The case surrounding the art theft in the Drents Museum has been closed. Then the legal matter. Both the three perpetrators and the Public Prosecution Service will not appeal.
Earlier this month, the judge sentenced Jan B., Douglas Chesley W. and Bernhard Z. to 47 months in prison for stealing the gold helmet and three gold bracelets from the Drents Museum. The Public Prosecution Service had previously concluded a deal with B. and W..
A lesser sentence was demanded against them because they returned the golden helmet and two bracelets. Z. refused to make a deal because he says he did not commit the robbery. Yet the judge gave him the same sentence.
“He still believes that he has been wrongly convicted,” says his lawyer Micha Jonge Vos. “He was not in the Drents Museum during the robbery. However, he has never denied being involved in the preparation.” However, he will not appeal. “He accepts the judge’s verdict. This is also because it has involved a lot of tension and attention. He would like to have closure.”
The deal that B. and W. made with the justice department included that they would not appeal if the judge deviated from the sentence for a maximum of three months. The two were sentenced to 44 months in prison because of the deal. The judge therefore opted for 47 months.
Neither will appeal, their lawyers confirm. “It falls within the margin of the deal,” says Ronald van der Graaf, W.’s lawyer. “This is what we agreed,” says Mirre Dijk, B.’s lawyer. Still, the punishment for B. is a small disappointment. His lawyers argued against the judge to remove three months and adjust it to 41 months.
The Public Prosecution Service’s website states that the trial agreements have been followed by the court. These agreements state that no appeal would be pursued.
The Public Prosecution Service will therefore not appeal against the third suspect either. “This is because, in the eyes of the Public Prosecution Service, sufficient justice has been done. After all, the court clearly establishes in all judgments that the three persons summoned by the Public Prosecution Service committed the art theft. This is in accordance with the position of the public prosecutors.”
The case is now legally closed. Yet the art theft case itself is not over yet. After all, one gold bracelet is still missing. The search for this continues, reports the judiciary.