s, the area had seen the introduction of heroin and some members of the police department had gotten mixed up in the trade. Instead of taking action against the drug dealing circuit, police officers befriended local suppliers, mostly Chinese immigrants. As a consequence, the latter had influence over the police and bribed officers with money and goods. In the 1970s this affair became public, and the National Criminal Investigation unit embarked upon a large scale investigation into the affair. The scandal raised debate on proper police conduct. Although the official police report is still labeled as “secret”, six police officers were in the end convicted.
  
2013NL03
The Netherlands
South-Holland
The Hague & Zeist
1947
1947 – 1949
Fraud and theft of resources
National, Local
Political (appointed), Administrative (appointed)
Other
Finance
Public-Public
Yes, and convicted.
On 23 May 1949, the mayor of The Hague, W.A.J. Visser, and his personal secretary Willem Bos, were arrested by the police on suspicion of violating the foreign currencies act. The case shows there was an 'unhealthy' relationship between the two officials. Visser had Bos had worked together during the former's time as mayor of Zeist. Bos' move to The Hague had been initiated by Visser even though the town council had been opposed to it. In the context of already existing discontent with mayor Visser, both Visser and Bos were accused of violating the foreign currencies act, created after WWII to stop trade in foreign currency which would wweaken the Dutch economy. As part of their trade in foreign currency, they had apparently also managed the foreign assets of a Dutch national-socialist, mr. F Bonté. They had helped to transfer Bonté's money from Switserland to the Netherlands. The fact that Bonté had collaborated with the German occupier in WWII added fuel to the debate and made the acts of Visser and Bos all the more reprehensible. During the court cases Visser and Bos suggested that they had in fact worked for the intelligences service and said that the money that they had smuggled from Switzerland to the Netherlands had been partly designated for Czech refugees. Despite their pleas, both Visser and Bos were ultimately sentenced to jail and fined for violating the foreign currencies act. The case offers a rare description of a corruption scandal in the first years following WWII, in which mixing of public and private and conflict of interest was fiercely debated.
  
2013NL04
The Netherlands
North-Holland
Amsterdam & IJmuiden
1953
1953-1971
Corruption: Bribery
Local
Administrative (appointed)
None
Defense
Public-Private
Yes, and convicted.
From 1953 until 1966 so-called 'loodsen' (tug boat captains) in the cities of IJmuiden and Amsterdam received tips from fraight boat captains for their work of advising how many tugboats were needed to tow a fraight boat into the harbor. In the course of the resulting scandal, these tips were seen as bribes. In 1966 the case came to light when the wife of one of the loodsen filed for divorce. When dividing their properties, the extra revenues of her husband, which he had earned as a loods, were discussed. These extra revenues appeared to be earnings of ‘unfair’ practices. Too many tugboats had been used to tow boots through the Nothsea channel (Noordzeekanaal). The tugboat captain had advised to use more tugboats than necessary and had used the extra revenue for his own gain. From that moment on, and for years to come, the scandal unfolded. It appeared that many of these civil servants (loodsen were in fact civil servants, working for the Ministry of Defense) had worked in a similar way. During the trial, the loodsen argued that it had been common practice in their line of business. The extra earnings were considered by the loodsen as tips or gifts and as part of their regular salary. They were, to them, certainly not acts of corruption or bribery. In 1970 the loodsen involved in these practices were nonetheless convicted; not on the grounds of taking bribes but under criminal law, which forbids civil servants from accepting extra funds and gifts while in office. The case proved instrumental in early debates regarding the 'publicness' of public administration and what it actually meant to be a civil servant, rather than a private employee.
 
  
2013NL05
The Netherlands
Utrecht
Utrecht
1984
1984-1985
Corruption: Bribery
Local
Administrative (appointed)
None
Housing
Public-Private
Yes, but case settled.
In the early 1980s an extensive case of bribery came to light by employees of the Spatial Planning and Housing Office in the Dutch city of Utrecht. The case got the attention of the police department in December and January when confidential information about supposed wrongdoing at the department of Construction and Housing was reported by a female thief who was interrogated after having been caught. The thief had claimed she needed money to pay corrupt officials in order to get a house. The case was discussed in great detail in the media between 1984 and 1985 and resulted in the prosecution of three public officials and seven civilians. It also led to a large-scale reorganization of the department of Construction and Housing and anti-corruption measures at the Spatial Planning and Housing Office. A total of five public officials were also arrested on suspicion of corruption. The five were all part of the Spatial Planning and Housing Office. As it turned out, these practices had been common in dozens of casesspread out over several years.
  
2013NL06
The Netherlands
North-Holland
Den Helder
1982
1982
Corruption: Bribery, Fraud and theft of resources
National
Administrative (appointed)
None
Defense
Public-Private
Yes, and convicted.
In 1982 a scandal of bribery and administrative fraud by employees of the Royal Navy received attention of local and national media. The Royal Navy, located in the town of Den Helder, was informed of the scandal by an anonymous phone call which led to an investigation by the police department. The scandal involved a wholesaler who had bribed navy personnel to commit fraud in the administration of the provisions that were delivered by the wholesaler. Navy personnel, or so-called bottlers’ (people concerned with managing the navy provisions) made and recieced payments to benefit themselves as well as the wholesaler.
 
