The court in Den Bosch on Monday sentenced a 49-year-old Eindhove resident to 2.5 years in prison for laundering large sums of money and forgery. The Public Prosecution Service had demanded four years in prison against the man last month. According to the court, the man laundered a total of 6,176,000 euros.
The police received information in February 2015 that suspect S. Ç. would be guilty of money laundering and forgery when purchasing a property in Eindhoven. Years of investigation into his actions followed.
No logical explanation
The court ruled on Monday that the former coffee shop owner had almost 2.5 million euros more cash at his disposal from 2005 to 2012 than he could legally have. In addition, large sums of money up to a total of 2.8 million euros were transferred from Turkey to the suspect’s Dutch bank accounts during the same period, while there is no logical (legal) explanation for this.
In addition, the suspect bought several properties in the Netherlands, especially in Eindhoven, with money that had no legal origin. There is some overlap with the aforementioned transactions, but this does not apply to investments up to an amount of more than 900,000 euros. This amounts to a total laundered amount of more than 6.1 million euros.
In addition, the Eindhove resident committed forgery. He showed Belgian police false papers from the sale of a Porsche in an attempt to explain a cash deposit of a large amount at a Belgian bank. He also included a false statement in an authentic notarial deed for a share transfer in the context of the sale of a company.
Significant real estate portfolio
Despite the fact that the suspect had hardly any legal income, he quickly built up a significant real estate portfolio, according to the court. Due to the many purchases of real estate, involving banks, mortgage providers and notaries, there was extensive mixing of the underworld with the legal upper world. As a result, the integrity of the financial and economic system has been seriously undermined. The court blames the suspect for this.
In terms of punishment, the court believes that the extensive media attention and the long course of the criminal case will have had the necessary impact on the suspect and his family. His home was frequently recognizable in newspapers and on the internet for years.
Exceeding a reasonable period
All in all, the court believes that a prison sentence of 3.5 years is appropriate. However, the reasonable period within which this criminal case could have been settled has been exceeded by three years due to various circumstances. The suspect therefore receives a so-called sentence reduction of one year.
In addition to the 2.5 year prison sentence, the court declares a number of the seized properties forfeit. This means that the suspect will no longer get those properties back.
The investigation into the confiscation case against the suspect will be resumed at a later date.