WILLEMSTAD – The former president of the Central Bank of Curaçao and Sint Maarten has once again been convicted on appeal for his role in falsifying a $400,000 loan agreement, receiving a fully suspended six-month prison sentence.
The ruling was handed down on February 26, 2026, by the Common Court of Justice of Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten, and of Bonaire, St. Eustatius and Saba .
The case centers on the intentional drafting of a false loan agreement in 2009 between the defendant and a co-defendant. According to the Court, the agreement falsely stated that a credit facility of USD 400,161.45 was intended to meet the liquidity needs of a third party in preparation for launching a company. In reality, the funds were transferred directly to the defendant’s personal bank account in the United States.
How the Loan Was Structured
The Court established that on May 28, 2009, Banco di Caribe granted a USD 400,000 credit facility to a newly formed company. On the same day, instead of being transferred to the company’s account, the funds were wired directly to the defendant’s foreign pension account. Shortly thereafter, USD 300,000 was transferred to an interest-bearing investment account belonging to the defendant, while USD 52,000 was used to settle credit card debt.
Although a loan agreement dated May 20, 2009, indicated that the funds were intended to support liquidity needs related to the startup of the company, the Court concluded that this representation did not reflect reality.
The judges ruled that the intellectual content of the agreement was false. The defendant knew at the time of drafting that the money would not be used as described in the document but would instead benefit him personally.
Defense Arguments Rejected
The defense argued that the loan was legitimate and that the funds constituted reimbursement for earlier payments allegedly made by the defendant on behalf of the third party. However, the Court found no objective documentary evidence to support this claim.
In particular, there were no invoices, payment records, bank statements, or other documentation demonstrating that the $400,000 was used for startup expenses. The third party involved had previously told investigators she was unaware of the loan and did not consider the funds to be part of a repayment arrangement.
The Court also rejected formal defenses alleging political motivation behind the prosecution and claims of investigative misconduct. It ruled that no concrete evidence supported assertions of bias, political interference, or improper pressure on witnesses.
Conviction for Forgery
The Court found the defendant guilty of co-perpetrating forgery (valsheid in geschrift). Although prosecutors also alleged use of the forged document, the appeal only concerned the falsification itself.
Judges emphasized that the offense occurred while the defendant held the position of president of the Central Bank — a role demanding the highest standards of integrity.
The Court stated that drafting a false loan agreement to give the appearance of legality to a substantial financial transfer seriously undermines trust in financial institutions and the integrity of the banking system.
It further noted that while the defendant repaid the amount — and even more — two years later, repayment does not negate the criminal nature of the act.
Sentence: Six Months Suspended
Despite the seriousness of the offense, the Court upheld a fully suspended six-month prison sentence with a probation period of two years.
In determining the sentence, the Court weighed several mitigating factors:
- The defendant has no prior criminal record.
- He has lost his position and social standing as a result of the case.
- His residency status in the United States has reportedly been affected.
- The proceedings lasted over nine years, significantly exceeding the reasonable time requirement under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Court noted that the lengthy duration of the case warranted substantial mitigation, but it declined to reduce the sentence further.
Broader Implications
The judgment underscores the judiciary’s position that public officials, particularly those overseeing financial institutions, are held to a higher standard.
The Court explicitly stated that falsifying a document capable of serving as legal proof can damage confidence in the financial system, especially when signed by the president of a central bank.
With this ruling, the appellate proceedings in the case have formally concluded.