  
2013NL07
The Netherlands
South-Holland
The Hague
1953
1953-1959
Corruption: Bribery, Conflict of (private and public) interests through sideline activities
National
Administrative (appointed)
None
Defense
Public-Private
Yes, and acquitted.
In September 1956 two agents confessed they had paid bribes to major H.E.I.H. Koopmann, a Dutch army official responsible for the purchase of equipment at the Ministry of War. Koopmann had been paid 21,500 guilders between 1953 and 1956 by agents C. van Benthem and J.H. Davids. Despite the fact that Koopmann kept denying the charges, he was first sentenced to 15 months in prison and was forced to resign. However, in court of appeal he would finally be acquitted due to a lack of evidence. The case against Koopmann was, among other mistakes at the Ministry, reason to launch parliamentary inquiry to investigate the acquisition policy at the Ministry of War. The results of this investigation led to the first resignation of a state-secretary in Dutch political history. Apart from this, the findings of the parliamentary enquiry formed the first of a series of events which, according to some, led to the fall of the coalition between the social-democrat and catholic parties which had governed the Netherlands since the end of the second world war.
  
2013NL08
The Netherlands
South-Holland
Gorinchem
1985
1985
Corruption: Bribery
Local
Administrative (appointed)
None
Justice
Public-Private
Yes, and convicted.
In 1985 eight policemen from the Dutch town of Gorkum were accused of wrongful behavior in their dealings with a local brothel in the city. In essence, the scandal was about the policemen having relations with prostitutes and receiving multiple ‘services’ in the brothel without paying for them. The case shows debate on the appropriate behavior of public officials in their capacity as private individuals. Related were the issues of potentially conflicting interests and abuse of power. All eight policemen were suspended by the Mayor and arrested. Five of them were eventually alo fired.
  
2013NL09
The Netherlands
North-Holland
Amsterdam
1946
1946-49
Corruption: Bribery, Fraud and theft of resources, Improper use of authority
National, Local
Administrative (appointed)
None
Justice
Public-Public
Yes, and convicted.

In the second half of 1946 a former member of the Dutch Supreme Court, Mr. W.M. Weitjens, became the center of a scandal of corruption. During the second world war, Weitjens had been a member of the Supreme Court (from 8 October 8 1941 until 20 September 1944). He had been installed by the German occupier and was fired on 22 June 1946 (retroactively per 20 September 1944). Weijtjes was accused of several wrongdoings that supposedly occurred in the second half of 1946, i.e. after his term as supreme court member. First, he had paid a former police inspector 5,000 guilders. This inspector had in turn bribed two chief investigators of the Central Asset Investigations Agency (M.J. Vonk and C.B.M. Van Vliet) with 750 and 500 guilders respectively. In this way Weitjens managed to get in touch with a stockbroker named Mr. Rebholz, who was locked up - as many others in the immediate aftemath of WWII - in a school building in Amsterdam as a political delinquent. Weijtjes needed information from Rebholz on stocks, supposedly to make a profit in the post-war chaos. For his attempts to contact Rebholz, Weitjens was sentenced to four months in prison in April 1949 by the Court of Justice in Amsterdam. The two inspectors were both also convicted for accepting bribes. In a parallel case, Weitjens was also convicted by the special post-war tribunal in the Hague for trading with the enemy and for not acting as 'a decent patriot', due to his affiliation with the German occupier. He was accused of using the particular circumstances of the war to enrich himself by acting as an intermediary between Dutch and German institutions. His part in selling paintings from deported Dutch Jews to a German museum was also widely discussed and added fuel to the debate.

 

  
2013NL10
The Netherlands
Limburg
1989
1989-1993
Corruption: Bribery, Improper use of authority
Provincial, Regional, Local
Political (elected)
CDA (Christian Democrats)
Infrastructure
Public-Private
No.
From 1989 until 1993 the construction industry in the south of the Dutch province of Limburg had to deal with several scandals,  all of them involving the construction company of Sjaak Baars. Several local municipal and provincial public officials received payments from Sjaak Baars and/or received gifts (such as luxurious trips) in exchange for jobs to be given to the company of Baars. The affair led to a lot of commotion in Limburg media, amongst the general public and among civil servants themselves. Eventually this led to national policy changes and to the drafting of codes of conduct for civil servants in various municipalities and within the province of Limburg.
 
