WILLEMSTAD - Former Central Bank of Curaçao and Sint Maarten (CBCS) executives, ex-President Emsley Tromp and former board member Jerry Hasselmeyer, are embroiled in a legal dispute with their previous employer. Despite no longer being affiliated with the CBCS for several years, the case centers around the recovery of alleged overpayments and improper disbursements.
Claims Against Tromp and Hasselmeyer
The CBCS is pursuing the repayment of various sums, including legal fees for Tromp, bonuses, year-end payouts, and reimbursements tied to utility bills and Girobank. The bank alleges that Tromp and Hasselmeyer coordinated these transactions, benefitting themselves financially at the institution's expense.
Notably, Tromp and Hasselmeyer have pointed to Alberto ‘Chos’ Romero, a former colleague and the third member of the executive board at the time, claiming he also benefited from similar payments. However, the CBCS has not taken legal action against Romero, raising questions about consistency in its approach.
Legal Defense Challenges CBCS Position
Jerry Hasselmeyer’s attorney, Bertie Braam, argues that the payments in question were not improper, as evidenced by the fact that other CBCS employees and Romero received the same bonuses without legal repercussions. “The CBCS is not demanding repayment from Romero or the other employees, which indicates that those payments were deemed legitimate,” Braam stated.
Braam questioned why Hasselmeyer is being singled out, pointing out that the Central Bank's reasoning hinges on the absence of approval from the Supervisory Board (RvC) for the payouts. However, Braam highlighted that similar payouts to Romero and other staff also lacked RvC approval but have not been contested.
“Why is this standard applied exclusively to Hasselmeyer? Is it possible that the CBCS is targeting him merely because of his association with Tromp, making him collateral damage in their broader effort against Tromp?” Braam speculated.
A Complex Legal Dispute
The case raises broader concerns about selective enforcement and internal governance at the CBCS. While the bank seeks to recover funds it claims were improperly disbursed, the legal defense emphasizes perceived inconsistencies in the CBCS's treatment of its former executives.
The court proceedings continue, with the outcome likely to impact not only the individuals involved but also public perceptions of accountability and fairness within one of the region's most critical financial institutions.