A woman who ordered the murder of her ex-boyfriend in 2017 demanded her money back in a civil lawsuit in court last month. The subdistrict court judge ruled against the woman.
11000 euros
At some point in 2017, the woman asked someone if he wanted to kill her ex-boyfriend. The reason was that she was exploited by the ex-boyfriend and forced into prostitution. The man accepted the assignment and immediately received 11,000 euros for it, an amount with which he would also buy a firearm.
Threat
But the intended assassin did not carry out the assignment. He turned against the woman by threatening and blackmailing her. Between March 2017 and June 2018, he made her pay money. If she did not pay, he threatened to inform her family about her double life as a prostitute. He would also distribute recordings of a conversation about the murder order via social media and send it to the police.
The case was brought to the attention of the police and the court sentenced the man to twenty months’ unconditional prison sentence for, among other things, threatening him.
In resistance
At the sentencing, the court did not fully award the damages claimed. Among other things, the man did not have to repay the amount of 11,000 euros paid for the murder-for-hire. The woman then went to the civil court and was vindicated, but the man protested.
Refund?
The subdistrict court judge now agrees with the woman in the sense that the content and scope of the agreement for the murder is contrary to good morals or public order and is therefore null and void.
In principle, the man must pay this back.
Public order
The judge actually believes that the 11,000.00 should be forfeited because it relates to the execution of a crime, but only the criminal court can do that.
Ultimately, the subdistrict court judge ruled against the woman.
Because the woman knowingly gave an order to commit murder and was prepared to pay for it, the rules of public order are at stake, the subdistrict court judge finds. These rules are so true that the judge applies them ex officio. From the verdict:
Given the nature of the agreement, public order prevents the ordinary rules of civil law from applying to it. The progress of [de vrouw] reimbursement of the amount of € 11,000.00 will be rejected for this reason.
See the verdict.