  
2013NL11
The Netherlands
North-Holland
Amsterdam
1946
1946 - 1949
Fraud and theft of resources
National, Local
Other
None
Other
Public-Private
No.
On July 8 1948, a scandal erupted surrounding the dealings of Mr. A.B. de Vries . De Vries was  director of the Foundation for Dutch Art Collection (FDCA - Stichting Nederlands Kunstbezit), the director of the Dutch Mauritshuis museum in The Hague and director of the government agency for art historical documentation. He was arrested on suspicion of fraud, together with art dealer Mr. Katz who was trying to retrieve several paintings that had been stolen by the Germans during WWII. Since this proved difficult, the lawyer of Katz proposed a scheme in which Katz would compensate for the refunding of twenty-six paintings. In return for the 26 paintings, Katz donated 289.000 guilders and three important paintings (the so-called Bicker portraits by Maarten van Heemskerk and an oil sketch by Rubens) to Dutch museums. The deal was struck between Katz and the Dutch institute responsible for the tracing, managing and eventually liquidating enemy assets and assets of persons who disappeared during the war (Nederlands Beheerinstituut). The ministry of Education, Arts and Sciences also agreed with the deal. Discussion in the case mostly centered on whether there had been a conflict of interest and whether De vries, in his various overlapping roles, had benefitted personally from the deal.
  
2013NL12
The Netherlands
Limburg
Maarssen
1998
1998-2011
Corruption: Bribery, Fraud and theft of resources, Improper use of authority
Local
Political (elected), Political (appointed)
VVD (Conservative Liberals)
Infrastructure
Public-Private
Yes, and convicted.
Sjoerd Swane was a politician in the municipality of Maarssen between 1984 and 2005. In this period he obtained several functions, including member of the local town council, leader of the liberal party fraction (VVD) and alderman. His main duties were in the area of city planning. Next to a career in politics, Swane was also an entrepreneur and owned several companies and holdings. In 2005, Swane became the subject of a municipal investigation. The investigation revealed that Swane had broken municipal laws because of a conflict of political and business interests. As a consequence, Swane resigned. Two years later in 2007 the fiscal intelligence agency (FIOD) started an investigation, which found Swane guilty of bribery, forgery, and tax fraud. Swane was convicted to two years in prison in 2011. Because Swane was (and is) missing since 2007 when the investigation started (he most likely fled to a country which has no extradition treaty with The Netherlands), he was convicted in absentia. This case offers an interesting perspective on discussion on the thin line between public and private spheres and between underworld and 'upper' world.
  
2013NL13
The Netherlands
South-Holland, Zeeland
The Hague
1954
1954-1962
Corruption: Bribery, Fraud and theft of resources, Improper use of authority
International, National, Provincial
Administrative (appointed)
None
Infrastructure
Public-Private
Yes, and convicted.
After World War II there was an enormous shortage of scrap metal to be turned into new steel that was needed for the rebuilding of European nations. Import was essential and export was forbidden since 1953 to ensure that steel needed in European nations would stay there. Due to such things as transport costs, the imported scrap metal was more expensive than domestic scrap metal. Because of this some scrap metal dealers thought to earn money by selling cheap domestic scrap metal for the price of expensive imported scrap metal. One way of concealing this was to suggest the import of wrecked (war) ships on paper, that never actually arrived in the Netherlands. An official of the Ministry of Economic Affairs worked along with them although this person was not supposed to provide licenses. Scrap dealer Louis Worms notified the authorities of this fraud in 1957. As such, the scrap metal affair was born.
  
2013NL14
The Netherlands
South-Holland
The Hague
1981
1981
Corruption: Bribery, Improper use of authority
National
Administrative (appointed)
None
Infrastructure, Healthcare
Public-Private
No.
In the early 1980s a case of corruption came to light at the Ministry of Social Affairs and Housing. The case revolved around three public officials of the ministry whi had accepted bribes from construction companies in exchange for the quick - and illegal - granting of building permits for various health care facilities (hospitals, mental healthcare institutions, nursing homes). The case attracted a considerable amount of media attention by several newspapers in the year 1981 and resulted in an investigation by the national police department and an internal investigation by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Housing. The latter formed a ‘commission of four’ to check whether the procedure the government used in the granting of building permits was still waterproof and not susceptible to corruption. The alleged corruption created a public debate on the former Minister of Social Affairs and Housing, the head of the department of Construction and Financing of the Ministry and the secretary of the College of Hospital Facilities. Where at first various allegation of corrupt behaviour by public officials were being made by the media, the final conclusion from the public debate was that it the favoritism exposed was normal practice in the healthcare sector and that there was no evidence of corruption in the form of payments in exchange for favors. The police investigation could not relate the public officials to the allegations of corrupt behaviour. As a result the Court of The Hague could not start the prosecution. Regardless, the debate shows interesting ...@@@
  
2013NL15
The Netherlands
South-Holland
Rotterdam
1999
1999
Improper use of authority, Waste and abuse of organizational resources
National, Local
Political (elected), Political (appointed)
PvdA (Social Democrats)
Other
Public-Public
Yes, and acquitted.
This case involves the widely reported and investigated scandal of expense claims of then Rotterdam mayor Bram Peper. The case was an expenses scandal and opened up much public discussion regaring use of public funds for private benefit and the limits of 'proper' behavior. Altough Peper was fully exhonorated and acquitted of all charges (he had not done anything illegal and many mistakes had been made in the investigation of accountant KPMG) the debate surrounding his expenses set the tone for much new policy and can be regarded as a milestone moment in changing attitudes towards the integrity of public officials.
  
