Dutch criminal allowed to claim expenses

From Expatica:

A DUTCH court has allowed a bank robber to claim the €2,000 cost of the pistol used in a hold-up as a legitimate business expense.
The 46-year-old bank robber was permitted to set the cost of the gun against his gross proceeds of €6,800 gained during his raid on a bank in the southern town of Chaam. The judge at Breda criminal court duly reduced his fine by the same amount, in addition to sentencing him to four years in jail.
In a timely boost for Holland's image as a bastion of liberal extremism - dented recently by spiraling racial tensions - a spokesman for the Dutch prosecutors' service said the judge had followed sound legal precedents on the confiscation of criminal assets.
The spokesman, Leendert De Lange, said: "You can compare criminal acts to normal business activities, where you must invest to make profits, and thus you have costs."
Thus drug dealers would be within their rights to claim the cost of a car used to ferry those drugs around, he said. At pains to show that Dutch prosecutors are not a pushover, Mr De Lange scoffed at the hypothetical example of a drugs dealer claiming his Ferrari against the proceeds of his crimes.
"No, he would have to prove that he needed the car to transport the drugs around, and I hardly think he would transport them in a Ferrari," he said.
Dutch judges also insist on receipts, invoices or other forms of proof, when calculating how much to confiscate from convicted criminals, Mr De Lange noted. "You can't just tell the judge you spent €10,000, without proof."
Gerard Sta, national director of the office of criminal assets, told the Dutch newspaper 'De Standaard' of other strict conditions: a criminal's costs must be directly related to the crime, and not just day-to-day expenses. "A second condition is that the criminal offence must be carried out," Mr Sta said.
Normal economic principles were at work, said Mr De Lange. "The whole idea is that crime does not pay, but you are allowed to claim your expenses."
Anyone think that the court was being overly academic???
The judges had obviously been down to the cafe first!
well once he proved who sold him the gun they can do the guy who sold him the gun as I suppose it wasent a legimate dealer . then the tax people can have a crack at his ill gotten gains then the victims can sue
for trauma then the bank can sue etc etc . soon he is skint and praying for solitarly confinemeant
I deplore this tendency of "liberal" judges to make hash of the most elementary principles of accounting.

The criminal in question should have been permitted no more than to claim depreciation on the pistol over its useful life.

The acquisition cost of the pistol is a capital expenditure, not an expense.

Similar threads

Latest Threads