The Public Prosecution Service still fails to comply with various legal requirements when imposing criminal orders. This is evident from an investigation published on Tuesday by the Attorney General (PG) at the Supreme Court, which supervises the Public Prosecution Service. For example, criminal offenses are regularly described incorrectly and mandatory translations for foreign suspects are often not provided.
This is the sixth time that the regulator has found that the Public Prosecution Service is acting contrary to legislation and regulations when issuing criminal orders. Since 2008, the Public Prosecution Service has been able to impose fines and community service orders outside the court for less serious criminal offences, such as theft, assault, driving under the influence or threats. In 2025, this happened 45,500 times through a so-called criminal order.
The more intensive use of the punishment order led to fierce criticism from the judiciary
Last February, the Public Prosecution Service decided to punish suspects themselves much more often. Public prosecutors were instructed to deal with property crimes such as theft and fencing as much as possible with a criminal order. According to the Public Prosecution Service, this will allow more suspects to be punished more quickly and free up more hearing capacity for serious criminal cases. The Public Prosecution Service also expressed the wish that criminal orders will become the standard for almost all offenses punishable by a maximum of six years in prison – the legal limit for a decision.
The more intensive use of the punishment order led to fierce criticism from the judiciary. The Public Prosecution Service may not impose a prison sentence. “The bottom line is that for certain common offenses such as theft, prison sentences are in fact abolished,” said the chairman of the Council for the Judiciary, Henk Naves. NRC. He also pointed out the lack of publicity: unlike in a lawsuit, decisions are imposed behind closed doors.
Also read
Fundamental change in direction of the Public Prosecution Service: thieves and scammers as little as possible before the criminal court
Criminal offences
In the report published on Tuesday, the PG investigates both the intensified efforts and the quality of the criminal orders imposed for property crimes in 2025. There is criticism on both points. According to the regulator, the new policy is less in line with the sentences that judges normally impose for such crimes. The Public Prosecution Service has expressly chosen to demand short prison sentences less often and to settle cases itself more often through a criminal order.
A sample of 129 files shows that since the previous investigation into criminal orders in 2022, “the majority” of the improvement measures announced by the Public Prosecution Service – for example regarding the description and legal classification of criminal offenses – have still not been implemented.
This is largely due to the fact that the Public Prosecution Service wants to wait for the new ICT system Emma, which, according to the report, will not be fully available until the first half of 2027. However, the PG at the Supreme Court notes that manual adjustments can also be made in the current system, but that this rarely happens in practice.
Selling stolen items
Illustrative is the course of events surrounding suspects who are punished for fencing – possessing or selling stolen items. Legally, there is both a heavy and a light version of this. For example, in one case someone knows that a bicycle has been stolen, while in the other case he should have known that. The current computer system of the Public Prosecution Service automatically registers ‘intentional/debt recovery’, while the file sometimes only shows debt recovery.
According to the PG, this is “not easy to understand” and is also “harmful for the suspect”: a more serious offense will therefore appear on his criminal record. Of the sixteen cases investigated, the correct healing variant was entered manually in only five cases.
It also appears that in 28 of the 36 criminal cases in which this was legally required, the punishment order was not translated.
Another structural problem concerns the legal position of non-Dutch speaking suspects. It turns out that in 28 of the 36 criminal cases in which this was legally required, the punishment order had not been translated. The PG calls this “a serious deficiency” and a “serious obstacle” for suspects who do not speak the Dutch language.
The PG advises that before further expanding the use of criminal orders, it is checked whether the organization and automation are capable of complying with legal requirements.
Also read
Judiciary turns against new punishment policy of Public Prosecution Service. ‘This goes beyond the role of the Public Prosecution Service’