2013NL16
The Netherlands
South-Holland
Rotterdam
1975
1975-77
Corruption: Bribery
Local
Administrative (appointed)
None
Welfare
Public-Private
Yes, and convicted.
In 1975 the municipality of Rotterdam asked the justice authorities to investigate the city’s department of Social Services. More specifically, attention was to be focused on the district office at the Sionstraat location. An internal investigation revealed how public officials at the Sionstraat location had committed various offenses, most notably accepting bribes and favours in return for providing services. They had abused the system for personal gain. Amongst other offences, several public officials appeared to have accepted liquor and cash from clients. Different officials also had intimate relationships with clients and officials also declared too much moving expenses for clients, so they could take the surplus for themselves. In 1977 the manager of the Social Services resigned. Five public officials were furthermore sentenced and condemned to three months of jail.
  
2014NL01
Netherlands
North-Holland
Amsterdam
2008
2008
Corruption: Bribery, Fraud and theft of resources, Improper use of authority
National
Other
None
Housing
Public-Public
Yes, and convicted.
The case focuses on the corrupt behavior of Hubert Möllenkamp, former board member of the housing corporation Rochdale. A newspaper article in 2008 focused on his remarkable lifestyle and some major and remarkable deals he had signed initiated the case. As a result, Möllenkamp was summarily dismissed and an investigation by Deloitte was initiated, which later proved the dismissal to be lawful. In the prosecution and further research into his activities more corruption became apparent. Among others, Möllenkamp has been accused of forgery of a letter granting himself an annual bonus of three months salaries and multiple counts of bribery in the form of cars and large sums of money in the sale of apartment complexes. The corruption occurred among others with anonymous business associates of Möllenkamp at real estate organizations Nawon and demolition company Deto. The implications of corruption and legal investigation into Möllenkamp have led him into personal bankruptcy. The last information on the case is that Möllenkamp will be prosecuted for embezzlement.
  
2014NL02
Netherlands
Limburg
Heerlen Maastricht Nuth Sittard Geleen
2005
2005-2012
Corruption: Bribery, Conflict of (private and public) interests through "gifts", Improper use of authority
Provincial, Regional, Local
Administrative (appointed)
None
Infrastructure
Public-Private
Yes, and convicted.
This case centers around several municipal public officials of different municipalities in the province of Limburg and one provincial Limburg public official. The public oficials were bribed to provide road construction company Janssen de Jong Infra BV with confidential information. In addition, large amounts of money (a total of half a million euroswas taken by public officials (especially in the municipality of Heerlen) for road works that were never carried out. Seven civil servants, and a wife of one of them, were sentenced to a maximum of 1 year in prison for committing fraud and damaging the 'public trust in government'. Three managers of Janssen de Jong Infra BV also received sentences ranging from 12 months to 2 years in prison.
  
2014NL03
Netherlands
North-Holland, South-Holland
The Hague
2002
2002-2008
Fraud and theft of resources
National, Provincial
Political (elected)
VVD (Conservative Liberals)
Other
Public-Public
Yes, and convicted.
This case revolves around transitional allowance fraud committed by Patricia Remak. Remak was a former legal expert and tax consultant who became memper of parliament from 1998 to 2002 for the Dutch liberal party (VVD). Upon leaving parliament, Remal recieved a transitional allowance that she was not entitled to. Due to additional earnings from other jobs at the Provincial Council and the Ministry of Finance she earned to much money in addition to the allowance. Although Remak defended herself against the charge of benefit fraud in court, she was initially sentenced to serve one year in prison and pay a fine of €100,000 ( the estimate amount of the fraud). When she appealed, she was however sentenced to 6 months in prison, a €100,000 fine and 240 hours of community service. Additionally, the Provincial Council – her employer while the allowance fraud occurred – also found irregularities in her declarations. However, this case was closed on pragmatic grounds, so no more costs related to appeals would be made in the new fiscal year of the Province.
 
  
2014NL04
Netherlands
Flevoland
Urk
2005
2005
Misuse and manipulation of information
Local
Political (appointed)
CU (Orthodox Calvinists)
Other
Public-Public
Yes, and convicted.
In April 2005 mayor Dick Schutte of the Dutch town of Urk passed confidential information about an ongoing criminal investigation on to the subject of the investigation, the local fish auction. Schutte was not only mayor of Urk but also chairman of the board of the fish auction. The investigation concerned suspicions of the fish auction exceeding the amount of fish they were allowed to catch. As mayor, Schutte received confidential information from the public prosecuter due to his responsibility for safeguarding public order. As chairman of the fish auction, this same information was obviosly important. In September 2005 the court considered the allegations proven and convicted Schutte to a fine. The interior minister, Remkes, furthermore forced Schutte to resign as mayor, which he did in December 2005. Although Schutte was as such convicted of corruption, he remained highly popular in the fishing town of Urk.
  
