The former owner of manure transport company W. Daas from Wintelre may not have to go to the cell for manure fraud. There is a deal on the table with the Public Prosecution Service in which Daas receives a community service of 320 hours, a fine of 40,000 euros and a year in prison.
The deal between the OM and Daas was discussed on Friday morning during a session of the ‘s-Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal, about the appeal in the manure fraud case.
The case has a long run -up. Between 2016 and 2018, Daas violated the Fertilizers Act and committed forgery. The owner let half a million to a million kilos of phosphates ‘disappear’. In the treatment of the first lawsuit, in 2019, the public prosecutor said that Daas had instructed drivers to manipulate the loading and unloading system. In the decision in October 2019, the court ruled that Daas had to go into jail for two years, one of which is conditional. The director also had to pay a fine of 50,000 euros.
Deal
In the deal that was discussed on Friday morning, the OM and Daas that the latter has been guilty of breaking the fertilizers Act and forgery. A spokesperson for the OM says after the hearing against Omroep Brabant that in this case a deal was chosen, because of the consequences that the criminal case has already had for the suspects.
“As a result of the criminal case, permits for business operations have been withdrawn by suspects, suspects have had to pay substantial fines to governments and the tax authorities. Various customers have also not paid the bills to suspects,” said the OM’s spokesperson.
Daas’ manure company with everything that goes with a huge loss has also sold and is no longer working in the sector. In addition, the necessary time has passed since the facts committed. In view of the course of time and the consequences of the prosecution for suspects, a different settlement was considered appropriate, “said the spokesperson.
WOO requests Omroep Brabant
In July 2023, Omroep Brabant WOO requests (Open Government Act) submitted to the NVWA and at the municipality of Eersel about the companies of Daas, because we wanted to know how to supervise the company, whether new violations may have been discovered and how the government organizations deal with it.
Daas has started various legal proceedings to prevent Omroep Brabant from receiving this information. A few more lawsuits are still on this. Because these documents are about the period up to July 2023, this does not say much about the current state of affairs.
That is why Omroep Brabant submitted new WOO requests in January 2025. A new legal procedure has started against one of them. It is not known when there will be statements about this and whether, and if so, when documents are still made public.
Guideline on imprisonment
During the hearing, the Advocate General of the OM said that there is a directive that if the first judgment in a criminal case is sentenced to not get rid of it if an agreement is concluded.
When asked why in this case is away from this, the spokesperson for the OM says: “That is in particular in the consequences of these criminal cases for suspects and the age of the facts. The question is what the added value is of a possible (partly conditional) prison sentence and how much time will go before the suspect could then be imprisoned.”
No manure
The proposed deal means that Daas will perform 320 hours of community service within eighteen months and get a conditional imprisonment of one year, with a probationary period of three years. A fine of 40,000 euros must also be paid. “That probationary period is subject to the condition that Daas may not perform work related to the transport of animal manure for others. The Dutch Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA) will supervise this,” said the OM’s spokesperson.
During the hearing, the chairman of the Court said that there is a possibility that they will judge otherwise about the proposed deal. “We are going to include the proposal in the assessment of the case. If the Court believes that this agreement is not appropriate and offered, it may be that we do an interim ruling and the case will later deal with the content of content. It can be different, but that is not necessary. We still have to think about it,” said the chair of the Court of Appeal.
The ruling will follow in two weeks.
