PHILIPSBURG:--- On February 19, 2026, the District Court of Overijssel delivered a significant verdict in a long-running corruption case involving the construction of the Simpson Bay Causeway Bridge in Sint Maarten. The court convicted a 60-year-old former company director of providing factual leadership in the bribery of a government minister. The ruling sheds light on the murky intersection of public infrastructure projects and political influence, underscoring corporate leaders' legal responsibilities to prevent corruption.
Background: The Bridge and the Bribe
The case centers on the tender process for the "Simpson Bay Causeway Bridge," a major infrastructure project in Sint Maarten initiated around 2009-2010. The project was overseen by the Simpson Bay Lagoon Authority Co. (SLAC), but the court found that the actual decision-making power lay with a high-ranking politician, referred to in the judgment. This individual served as a commissioner and later as the Minister of Public Housing, Spatial Planning, Environment, and Infrastructure (VROMI). For clarity the court is referring to former commissioner and Minister Theodore Heyliger who is currently serving time at the Pointe Blanche Prison.
Two construction companies, identified as [medeverdachte 1] B.V. and [medeverdachte 2] N.V., were vying for the contract. The defendant served as a director for these entities during the relevant period.
According to court documents, the companies entered into a consultancy agreement with an intermediary via his company. While the agreement ostensibly covered services like obtaining permits and recruiting local labor, the investigation revealed that the individual performed almost none of these tasks. Instead, the agreement served as a vehicle to channel bribe payments to the minister.
The Charges
The Public Prosecution Service accused the defendant of:
1. Primary Charge: Participating directly in official bribery as a co-perpetrator.
2. Subsidiary Charge: Giving orders to, or providing factual leadership for, the bribery committed by the construction companies.
The bribery allegations involved promising a substantial portion of the consultancy fee to the minister and paying out approximately $83,000. These payments were made to influence the minister to award the bridge construction contract to the defendant's companies, violating his official duty to act neutrally and with integrity.
Court Findings: Influence Peddling and Corporate Negligence
The court acquitted the defendant of the primary charge of direct participation but found him guilty of the subsidiary charge: providing factual leadership to the bribery committed by the companies.
The "Shadow" Decision Maker
A crucial element of the ruling was the court's determination that while SLAC formally managed the tender, the minister held the real power. Witnesses testified that the minister "called the shots" and that nothing happened without his approval. Internal emails from the construction company explicitly noted that the bridge design needed to please the minister, describing him as an "important factor."
The Sham Consultancy Agreement
The court found that the construction companies knew—or should have known—that the consultancy fees paid were being funneled to the minister.
• The intermediary company was an offshore entity.
• The defendant signed the agreement after the contract had already been awarded, rendering the listed "lobbying" services moot.
• The defendant failed to conduct any due diligence on the intermediary or verify that actual work was performed.
By signing this agreement without oversight, the court ruled that the defendant knowingly accepted the "substantial chance" that the funds would be used for corruption.
The Verdict and Sentence
The court ruled that the defendant’s actions not only distorted fair competition but also deeply damaged public trust in government administration. The bribery costs were ultimately baked into the construction price, meaning the people of Sint Maarten effectively paid for the corruption themselves.
Taking into account the defendant's clean criminal record and the fact that the legal process exceeded the reasonable term by two years (the investigation began in 2019), the court mitigated the sentence.
The Sentence:
• Fine: €30,000 (approx. $32,000 USD).
• Alternative Custody: 158 days of detention if the fine is not paid.
The court noted that this fine was higher than those given to co-defendants in related cases (€20,000), reflecting the higher level of responsibility the defendant held as a director.
Implications for Governance and Compliance
This ruling serves as a stark reminder to corporate executives operating in international markets. It highlights that "willful blindness" is not a defense. Directors cannot hide behind intermediaries or claim ignorance when they fail to vet consultants or verify services in high-risk environments.
The judgment reinforces that the Dutch legal system will hold corporate leaders personally accountable for corruption facilitated by their companies, even when the acts occur overseas. It underscores the necessity for robust internal compliance regarding anti-corruption clauses and third-party due diligence.
Click here for the verdict handed down on Thursday.
