• Curaçao Chronicle
  • (599-9) 523-4857

SBTNO Says Government Cannot Legally Claim Kadaster Profits

| By Correspondent March 6, 2026

 

WILLEMSTAD – The Curaçao government cannot legally require the island’s land registry to transfer profits to the state treasury, according to a recent advisory issued by the corporate governance watchdog.

In its opinion, the Foundation for the Supervision and Standardization of Government Entities (SBTNO) states that there is no legal basis to compel the Kadaster Curaçao to distribute profits to the government.

The issue arose after Charles Cooper proposed using part of the Kadaster’s profits and reserves to support the public treasury.

SBTNO advises against pursuing the proposal in its current form. The advisory body states that if the government wishes to receive funds from the Kadaster in the future, it would first need to amend the Kadaster national ordinance. Even then, such a change could not be applied retroactively to the reserves already accumulated.

Financial statements for 2023 show that the Kadaster is in a strong financial position. The organization recorded a profit of nearly 1.8 million guilders and holds assets totaling more than 22 million guilders. A large portion of these assets consists of liquid funds and investments, including bank deposits and real estate.

Despite this strong financial position, SBTNO warns that transferring money to the government would not be legally permissible. Under the Civil Code, foundations are not allowed to distribute funds to their founders or board members. In the case of the Kadaster, the government is considered the founding entity.

The watchdog also cautioned that if such payments were made, the Kadaster’s management could face personal liability.

SBTNO further noted that the government has previously attempted to force the Kadaster to transfer reserves but lost two court cases. Both the Court of First Instance of Curaçao and the Joint Court of Justice of Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten and of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba ruled that there is no legal foundation for such a requirement.

+