2014NL05
Netherlands
Limburg
Echt-Susteren
2007
2007-2010
Corruption: Favoritism, Conflict of (private and public) interests through sideline activities
Local
Political (appointed)
CDA (Christian Democrats), Local Party
Other
Public-Private
No.
In 2007 the Dutch municipalityof Echt-Susteren received a much higher return on their shares in energy company Essent. The three political parties in the coalition (CDA, Lijst Samenwerking and Algemeen Belang) all got to spend a part of this money on projects in the municipality they favored. Circumventing the city council, the three parties donated the money to clubs and organizations of their choice without following the rules for subsidies in the municipality. The money was given as if it were a gift from the political parties. The affair became known as the Sinterklaas affair, named after the Dutch Santa-like tradition of Sinterklaas handing out gifts to children.
  
2014NL06
Netherlands
South-Holland
Schiedam
2008
2008-2011
Corruption: Favoritism, Improper use of authority, Indecent treatment of colleagues or citizens and customers
Local
Political (appointed)
VVD (Conservative Liberals)
Other
Public-Private
No.
Wilma Verver (VVD) was the mayor of Schiedam from 2006 to 2011. Upon becoming mayor, she bought a house in the municipality and rebuilt it. After a conflict with the contractor, Verver aparently used her powers to try and prevent the contractor from getting any more orders from the municipality. The city council received word of this and ordered an investigation. It discovered much more cases in which the behavior of Verver was at least questionable. The researchers defined her style as ‘divide and conquer’, and the organizational culture as ‘fear-driven’. By the time the report came out, Verver had already stepped down.
  
2014NL07
Netherlands
North-Holland
2004
2004-2009
Corruption: Bribery, Fraud and theft of resources
Provincial
Administrative (appointed)
VVD (Conservative Liberals)
Infrastructure
Public-Private
Yes, and convicted.
Ton Hooijmaijers (VVD) was a provincial executive for the province of Noord-Holland, responsible for the financial and spatial planning portfolios. In the mid 2000s, Hooijmaijers became the focus of investigation and much public debate. He was accused of accepting bribes from a bank to secure the principal banking rights of the province. Moreover, he has been charged with several counts of accepting bribes from development companies for projects both locally and abroad. In his dealings he would involve Arnold van de Kamp, a befriended real-estate agent who would send these company invoices on behalf of Hooijmaijers company Move Consultancy, which was officially in name of Hooijmaijers' wife. In December 2013 Hooijmaijers was found guilty on all but one charge and sentenced to 3 years in prison. Both the public prosecuter's office and Hooijmaijers appealed the decision. In the wake of the initial trial and conviction there was much public debate. A lot of the discussion revolved around the matter how 'entrepreneurial' public officials could be. In addition, the fact that Hooijmaijers was entitled to a transitional allowance also sparked wide debate. The Minister of the Interior responded saying that until Hooijmaijers would in fact be incarcerated he would be legally entitled to the transitional allowance. Denying him this would violate the innocent until proven guilty concept. In the final verdict following the appeal of April 2015, Hooijmaijers was sentenced to 2,5 years in prison for corruption, forgery of documents and money laundering.
 
  
2014NL08
Netherlands
Utrecht
Utrecht
2013
2013
Fraud and theft of resources
Local
Political (elected)
PvdA (Social Democrats)
Other
Public-Public
Yes, and convicted.
Bert van der Roest was a member of the City Council Utrecht and treasurer of Straatnieuws Utrecht. Straatnieuws Utrecht is a foundation which helps homeless people acquire some income. The chairman of Straatnieuws Utrecht discovered that Van der Roest had stolen €38.793. Van der Roest left Straatnieuws Utrecht and was forced to resign from the City Council. Straatnieuws Utrecht did not report Van der Roest to the authorities and arranged a repayment schedule. Furthermore, Van der Roest was lawfully entitled to receive transitional allowance. Public debate arose around the fact that Van der Roest would not be prosecuted and that he would receive transition allowance from the City Council. Since after a year, Van der Roest had not yet paid back the money, Straatnieuws Utrecht reported him to the authorities after all. The case is currently under legal review.
 
