Horecaconcern X was criminally prosecuted for VAT fraud. X admitted to the tax fraud and reached an agreement with the Tax Authorities. The Rotterdam Court ultimately did not impose a penalty for the VAT fraud. A TV documentary covered the FIOD investigation, following police inquiries in Fuji and restaurant raids.
The court ruled that the documentary infringed on the privacy of the suspects. The Public Prosecutor appealed, and the Hague Court of Appeal determined that an unconditional penalty was appropriate. However, the court refrained from imposing a penalty due to the payment of tax debt and fines.
The Public Prosecutor violated the privacy of the suspects by providing the documentary maker access to information. The Public Prosecutor attempted to keep the documentary secret during the trial. The revelation of the documentary during the legal proceedings caused reputational damage. The reasonable time frame was violated in both the initial trial and the appeal.
Source: futd.nl
Note that this post was (partially) written with the help of AI. It is always useful to review the original source material, and where needed to obtain (local) advice from a specialist.
