PHILIPSBURG--Two police officers stood trial on Wednesday for asking for bribes. During an emotional session, in which the male and female officer expressed regret, they could count on the support of family and members of St. Maarten Police Force KPSM present. But the Prosecutor was unrelenting and demanded prison sentences.
Officers W. and M. have “caused enormous damage to the credibility of the rule of law and the reputation of the police,” according to the prosecutor. “Those are big words, but they are also appropriate here. Officers who abuse their position for their own financial gain strongly undermine the trust that citizens should have in their police. Who else should protect them and should be investigating crime?”
It did not get to the point where the officers received bribes, but according to the prosecutor, that does not alter the fact that the two are punishable. “The fact that the money has not been paid is irrelevant in this case. And this was certainly not an innocent joke. The extortion was prepared and carried out in association.”
The two police officers used information they had by virtue of their employment to pressure a citizen to pay bribes. They went to the man and said that an investigation was underway against him and that they had evidence against him. But if the man paid the officers US $7,500, he would no longer be investigated.
The judge wanted to hear from the police officers themselves who they are and what had led them to their corrupt act.
The 34-year-old male brigadier, who has been employed by the police for 12 years, could not hold back tears when the judge cited his personal circumstances: a family with eight children, one of whom has died. Three children lived with the man and his girlfriend, but due to the salary cuts from the government, the family could no longer make ends meet. As a result, one of the children does not live with them anymore.
“I see that you even had to sell the children’s bicycles out of necessity,” the judge noted. The suspect silently wept.
“You find it difficult that I name these things, I notice,” said the judge. The father agreed that he feels guilty towards his children, especially towards the daughter who had to leave home and about whom he is very worried. For the time being, it does not look like she will be able to return. “But I do have a lot of support from family and colleagues in the police force at the moment,” said the suspect. Family members and police officers in the packed public section nodded in agreement.
According to the probation report, the suspect born in St. Eustatius is a first offender who acted out of impulse. “The most important criminogenic factor of the person concerned has to do with his financial situation. He is under enormous financial pressure.” From the plea of his lawyer Sjamira Roseburg it emerged that the brigadier, after deducting the rent of his home and other fixed cost, has NAf. 300 left over every month for the care of seven minor children.
The suspect has been under a lot of stress in the past year, which makes him emotionally unstable, and he suffers from depressive feelings, according to the Probation Service. “He benefits from his psychological treatment at Mental Health Foundation. It is desirable that this treatment is continued.”
With regard to the female officer M., from Aruba, the probation service is less lenient. “The suspect is a 40-year-old woman who can be characterised as a repeat offender. In 2016, she was identified as a suspect for three offences. The case was settled with a civil settlement. She was suspended from her work for five years and started performing her function again in January 2021.”
It is worrying that the officer committed a crime in the same year that she started her work as a police officer again, according to the Probation Service.
Lawyer Roseburg objected to the characterisation of the officer as a repeat offender. “M. has been employed by the police for 18 years. She has not been involved in such a conflict once in all that time. The case on her criminal record has been dropped. This makes it strange that she can be equated with a criminal. No, she saw the opportunity to earn some extra money in times of financial shortage. She never set out to do this structurally nor did she show that she had done such deeds in the past.”
According to the prosecutor, there is no doubt that the suspects, one a brigadier and the other a member of KPSM’s observation team, are actually able to make information disappear or to initiate processes to provide the right persons with information or otherwise incite them to actions that would be detrimental to a victim of extortion.
The victim De W. was visited at work by a woman who told him that she had photos of him with wrong people and had recordings of things he discussed over the phone. She ordered him to pay $7,500 to avoid problems and to go to the beach near Bel Air Hotel that same day to hand over the money.
De W. did as he was told and went to the beach where two men were waiting for him. One of them asked him whether he had spoken with the woman and whether he had brought the money. The victim said that he had no money with him. He asked the men for their ID and for proof of the offences he was accused of. The men then walked away.
De W. reported extortion to the police on October 12, 2021. On October 16, he was heard again. He repeated what was stated in the declaration and described the woman and the man in more detail. He also stated that on October 14 another woman had come to work and showed him a photo in which he could be seen with another person at Buccaneer bar. He also gave a description of this woman.
The victim also stated on October 16 that his son-in-law, who works at KPSM, had asked him to come to the office the day before (October 15). When the victim came to the police station, he spoke to a woman he recognised as the one who had asked him for $7,500.
The National Police requested camera images from the company where the victim works. They show that De W. received a visit from officer M. and then from a woman who is brought to the building by officer M. in her car. This woman had been asked by M. to show the victim the “incriminating photo”.
After the two police officers became aware that an extortion report had been filed, officer W. called his team leader on October 30 and said, “I did something stupid.” He confessed that it had been his idea to extort De W. When he heard that the man had filed a report, he told M. that she had to say that it was a joke. Officer W. said to the team leader: ‘I just threw away 12 years with the police.”
Both officers were suspended after their arrest. “After the suspension of clients, they have faithfully adhered to the suspension conditions,” their lawyer noted.
Roseburg is seeking a judicial pardon for both officers. “Clients have already been punished enough, I think. If you come to a proven statement, they will lose their jobs – 18 and 12 years in the trash like that,” Roseburg told the judge. “Look at the case in the right context. These are not criminals that you have in front of you. The fate of my clients is in your hands.
“The police are here to serve and protect. But who is protecting them?”
In the hall a loud “Amen” resounded from the public section.
The prosecutor demanded for Brigadier W. a prison sentence of 15 months, of which 6 months conditional, community service of 180 hours, three years of probation and disqualification from the position of police officer for five years.
For police officer M, the prosecutor demanded 18 months in prison, of which six months conditional. She would also have to perform 180 hours of community service, would have a probationary period of three years and removal from office for five years.
The judge will rule on April 13.
