WILLEMSTAD – The Dutch Accountants Court (Accountantskamer) has dismissed in its entirety a disciplinary complaint filed by former Ennia executive Reinald "Reintje" Curiel and his company, Reynhoff B.V., against a Dutch registered accountant who prepared a financial report in the long-running dispute over Curiel's departure from the insurance group.
Although the disciplinary ruling does not identify the parties by name, Dutch publication AccountantWeek and earlier reporting by the Antilliaans Dagblad confirmed that the complainants were Curiel and Reynhoff B.V. and that the accountant involved is affiliated with Deloitte.
The dispute stems from the financial settlement following Curiel's departure from Ennia. After the Central Bank of Curaçao and Sint Maarten (CBCS) placed Ennia under emergency administration on July 4, 2018, Curiel initially remained in his executive role with the approval of the CBCS. His employment as chief executive of Ennia's operating companies ended in June 2020.
Following his departure, Curiel claimed that Ennia still owed him compensation under his contractual arrangements. Ennia, under CBCS management, argued the opposite, maintaining that Curiel and Reynhoff owed money back to the insurer.
The dispute involved management fees, salary payments, housing allowances, airline tickets and outstanding loans.
As part of the civil proceedings in Curaçao, Ennia commissioned a Deloitte registered accountant to prepare a financial analysis comparing the amounts paid to Curiel and Reynhoff between January 1, 2017, and August 4, 2020, with the amounts that would have been payable had the contractual relationship continued. The report also examined the settlement of outstanding loans.
Curiel subsequently filed a disciplinary complaint, arguing that the report lacked a proper factual basis, that he had not been given an opportunity to respond through the principle of hearing both sides, and that the accountant should have prevented the report from being presented in court as if it were an independent audit report.
The Accountants Court rejected all of those arguments.
According to the disciplinary judges, the document was not an audit opinion or an accountant's approval report, but rather the report of a party-appointed expert prepared specifically for use in litigation. The accountant's assignment was limited to comparing calculations submitted by both parties, analyzing differences in their positions and verifying mathematical aspects of the dispute.
The court also ruled that hearing both parties was not required because the assignment did not constitute a personal investigation into Curiel or Reynhoff. Instead, the accountant relied on court documents that already contained the positions of both sides.
No disciplinary measures were imposed against the accountant.