SINT MAARTEN (GREAT BAY) - The Court of Appeal has delivered its ruling in the criminal case against former Member of Parliament A.A., confirming the earlier conviction related to election-fraud offenses.
The Court upheld the original conviction and provided additional reasoning in support of its decision.
In its findings, the Court concluded that A.A. knowingly engaged in conduct connected to the 2024 election period involving vote-buying. While the Court held that election fraud, in principle, warrants an unconditional prison sentence, it determined that a reduced sentence was appropriate in light of A.A.’s personal circumstances following the end of his parliamentary function, the significant social impact of the proceedings within a small island community, and the fact that a forfeiture measure would also be imposed.
In its ruling, the Court imposed a one-year prison sentence, which will be fully suspended, combined with a probation period of three years. The Court also ordered 90 hours of community service.
In addition, A.A. is barred from serving as a police officer for six years and is disqualified from eligibility in elections for a period of six years. According to the Court, these sanctions reflect the seriousness of conduct that undermines the integrity of democratic processes and the administration of justice.
The Court also emphasized that honesty in judicial proceedings and integrity in public roles are fundamental to maintaining public confidence in democratic institutions. The ruling of the Court of Appeal is now final unless further legal remedies are pursued under applicable law.
The Court also issued rulings for co-defendants F. and M., confirming both convictions. For F., the original judgment remained in place with one evidentiary omission. For M., the Court upheld the conviction but adjusted the sentence to a fully suspended six-month prison term, a three-year probation period, and 90 hours of community service.
Separately, the Court issued a ruling in the forfeiture proceedings (ontnemingszaak). This decision follows the earlier ruling of several weeks ago, which had rejected the forfeiture request at first instance, and was now reviewed on appeal.
The Court found that no financial benefit could be directly linked to the vote-buying itself, since it could not be established whether A.A. would have been elected without any unlawfully obtained votes.
However, in line with the arguments brought forward by the Prosecutor’s Office, the Court determined that a false oath on 10 February 2024 enabled A.A. to take his parliamentary seat and receive salary and therefore constituted an unlawful financial advantage.
In that oath, as required under Article 56 of the Staatsregeling of Sint Maarten, A.A. affirmed that he had not given or promised anything in connection with his election.
As a result, the Court ordered forfeiture of received salary in the amount of Cg 75,372, after deducting US $2,000 in estimated costs. This forfeiture order remains in force as part of the judgment. If the forfeiture amount is not paid in full, the Court ruled that replacement detention of one year may be imposed.
https://www.soualiganewsday.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=63713:court-of-appeal-confirms-conviction-of-former-mp&Itemid=450
