PARAMARIBO, Suriname, Lawyers representing several banks here, including the Central Bank of Suriname, said the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam would rule on January 10 in the case regarding the Euro19.5 million (One Euros=US$1.29 cent) seized by the Fiscal Intelligence and Investigation Service (FIOD) of the Netherlands in 2018.
The case came up for hearing last week after the Court of Cassation had referred it back to a lower court. The Central Bank of Suriname (CVBS), Hakrinbank, Finabank, and De Surinaamsche Bank had filed the case against the Dutch judiciary, initially winning but losing on appeal.
Attorney Aroon Gonesh, who is representing the Central Bank of Suriname, said while he would not divulge much of the court proceedings, he and the other lawyers, said Gonesh, have again indicated that the seizure is unlawful and that there will never be a conviction.
In April 2018, the Fiscal Intelligence and Investigation Service (FIOD) of the Netherlands seized the Euros 19.5 million that the CBvS exported to Hong Kong to facilitate the operations of the commercial banks on suspicion of money laundering.
The District Court of Noord-Holland declared the seizure unlawful in December 2019. The court found that the money should not have been seized because the Central Bank of Suriname is a state body that enjoys immunity under international law.
But the Public Prosecutor appealed against that verdict, and in a very extensive opinion, the Advocate General advised the Supreme Court on February 2, last year, to uphold the court’s decision.
However, the Supreme Court ruled that it can at most be deduced from customary international law that a central bank can claim immunity insofar as it concerns the ‘property’ of the central bank that is intended or used for the performance of its duties in connection with monetary policy and currency policy.
The seizure was found to be lawful on appeal.
In their defense, the lawyers made reference to a dissertation by the German jurist Dr. Bsaisou, which the Supreme Court had also referred to in its opinion.
But according to Gonesh, the reasoning of the Supreme Court does not correspond to Bsaisou’s views, and they even consulted the lawyer personally.
“No one who knows better what is meant by the lawyer than the person concerned himself,” said Gonesh
As a result, a 25-page ‘legal opinion’ by Dr. Bsaisou was submitted to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal last week.
and then 