THE VERDICT OF the Rotterdam court surrounding the failed Kippie project should set off alarm bells at the Public Prosecution Service (OM) in Suriname. In the 32-page judgment, De Vliegende Eend and Kwekerij Gerash were ordered to repay loans to Kirpalani’s and the owners, Asha Badal and Gerard van den Bergh, were held jointly and severally liable for financial damage resulting from their unlawful actions against Kirpalani’s.
The verdict gives rise to further judicial investigation, such as the transport of more than two million euros in cash from Suriname to the Netherlands and that part of the money was not spent on the Kippie project, but to offset previous losses of De Vliegende Eend and to appropriate money.
Investors want a predictable rule of law and not the impression that influential people and/or institutions are left out of harm’s way
The court speaks of an unlawful act. The fact that the origin, transport and destination of such large cash amounts cannot be controlled is a matter that the Surinamese justice system cannot ignore.
Van den Bergh has stated in interviews that De Surinaamsche Bank was involved in facilitating currency transactions with Kirpalani’s money. These public statements prompted the Public Prosecution Service to ask De Surinaamsche Bank for information, but the bank refused to cooperate.
The question arises as to why this refusal, what role the bank had in facilitating the currency transactions and what the Public Prosecution Service did after the refusal. But questions such as which checks the bank has carried out, whether the transactions have been reported and whether there is money laundering are also important. The Public Prosecution Service and the competent supervisors must investigate these questions independently, without biased conclusions.
The sale of machines that were to serve as collateral in the Kippie project also requires clarification. The court ruled that they were sold through a new Badal company, NV Kippie. Couldn’t the buyers have known – given the enormous media attention that the dispute between Kirpalani’s and the now convicted persons had – that they were participating in possible unlawful acts?
It must be determined what they knew about the ownership and agreements surrounding the machines, and under what circumstances the sale took place. Did they deliberately participate in healing and embezzlement?
The judge also ruled that the project may not have been feasible from the start and that De Vliegende Eend did not have the expertise to carry out such a project. It also makes the questions about possible money laundering and the illegal sale of the machines very relevant.
Suriname has been under increased supervision by the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force (CFATF) for years and still has a lot of work to do to combat shortcomings in tackling money laundering. Kirpalani’s has written to the anti-money laundering authority asking for an investigation, but it is not known whether this has taken place.
CFATF’s most recent assessment reports progress, but that does not absolve the country of the obligation to seriously investigate suspicious financial flows. The risk of reputational damage and further international criticism remains as long as rules are not convincingly enforced.
With expected oil revenues in sight, Suriname has a lot to lose from a weak approach to financial crimes. Investors want a predictable rule of law and not the impression that influential people and/or institutions are left out of harm’s way.
The ruling in the Netherlands is not a final verdict on guilt or innocence in a criminal sense, but it is a signal that the money flows surrounding this case must be investigated. That is why the Public Prosecution Service should not simply wait and see, but investigate whether criminal offenses have been committed and, if so, initiate prosecution or otherwise report that nothing is wrong. It is precisely this clarity that protects the business climate and confidence in the rule of law. That is the least Suriname owes itself.