  
2014NL09
Netherlands
Gelderland
2010
2010
Corruption: Bribery, Fraud and theft of resources
Provincial
Administrative (appointed)
None
Other
Public-Private
Yes, and convicted.
This case revolves around Wim Scheerder, a member of the provincial executive of Gelderland. Scheerder was involved with various claims of corruption regarding the provincial event policies. Two main charges were brought against him. The first concerned a forgery charge, alleging that Scheerder had sent two letters on provincial letterhead to indicate that the Province of Gelderland had awarded a large contract to Gelderland Events. This company then used these letters to obtain credit from ABN Amro bank. The content of the letters was false, since no final agreement between Gelderland Events and the province had been made. The second charge revolved around Scheerder’s wedding. Eep Landman, the director of Gelderland Events was said to have paid 4.500 towards Scheerder’s wedding as a bribe for his cooperation in the deal between his company and the province. Scheerder was not convicted on this bribery charge but was found guilty on the forgery charge.
  
2014NL10
Netherlands
Limburg
Gulpen
1992
1992
Corruption: Bribery, Improper use of authority
Local
Political (appointed)
CDA (Christian Democrats)
Infrastructure
Public-Private
Yes, and convicted.
This case revolves around Wiel Vossen, the former mayor of the municipality of Gulpen. He was investigated for corruption charges relating to an abuse of his power as mayor. He was said that have used his influence to obtain discounts on several aspects of the building and remodel of his home, including his kitchen and a path surrounding his house. Vossen was convicted on appeal of abusing his power and banned from acting a mayor for a period of five years, in addition to a provisional sentence and a fine. The provisional sentence and fine were later doubled by a higher court.  
  
2014NL11
Netherlands
South-Holland
Vlaardingen
2007
2007
Corruption: Favoritism, Improper use of authority
Local
Political (appointed)
CDA (Christian Democrats)
Housing
Public-Private
No.
Cees Oosterom, CDA (Christian Democrat) alderman of Vlaardingen and Jan Brinkman, municipality secretary of Vlaardingen were involved in a anti-squatting housing affair. They were suspected of abuse of their powers in helping their sons get an anti-squatting (a cheap form of living) house by forcing former residents to leave. The Bureau Integrity Dutch Municipalities (BING) conducted an integrity investigation into both men. Likewise, the parties in the municipal government of Vlaardingen had a debate about their actions. Even though Oosterom apologized during the city council meeting, the Socialist Party (SP) believed that Oosterom was guilty of abuse of power. The leader of VVD (…) was of the opinion that Oosterom had caused reputation damage to the municipality. The Council of Mayor and Aldermen denied there had been a conflict of interest. The SP requested to file a motion of censure, which was however rejected with eighteen votes to fourteen. BING concluded that alderman Cees Oosterom and Jan Brinkman were not guilty of abuse of power. They had, however, violated key values in the code of conduct for administrators of the municipality of Vlaardingen (independence, reliability and carefulness). There had also been a conflict of interest. In September 2007, Oosterom resigned. Two months later, Jan Brinkman also submitted his resignation.
  
2014NL12
Netherlands
Limburg
Maastricht
2006
2006-2010
Conflict of (private and public) interests through sideline activities
International, Local
Political (appointed)
CDA (Christian Democrats)
Infrastructure
Public-Private
No.
In 2006, the mayor of Maastricht, Gerd Leers, purchased a plot of land in Byala, Bulgaria and a holiday villa to be built on that land. However, the project failed and Leers attempted to save €220.000, that he had already invested. The City Council started an investigation into the behavior of Leers in Byala, to determine if his behavior had been lawful. The investigation concluded there was the appearance of a conflict of interests, as a result of Leers' visit to the mayor of Byala and the Prime Minister of Bulgaria. However, Leers - according to the investigation - had not violated any legal regulations and had not abused his power for personal gain. The appearance of a conflict of interest had been inevitable, but his communication had been transparent nonetheless. During a debate in the City Council, Leers asked for forgiveness. The City Council was not willing to forgive and Leers decided to resign. Many people stated they regretted that Leers resigned and Leers received a standing ovation when he left. A few months later on October 14, 2010 he became Minister of Immigration and Asylum.
  
2014NL13
Netherlands
Gelderland
Wageningen
2007
2007
Misuse and manipulation of information
Local
Political (appointed)
CDA (Christian Democrats), PvdA (Social Democrats)
Infrastructure
Public-Private
No.
This case concerned a redevelopment plan around a harbor by Domburg Beheer BV. The report stated that the agricultural cooperative Rijnvallei which was in the harbor area had to move under certain conditions. The report was confidentially disclosed to PVDA alderman Stella Efdé when he had an introduction interview  on the redevelopment plans around the harbor with Robert Jan Nieland , the director of Domburg. Efdé shared the report with Frits Huibers (alderman of CDA).  From correspondence of Domburg, it was revealed that Rijnvallei also had the copy of the report. However, when Domburg asked the municipality about the leaking of information, both Efdé and Huijbers denied responsibility. Domburg Beheer BV then sent a subpoena to them for a preliminary hearing of witnesses upon which Huijbers did admit that he had been the one to leak the information by leaving the copy of the report to the Martin Grift,the director of Rijnvallei He subsequently resigned. The mayor as well as most other board members thought that Huijbers had made the right decision of his resignation. However, the councilor of Groenlinks requested a debate and questioned the resignation of Huijbers. After Huijbers resigned, Domburg withdrew the petition of holding a preliminary hearing of witnesses.
  
