Almost tons of fine and maximum community service demanded against ‘corrupt’ Bergen official

According to the Public Prosecution Service, bribery involves an advantage through a gift, promise or service. “Mortgage provision is a form of a service,” explains the Public Prosecution Service.

According to the Public Prosecution Service, Van H. should never have accepted that loan. “You could expect that sooner or later the project developer would be able to demand something from you as a civil servant and spatial planning project manager.”

According to the public prosecutor, alarm bells should have started ringing when Eric van H. took out the loan (text continues below the video).

Generous conditions

The mortgage for a house in Julianadorp was subject to remarkably generous conditions. For example, Van H. did not repay or pay any interest during the first seven years of the loan. After he paid off a ton, half of which came from a new mortgage, the developer is said to have been so grateful that he reduced the interest rate retroactively from 4 to 2 percent. The loan was fully paid off in March 2018.

The Public Prosecution Service sees the fact that he did not pay interest or make any repayments for 7 years and that the interest was halved retroactively. “It is punishable if a civil servant accepts a gift and a return can be expected.”

This is also endorsed by the code of conduct that the municipality of Bergen has been working under since 2005. But even when he had to re-sign that code in 2017 due to the merger of the BUCH municipalities, no alarm bells went off. “This should have been a trigger to report it”, according to both the chairman and the Public Prosecutor.

Still, the fired official never saw any harm in the advantageous deal until at least 2018. “I didn’t see it as a formal loan, but as a private agreement between two individuals,” is his answer.

Unsolicited advisor

According to Van H., the project developer would stop his construction company and therefore no longer be involved in future projects. But within a month the same project developer was back at the table during discussions about a supermarket in Schoorl. First unsolicited as a business advisor to one of the catering businesses on Herenweg, later as the owner of one of the plots. Van H. says that he has not known anything about the sale and calls the situation with the project developer as advisor “embarrassing”.

According to the judiciary, the suspect could never rule out the possibility that he would still have to deal with the project developer (text continues below the video).

The Public Prosecution Service suspects Van H. of having informed the project developer about the developments surrounding the Supermarket in Schoorl. He is also said to have encouraged interested project developers to buy the land owner’s plot as a location for the entrance.

Trust violated

“A high level of loyalty is expected from civil servants,” the Public Prosecutor said. “Trust in government is necessary for the proper functioning of democracy. Civil servants serve the public interest, entrepreneurs put private interests first. You have violated public trust.”

The alleged corruption was shared on social media by well-known Bergen resident and ‘whistleblower’ Fred Vos, of the Facebook page Samen Bergen Verzet. He published the documentation from the Land Registry, with the purchase details of the house that Van H. bought.

The news that Van H. had a mortgage with a project developer hit Bergen like a bomb. Many residents felt that major projects should be reconsidered. According to them, the decision-making should be done over as the official was the project leader.

One of those so-called ‘hot topics’ was the redevelopment of the center of Bergen. The big point of contention there was the arrival of a supermarket. Local residents thought this was not appropriate in the village and wanted a small-scale plan that suited the village character.

cesspool

According to the judiciary, the investigation has shown that no corruption has taken place in this project and other projects. “There are people in the public gallery who thought the cesspool would open, so it will not open,” said Van H. at the end of the session.

“The decision-making process went well and I would therefore like to thank the detectives and the judiciary for the extensive investigation. I was seen as the evil genius of all projects. I hope that it is now clear to the residents what it is about and that they accept it , so that I can put an end to it.”

But according to René Meijer, the former spokesperson for residents’ association Mooier Bergen, that does not mean that it is over. Although nothing criminal may have happened, he is curious how the entire decision-making process came about and advocates disclosure (text continues below the video).

The Public Prosecution Service does assume that the loan was intended from a friendly point of view with the aim of helping Van H.. Yet he is blamed for never officially reporting the loan to the municipality of Bergen.

Municipality knew about loan

The fired official says he raised the loan with his supervisor twice in 2006, but it never officially made it to his personal file. A colleague is said to have called the agreement with the project developer “idiotic and very unwise”.

The fact that Van H. has made no effort to register the loan in his personnel file, has benefited enormously from the loan and that the project developer has played a role in projects for many years, makes him guilty of passive official bribery, according to the Public Prosecution Service.

However, he is completely acquitted of taking bribes and the investigation has revealed no evidence that other projects have been “contaminated”.

The judge will rule on September 28.