The chairman of the independent committee that monitors the ‘high transactions’ of the Public Prosecution Service has resigned in frustration. Former judge Marcel van Oosten confirms that he resigned at the end of last year because, according to him, the Public Prosecution Service sidelined the High Transactions Review Committee (THT).
In 2021, that committee was established to monitor settlements of more than 200,000 euros with legal entities suspected of fraud. To respond to social criticism that companies such as ING (775 million euros) could easily buy off criminal charges, executives were released and high transactions were not reviewed by a judge, then Minister of Justice Ferd Grapperhaus (CDA) announced a review committee “with expert and authoritative members”.
Alice Faber, former councilor of the Enterprise Chamber, has resigned for the same reasons
Van Oosten, former vice president of the Amsterdam District Court, was appointed chairman when the THT was established. It was expected that the committee would review about ten high settlements each year. That number turned out to be considerably less: OM annual figures show that seven high transactions were concluded from 2021 to 2024. Last year that number was even zero.
According to Van Oosten, the low number of cases submitted to the committee is related to the Public Prosecution Service’s choice to increasingly settle major criminal cases against companies suspected of fraud with a criminal order – instead of a large transaction. This circumvents the best before date. In such a punishment order, the Public Prosecution Service imposes punishments itself without review by a judge or committee. At the end of 2025, the Public Prosecution Service imposed a fine of 101 million euros on the American investment bank Morgan Stanley through such a penalty order.
Major fraud cases
According to the resigned chairman, since 2021 the Public Prosecution Service has imposed a penalty of 200,000 euros or more at least 23 times on companies and other legal entities in cases that could qualify for a high transaction.
Van Oosten points out that the penalty order was presented by the legislature in 2008 for common and relatively minor criminal cases, such as theft and simple assault. The independent supervision of the THT was established precisely for extensive extrajudicial settlements. By settling major fraud cases such as those against Morgan Stanley through a criminal order, that supervision is now disappearing. “Bypassing the assessment is a dangerous development that conflicts with the rule of law,” said Van Oosten.
Various other committee members also find this development undesirable. In addition to Van Oosten, for example, professor Jan Crijns and Alice Faber, former justice of the Enterprise Chamber, they also say. At the end of last year, Faber resigned at the same time as Van Oosten. Crijns will stop in September due to “busy administrative activities”. From then on, the independent commission will be staffed by two (former) public prosecutors and a state councilor from the Council of State.
The Public Prosecution Service states that high criminal orders are increasingly being used ‘to prevent clogging of the criminal justice chain’
A criminal order is sometimes attractive for companies. In the case of a high transaction, the Public Prosecution Service usually publishes an extensive statement of facts with the conduct of the company involved and the committee’s assessment advice. In the case of a criminal order, there is no public justification and it usually remains a summary press release. According to Van Oosten, this leads to less transparency and makes it easier for companies to limit reputational damage.
The Public Prosecution Service states in response to questions from: NRC that increasingly high penalties are being used ‘to prevent blockage of the criminal justice chain and to take maximum action against legal entities that violate the law’. Due to the increase in the number of high criminal orders, the Public Prosecution Service is currently “working on a policy that describes when this is appropriate and how the procedure should proceed.” The Public Prosecution Service is also examining whether it can increase transparency and build in additional safeguards.
Also read
For the sixth time, the supervisor says: the Public Prosecution Service is not legally in order with regard to punishment
Independence
When they resigned, Van Oosten and Faber also expressed concerns about the independence of the committee. According to them, the College of Attorneys General (PG) has ignored several recommendations from the committee to safeguard this independence. For example, despite the committee’s advice, the term of appointment of committee members was reduced to three years: too short to build up sufficient experience. The two former judges also criticize the appointment procedure, in which the Board independently determines who will join the committee.
Finally, Van Oosten and Faber state that they could not fulfill their task because insufficient information from the underlying criminal files was made available. According to them, this prevents careful testing: it would not be possible to check whether there is sufficient evidence.
According to the Public Prosecution Service, the independence of the committee is not in question. The Board looks favorably at requests for information. The term of office has been shortened to three years to ensure that the work experience of committee members “continues to match the case studies on which they advise.”
At the beginning of this year, Van Oosten asked the PG at the Supreme Court, supervisor of the Public Prosecution Service, to investigate the way in which the Public Prosecution Service uses high transactions and criminal orders. On Tuesday afternoon, the PG announced to the Supreme Court that it would conduct such an investigation.
Also read
Three thousand employees of the Public Prosecution Service warn of errors in criminal cases due to IT problems
