Trustee and Porsche: how the battle against Villa Mooi Gaasterland ends in criminal law. ‘There’s a lot going on’

With a rescue truck after him, the young financier arrived at Villa Mooi Gaasterland in Rijs on January 3, 2019. His goal: he had to take away the owner of the villa’s Porsche Carrera. He only left when the bailiff arrived.

Readings differ as to what happened next. “He came straight towards me, I just managed to jump out of the way,” says the bailiff. The 45-year-old suspect: “I know he said that, but it didn’t happen that way. That’s really bad.”

However, the police judge previously sentenced him to 80 hours of community service. In addition, he must pay compensation to the victim. “This is really the limit,” says the prisoner. “That I’m going to get a criminal record for something I didn’t do.”

A unique number of pieces

That’s why he and his lawyer Tjalling van der Goot came to Leeuwarden court to challenge his sentence. “I thought: finally a simple case,” admits councilor Leo Wemes. “But we received an exceptional number of pieces. Why?”

“There’s a lot going on here,” Van der Goot replies. His client, the owner of a media company in Hilversum, says that this warranty issue stems from a long-standing dispute with his neighbor in Rijs.

Chamber of Commerce

Together with this construction contractor, he bought Villa Mooi Gaasterland at the end of 2014. Instead of refugees, hotel guests had to come. The purchase of this large building marked the beginning of a long series of legal cases. The two neighbors fought their way to the Chamber of Commerce in Amsterdam.

Finally, the resident of Hilversum had to buy his neighbor in Gaasterland for 175,000 euros. The judge at the time considered his request to force him to pay for taking him hostage as an extreme measure.

Being held hostage

However, he was held hostage by the man, the suspect is now announcing in court. He allegedly dragged her to the notary to sign. “That sounds disgusting to me,” Councilor Wemes replies. “But bail has nothing to do with that.”

Well, yes, according to the defendant. All those threats can make him react cautiously to strangers. “If you have PTSD, you just don’t want to talk to people.” “It’s not that I ran away. I haven’t given these people the attention to understand what they want. I just got out of the car.”

Dangerously disintegrated

The bailiff himself, but also the driver of the rescue vehicle, had a different experience. Both told the police that the woman had fled in her Porsche down the dangerous road.

For the bailiff, the incident was even the reason for a job change. “I had to catch cars almost every day, but I realized that I was very nervous,” he said in his victim statement.

No expression of regret

He says of Hilversum: “He has done nothing, absolutely nothing, to show remorse. I hope he realizes he was wrong.” Suspect: “I’m not going to apologize for something I didn’t do. I certainly understand that the bailiff is ahead by two to zero.” The chairman of the court, Eva Wolfert: “Then it is difficult to react with regret. I understand that.”

The bailiff and salvor blocked the two exits with their vehicles. However, the Porsche driver managed to overtake them. Questions remain about the speed of his car and how he should have driven so close to one of the blocked vehicles. Van der Goot asked for reconstruction, but it did not happen. The parking lot at the villa seemed to have changed a lot.

Surveillance camera

There is a testimonial from a guest of the Villa Mooi Gaasterland hotel, who says that his hostess seemed calm during the bailiwick visit. Footage from a surveillance camera seems to confirm this. The surety’s statement contradicts this.

“Why is it said wrongly,” notes lawyer Van der Goot. “I have also wondered, but it is a fact that three neighborhood lawyers have been reprimanded in the villa case. You cannot separate this case from that history.”

False advertisement

Advocate General Edith van Duijnhoven finds it hard to believe that false evidence has been committed. “If we follow the suspect’s lead, the complainant would come up with the plan in two or three minutes: you know what, I’m going to file a false report,” the prosecutor explains.

“We see a young bailiff who still has a whole job ahead of him. Could he risk that?” Van Duijnhoven looks around the room. “Isn’t that a very strange situation?”

Bailiff’s Office

Van der Goot: “I also look after the customer. How would he want to get himself into trouble?” “A savior shouldn’t do that.”

Pronunciation

The lawyer asks to be released. Prosecutor: “I really believe that the suspect is convinced that his neighbor influenced this, but there are no indications of the purpose of this.” That is why Van Duijnhoven is demanding 50 hours of community service or 25 days in prison.

When the Court gives its decision two weeks later, the suspect has not arrived at the Palace of Justice. The trustee is there. He listens carefully when Councilor Wemes makes the decision. He and his colleagues agree that the incriminating information is completely inconsistent, as seen in their decision.

A falling memory

Likewise, the court has no doubts about the accuracy of the accusations. Consultants call this “consistent, accurate and complete.” Counselors attribute the fact that the salvor’s and bailiff’s statements differ in detail to the “weakness of memory” and the emotions that the incident evoked.

“It’s about the full feel,” says Wemes. According to the demands of the Public Prosecution Service, the court sentences the resident of Hilversum to 50 hours of community service. He must also pay the victim’s legal costs.

When the trustee stands up, looking relieved, the councilor asks how he is doing. “Don’t get stuck in this,” Wemes advises him. “Put this behind you.” The woman says she has chosen a different profession. Later it becomes clear that the businessman from Hilversum cannot live by his faith. He wants to appeal to the Supreme Court.