Minister Ivo Opstelten, the House misinformed about the deal that Secretary Fred Teeven (both Security and Justice) in 2000 as prosecutor concluded with drug trafficker Cees H. That concludes the TV program News Hour Wednesday based on its own research. From documents would prove that H. still got more money than Opstelten reported to the House
.
Minister Opstelten Photo: Reuters 
State Teeven Photo: Reuters
Last year Opstelten was already in the room on the carpet come because of confusion about this controversial deal. He is politically responsible for the actions of Teeven time.
Deal
In April last year Opstelten kept insisting that it was involved in the deal 2 million guilders and not 5 million, such as H .’s former lawyer Piet Doedens claimed. Of which 2 million H. had to pay a settlement of 750,000 guilders. The rest he was indeed ‘tax’ back.
The Room insisted after this explanation again to the minister to investigate the issue again. Eventually gave Opstelten that Teeven “insufficient memory to the actual financial development of the settlement” had. The Minister also reported that he could find no receipts of the deal.
Documents
Nieuwsuur says it itself has seen several documents through people within the Public Prosecutor and the Ministry of Security and Justice. It contains the exact details, says Nieuwsuur.
The documents show that on September 10, 2001 at one time more than 4.7 million guilders was transferred to H. The House was not only the wrong according Nieuwsuur amount hear. Now it appears that Teeven had no approval for this deal.
No approval
The amount of 2 million is where the top of the prosecution went from Teeven received approval for the agreement says Nieuwsuur. “He did not have permission to create about 4.7 million, let alone outside the tax to.”
Opstelten denied in a statement that he has misinformed the House about the settlement. According to the minister is not known exactly how much is exactly transferred to Cees H. Studies of the settlement shows that ,, there is no financial data are more available, there are no bank statements as a result of expired retention periods and changes in IT systems. There are no other documents available anymore. ”
Reminders
“The stakeholders, including Secretary Teeven have enough memory to be able to draw conclusions about the financial settlement of this settlement, ” let Opstelten know.
According to the minister, he can ,, unable to provide clarity on the ultimate settlement of the settlement. ” According to him, there is always the possibility that bank statements still be submitted by third parties. The lawyers of Cees H. invoke their confidentiality.
“Many explain
The opposition in parliament will soon clarity of Opstelten. D66 MP Magda Berndsen said Wednesday in the NOS news that Opstelten hence the Chamber put on the wrong track and “really a lot” has to explain. “If this is true then this is at odds with the earlier statements of Minister Opstelten during the debate on this matter. He spoke of a much lower amount and said that the bank statement was untraceable. We had him in his blue eyes to believe, “said Berndsen, who is also a debate with Opstelten wants on the issue.
CDA MP Madeleine van Toorenburg finds that the data Opstelten passed the House earlier ‘possible are not correct. ” According to Christian Union MP Gert-Jan Segers must come up to the bottom to get clear “that this was not a cover-up.” SP MP Michiel van Nispen Nieuwsuur finds that it was on the table what Opstelten not managed to find
.
class=”clear”
No comments:
Post a Comment