2014NL14
Netherlands
Gelderland
Lingewaard
2007
2007-2012
Fraud and theft of resources
Local
Political (appointed)
CDA (Christian Democrats)
Other
Public-Public
Yes, but case settled.
Harry de Vries was mayor of medium sized municipality Lingewaard in the province of Gelderland. In 2010 investigation showed that over the year 2008 €11.000 had been falsely reimbursed. The mayor was the biggest spender within the Executive Board. Less than two years later a local opposition party leader found irregularities in the expense claims made by mayor De Vries. When De Vries found out he announced his resignation and filed for sick leave until the end of his tenure. After his resignation he was legally entitled to a transitional allowance that depended on the lengths of his time in office. By filing for sick leave he received 5 months of salary after he announced his resignation, and was entitled to the full amount of the transitional allowance. Many people disapproved of the transitional allowance. An investigation by the public prosecution has ended in a settlement and a fine of €1500, but the transitional allowance remained in place. 
  
2014NL15
Netherlands
North-Brabant
Tilburg
2007
2007-2010
Misuse and manipulation of information
Local
Political (elected)
Local Party
Other
Public-Public
Yes, and convicted.
Ruud Vreeman, Mayor of Tilburg, sued Hans Smolders, the leader of List Smolders Tilburg and councilman of the Tilburg municipality for leaking confidential information to the public. In 2006, Smolders leaked information about transitional allowance regulations which was discussed between the mayor and the chairmen of the various political parties of Tilburg. Although Smolders received a warning, he still leaked more information later anyway. In 2007, he leaked information about the treatment of a disco director which was discussed in a meeting behind closed doors between the council, prosecution (Justitie) and the police department. After the accruement of Vreeman, Smolders was arrested and investigated by the court of Breda. There were different opinions in parties, public, the legal department and Smolders himself about the act of Smolders. According to the conclusions of the court, Smolders was not guilty of leaking information about the transitional allowance, but was guilty of leaking information about the treatment of the disco director and received a fine of 750 Euros.
  
2014NL16
Netherlands
Gelderland, Groningen
Groningen, Arnhem
2000
2000-2013
Waste and abuse of organizational resources
National, Local
Political (elected), Political (appointed)
PvdA (Social Democrats), PVV (Populist Right), Other
Other
Public-Public
No.
This is a combination of several cases involving transitional allowances for politicians after they leave their job since the early 2000s. Detailed are three prominent cases in a heated debate. It concerns, first, the case of Philomena Bijlhout. She was state secretary for only nine hours when it became known she had lied during her job interview. She was nonetheless entitled to two years of transitional allowance. In the wake of this the APPA-arrangement that regulates the transitional allowance was changed. A second case involved Peter Rehwinkel, mayor of Groningen, who quit his job before the end of his term to work voluntarily in Barcelona. He requested a transitional allowance to sustain himself for the first six months. This sparked debate about whether it was fair to get recieve TA when a job is left voluntarily. A third case involved politician Hero Brinkman and his party PVV. The party has often been critical of the transitional allowance, calling it too extravagant. However, when Brinkman left the PVV and was not re-elected on his own he made use of the arrangement nonetheless. This lead to much debate. Finally, there is the case of Co Verdaas. He was accused of abusing expesens for travel as provincial executive in Gelderland. He was in the end not prosecuted but the affair later reappeared when he became state-secretary of agriculture. As a result he left the latter office only after one month. He was entitled to three years of transitional allowance, six months from his stint as state secretary and 31 months from his time as provincial executive. He has since found a job. Again the case resulted in much debate.
  
2015NL01
The Netherlands
South-Holland
Haarlem
1999
1999-2000
Corruption: Bribery, Fraud and theft of resources, Waste and abuse of organizational resources
Provincial
Administrative (appointed)
None
Finance
Public-Private
Yes, and convicted.
Karel Baarspul was a civil servant within the treasury department of the province Zuid-Holland. He had loaned 47.5 million guilders to Ceteco, a company that went bankrupt because of the samba crisis in Latin-America. Ceteco was unable to back the loan, which meant that Zuid-Holland had lost 47.5 million guilders. The Ministry of Agriculture became aware of this problem because of an anonymous tip. After two investigations, it became clear that the Gedeputeerde Staten and Baarspul were responsible for the problems. Furthermore, Baarspul had enriched himself with public funds and was sentenced to prison for three months.
  
