Bram Moszkowicz and Sandra Schuurhof have ended up in a TV argument about Peter Gillis, in which the fallen criminal lawyer is always deeply involved. “If you are convicted, it is not without reason,” she shouts.
Peter Gillis was convicted in April of large-scale tax fraud: he was given a six-month prison sentence and his company fined 250,000 euros. At the start of the appeal yesterday, his lawyers questioned the impartiality of the court and demanded that the entire case be redone. “Not a fair trial!”
Handshake
The most important argument is the use of a statement by Peter Gillis in front of the camera of Omroep Brabant. “I will not go into that list of accusations,” he said after a day of hearing.
But he didn’t say it’s untrue either. “Look, if you have a turnover of two hundred million euros in five years and you harm the state treasury for five hundred thousand euros, that is only a quarter of a percent. If you are a taxi driver and you do one black ride a day, then no one talks about it. They could have just clapped hands and that’s it.”
Innocent
When Bram, who is always in deep trouble with Peter, has finished his PR talk, Dyantha asks Brooks Show news: “In any case, we hear Peter clearly say to our reporter that he still considers himself innocent. What is your view on that, Sandra? I am very curious. Of course, I see you shifting a lot in your seat when it comes to Peter Gillis.”
Sandra Schuurhof then: “No, no, the matter is before the courts and I would like to keep it there.”
Guido den Aantrekker: “He always feels attacked quite quickly.”
Black and white
Sandra just thinks Peter is wrong. “Yes, it is worse than that. Of course he has been convicted. That is worse than feeling attacked. I always think: if you are convicted, it is not without reason, and we will see on appeal. Of course it is so black and white. The judge has spoken.”
Bram stern: “We have three options in our legal system: the court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. The fact that the court has convicted someone does not say anything about his guilt, because that is precisely why we have a Court of Appeal and a Supreme Court. When we are two or three years further and the Supreme Court has said: ‘Mr. Gillis is guilty’, then you can go again.”
‘Not true!’
Sandra does think Peter is guilty. “No, in exceptional cases you can go to the Supreme Court. Once someone has been convicted by a judge, you are simply guilty. You do not have to appeal at all.”
Bram: “Sandra, that is not true! If you were convicted in the first instance, then you are not guilty, because that is why we have an appeal. Sandra, do you know what the difference is between irrevocably convicted and temporarily sentenced?”
Sandra: “If you appeal, it will be a temporary conviction. If you don’t appeal, you will simply end up in prison.”
‘That’s different’
Bram is clearly annoyed by Sandra’s contradiction. “Until the Supreme Court has ruled, this judgment is not final.”
Sandra: “That is something different. But when there is a verdict and you do not appeal, you are simply guilty.”
Bram concludes angrily: “No, you are not, until the highest court has decided that you are guilty!”