Draco cases concluded through procedural agreements and settlements

All settlement amounts will be paid into the Crime Fund. With this, the criminal and confiscation cases against S.J.M. and three companies affiliated with him have been closed. S.J.M. will in due course receive a summons to begin serving his prison sentence.

The Draco investigation started on 8 November 2018 and was conducted by the Kingdom Cooperation Team (RST) under the responsibility of the Central Team of the Office of the Attorney-General for Curaçao, Sint Maarten, Bonaire, St. Eustatius and Saba.

On 10 February 2022, S.J.M. was convicted by the Court of First Instance (GEA) in the Draco criminal case and sentenced to 22 months of unconditional imprisonment for intentionally failing to file tax returns, filing incorrect tax returns, and money laundering. The court also ordered the execution of a previously imposed partly suspended prison sentence. In addition to S.J.M., three other individuals were convicted in the investigation.

Both S.J.M. and the Prosecutor’s Office filed appeals against this judgment.

At the same time as the criminal case, the RST initiated a Criminal Financial Investigation to determine whether the suspects in the Draco case had obtained unlawful financial gain. According to the Prosecutor’s Office, this investigation showed that S.J.M. had enriched himself through the criminal offenses for which he was convicted. As a result, the Prosecutor’s Office initiated confiscation proceedings against S.J.M.

Following the conviction in the Draco criminal case, the Prosecutor’s Office also launched a criminal investigation and confiscation proceedings against three companies with which S.J.M. was allegedly involved. This criminal investigation, “Draco 2,” concerns suspicions of forgery and money laundering. Earlier this year, the Prosecutor’s Office, S.J.M., and his defense reached agreement in all of these cases.

The appeal in the Draco criminal case was concluded by the Joint Court of Justice in accordance with the procedural agreements made between the Prosecutor’s Office, the suspect, and his defense. Procedural agreements are arrangements between the Prosecutor’s Office and the suspect in which they reach agreement on the desired outcome of the case. These agreements must be submitted to the court with proper justification for review. The court may follow these agreements but is not obliged to do so if it disagrees with them. Today, the Joint Court considered the proposed outcome in the procedural agreements to be reasonable and appropriate and rendered judgment accordingly.

This means that S.J.M. has been sentenced on appeal to an unconditional prison sentence of 21 months and that the request to enforce the previously suspended prison sentence has been rejected.

This outcome must be viewed in the context of the overall package of agreements between the Prosecutor’s Office and S.J.M., combined with his changed procedural stance. S.J.M. indicated that he wished to “clear the slate” and has taken responsibility for his actions.

The overall agreement with S.J.M. includes, first, that he has accepted the unconditional prison sentence imposed for the Draco criminal case. The fact that the prison sentence is one month lower than the sentence imposed by the Court of First Instance is due to the exceeding of the reasonable time limit in the appeal proceedings.

In addition, S.J.M. agreed to settle the related confiscation case for an amount of 711,045 XCG, thereby relinquishing assets he personally obtained unlawfully. As a result, the Prosecutor’s Office will request the Court of First Instance to declare the confiscation case concluded.

It was also agreed with S.J.M. that the pending criminal and confiscation cases against the three companies affiliated with him would be resolved. Two of the companies will not be prosecuted because the unlawful gains of those companies have already been included in the confiscation proceedings against S.J.M. personally. The third company will pay a fine of US $20,000 and a confiscation settlement of US $324,215.

This is the first time in the Caribbean part of the Kingdom that a criminal case on appeal has been resolved in this manner. The advantage of procedural agreements is that a criminal case can be concluded more quickly and with fewer procedural steps. This results in significant savings for the government in terms of time, court capacity, and other costs. At the same time, because court approval is required, the fairness of the proceedings and equality before the law remain safeguarded.