2015NL02
The Netherlands
Zeeland
Vlissingen
2013
2013
Fraud and theft of resources
Local
Political (appointed), Administrative (appointed)
CDA (Christian Democrats), Local Party
Other
Public-Private
No.
Rene Roep was the (CDA) mayor of the municipality of Vlissingen from the 15th of December 2010 until the 5th of September 2013. In June 2013 members of the Town Council started an investigation into the expenses claimed by the executive board of the municipality. Rene Roep had claimed a bed of €2500, bar stools, a kitchen trolley, a washing machine, pans and silverware. This was against the rules, since they stated that when you move, you can only file expenses claims for things you cannot take with you, such as curtains and carpets. It also became clear that the gemeentesecretaris stopped checking the expenses claims made by the mayor and aldermen because of a dispute between them that started when the gemeentesecretaris had refused to approve some hotel expenses claims handed in by Jacques Damen and Rene Roep. Mayor Roep eventually resigned. He stated that he still believed he had done nothing wrong, but that keeping on as mayor would make the city ungovernable, largely because of the deteriorated relationships within the municipality.
  
2015NL03
The Netherlands
Gelderland
1999
1999-2003
Fraud and theft of resources, Conflict of (private and public) interests through "gifts"
Provincial, Regional
Administrative (appointed)
D66 (Progressive Liberals)
Finance
Public-Private
Yes, and convicted.
Wim Vrijhoef was the managing director of a Regional Business Development Company (Regionale Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij; ROM) called the Gelderse Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij (GOM) from 1989 until 1999. Their aim was to improve the economic climate of the province of Gelderland by investing in businesses in the region. When Vrijhoef stepped down in 1999 as the managing director, the new management of the GOM confronted the Minister for Economic Affairs, Annemarie Jorritsma-Lebbink, with the idea that the GOM possibly found itself in a financial crisis. On November 2, 2000, the FIOD raided the home of Vrijhoef. They found out that Vrijhoef had put 1,5 million guilders of public funds in his own pocket. He was found guilty of forgery of documents, fraud, and embezzlement and was sentenced 12 months in prison with four months suspended.
  
2015NL04
The Netherlands
Limburg
Geulle
1980
1978-1980
Corruption: Bribery, Fraud and theft of resources
Regional, Local
Political (appointed)
CDA (Christian Democrats)
Infrastructure
Public-Private
Yes, and convicted.

Joep Galiart was mayor of the town of Geulle in the province of Limburg. For two years, Galiart was on the payroll of a gravel dredging company that had major interests in obtaining new gravel dredging areas. Upon investigation, the National Police did not succeed to collect enough evidence to prove that Galiart had actually obtained money from Van Hasselt through bribes. Hence they summoned Galiart with the accusation of not mentioning the wages he received as the company's commissioner to the tax office. After his conviction, Galiart continued his work as a mayor, but two months later, he resigned due to health conditions. Notwithstanding his conviction, and following advise of the Queen’s Commissioner in Limburg, he demanded and was granted a honourable discharge.

  
2015NL05
The Netherlands
South-Holland
Rotterdam
1987
1984-1987
Fraud and theft of resources
Local
Administrative (appointed)
None
Finance
Public-Public
Yes, and convicted.
Cornelis F., head of automation of the Finance department of the Municipality of Rotterdam, was able to steal 8,2 million guilders from 1984 till 1987. He transferred the money to bank accounts in Thailand, Switzerland, and Belgium. Cornelis F. himself did suggestions to improve the financial controlling mechanisms of the organization. He repeatedly told the heads of the departments about the weaknesses within the computer system and suggested improvements. The case caused a lot of troubles for administrative and political management. In court, F. was found guilty of committing forgery of documents (art. 225 WvSr), fraud (art. 326 WvSr), and theft (art.310 WvSr). The Public Prosecutor asked for a prison sentence of six years, but in appeal F. received four and a half years prison sentence.
  
2015NL06
The Netherlands
Limburg
Brunssum
1995
1984-1987
Corruption: Bribery, Fraud and theft of resources, Misuse and manipulation of information
Provincial, Regional, Local
Political (appointed)
PvdA (Social Democrats)
Infrastructure
Public-Private
Yes, and convicted.
Henk Riem was the (PvdA) mayor of the municipality of Brunssum in the province of Limburg. In 1993 it became known that he was the subject of an investigation by the National Police. Mayor Riem was accused of taking bribes from construction firm owner J. Baars in exchange for information about new infrastructure projects in the municipality. This information gave Baars an advantage in acquiring projects. The Public Prosecutor accused Riem of bribery, violation of his professional secrecy, and forgery of documents. On August 11, 1994, Riem was dishonourably discharged by the Minister of the Interior. In an appeal case, Riem was acquitted of the accusations of corruption and the violation of his professional secrecy. He was declared guilty, however, of forging documents by changing the declarations of the cost of a trip to Israel. For this he received a fine of 2.500,- guilders.
 
Code 
Related to case 
Title 
More information 
Country 
Province (State) 
City/Municipality 
Year 
Period 
Category (Huberts) 
Governance Level 
Political Administrative Level 
Political Party 
Government Policy Sector 
Public-Private 
Prosecution 
Abstract 
© Center for Public Values & Ethics