G. conveyed his regrets to ‘everyone who has been negatively affected by this affair’, he said during the final day of his trial. The eight suspects in the fraud case were given a chance to make their closing statements on Thursday.
The Public Prosecution Service (OM) suspects Hans G. of corruption of public servants. In his capacity as a manager in the maintenance department, G. is suspected of accepting gifts from companies in exchange for work at the university. He is also suspected of arranging for his son to be added to the payroll of an installation company, Mennes & Jager, and engineering firm Postma without actually working for them. Hans G.’s son’s ex-girlfriend was also paid by Mennes & Jager without working.
The university ended up footing the bill through a shady arrangement. According to the OM, the university has lost millions of euros to the fraud.
Disbelief
Hans G.’s son, who is suspected of receipt of stolen goods, also conveyed his remorse for the fraud that the university is facing. ‘I was just in disbelief as I learned about the scope of this fraud’, he told the lawyers.
A former colleague of G., Margreet B. – who is also suspected of corruption – expressed her sympathies for the university. ‘This case has had a huge impact there. Three of my former colleagues live in Bedum, but they do not interact with each other anymore, all because of the personal relationships within the department.’
Impact
The investigation into the fraud and the subsequent trial have deeply affected the suspects, they say. ‘It’s been really rough’, Hans G. says. ‘My family is broken up. I don’t know what the future holds. I left my heart and soul at the university.’
According to his son Michiel G., the fraud case is dictating their daily lives. ‘And it will continue to cast a shadow for a long time. It feels like a family drama: we are weathering it as a family.’
Acquittal
The lawyer representing the main suspect called for acquittal earlier this week. According to the attorney, Arco de Kruiff, his client may not have always played by the rules, but Hans G. is not criminally liable. ‘Nepotism – offering beneficial treatment to your family members – is not officially against the law’, he previously stated.
The wife, son and former daughter-in-law of Hans G. all claim that they did not know anything of the fraud. The same goes for Margreet B. The legal representatives for the suspected businesspeople, the owners of the two installation companies and a handyman whom Hans relied upon for illegal trade in building materials, all say that there is no written proof that the RUG was the victim of their activities.
‘The FIOD, investigative bureau Hoffmann, the accounts – none of them can produce a shred of evidence proving that is the case’, says Michel Ossentjuk, the legal counsel for the handyman Theun B. and businessman Jan J.
On 17 May, the court will deliver its judgement in the case.