According to the court, G. is guilty of corruption of public servants. ‘You were a public servant in a societally exemplary function. Your behaviour should have been unimpeachable. But your unacceptable behaviour has broken the trust of that society’, according to the judge.
The court considered the claims that the former head of the technical department accepted money and resources from maintenance companies in exchange for work at the university to have been sufficiently proven. G. arranged for his son and his former daughter-in-law to be fraudulently employed. Both of them were on the payroll with two friendly business owners for years without actually doing any work. The money for this was charged to the RUG through forged invoices, with a ten per cent mark-up.
According to the court, Hans G.’s actions constitute a clever and cunning fraud. ‘You say you just wanted to treat the people around you well, but you were purely looking out for yourself. This is a case of shocking impudence. You have corrupted the body of public servants’, according to the judge.
Previously, the public prosecutor had demanded a four-year sentence for the main suspect. The ultimate sentence was lower because the court said it could not be proven that Hans G. swindled the RUG out of more than 1.1 million euros. The judge said the evidence did not conclusively point to that exact amount. So the court ultimately based its ruling on an amount of 612,453 euros.
The court also ruled that G. needs to pay back 450,000 euros in damages to the university. If he does not pay this money back, the former manager will have another 365 days added to his sentence.
Suspects
In March, eight suspects had to explain themselves to the court. Apart from Hans G., they are his wife, Wijtske H., his son Michiel G., former daughter-in-law Kasia S., the owners of two installation companies, Jan J. and Marinus P., Hans’ right-hand-woman Margreet B., and independent contractor Theun B.
According to the Public Prosecution Office (OM), his wife knew of the scam and paid for her groceries with money her husband put out for her in an envelope. However, the judge acquitted her, because it could not be proven that the wife actually knew the money had been earned through criminal activities.
Michiel G., the main suspect’s son, was sentenced to two years in prison, with a six month suspended sentence. He, too, will have three years’ probation. According to the judge, he is guilty of receiving stolen goods and money laundering. ‘For eight years, you were paid a salary by two companies when you barely did any work for them. You turned a blind eye to the set-up constructed by your father in order to maintain the lifestyle to which you were accustomed. You shamelessly did this for years. You claim to have been overruled by your father, but that is not pertinent to the situation. You should have asked questions and tried to figure out what was going on’, the judge told him.
Michiel G.’s ex-girlfriend, who had also been on the two maintenance companies’ payroll, was sentenced to 240 of community service and a six month suspended sentence. Over the course of four years, she received a net amount of almost 94,000 euros.
Companies
Jan J., the owner of one of the installation companies that Hans G. used to set up the fraud, has also been sentenced to two years in prison, with a six month suspended sentence. He paid Michiel G. and his ex-girlfriend a ‘salary’ for work they did not actually do. He charged the RUG for the money using forged invoices. He has to pay 400,000 euros back to the university. J. was also convicted for possession of weapons. During their investigation, FIOD found parts of a gun and ammunition.
Marinus P., owner of the second maintenance company, had previously confessed to being involved in the swindle. But according to the court, it could not be proven that the business owner had been involved in the fraud since 2008. The judge assumes he joined in 2012. P. has therefore been sentenced to twelve months in jail, with a four month suspended sentence.
Handyman Teun B. was sentenced to 240 hours of community service and has to pay the university 50,000 euros in damages. B. would work for cash using materials that Hans G. and the installation companies would charge to the university. B. shared his profits with G.
Acquittal
Hans G.’s former colleague, Margreet B., was acquitted by the court. The OM had demanded a sentence of 18 months with a six month suspended sentence. According to the prosecutor, she was vital to the fraud. ‘She knew from the start that something shady was going on’, she said. However, the court has said that this cannot be proven.
The judge did point out that 7,500 euros being deposited into her account by one of the maintenance companies involved was strange. ‘But you didn’t or couldn’t know that you were given that money in order to do, or not do, something in your function as a public servant.’
Hans G. and his son were present for the ruling. Neither showed any visible emotion during the sentencing. Hans G. nodded to affirm he had heard the ruling and only asked the judge to explain something about a seized bank account. Margreet B., the main suspect’s former colleague, was also present. She was clearly relieved when she was acquitted. ‘Thank you, thank you’, she said, crying.
The convicted have fourteen days to appeal the decision.