Defendant and accomplices attempted to rob a large sum of money from the victim at Defendant's house on December 21, 2002. Defendant played a prominent role in planning the robbery and knew the victim had a firearm. One accomplice shot the victim at least three times with a firearm, killing him. Defendant cooperated closely with the accomplices and was unconcerned about the risks of the plan or the victim's fate. Defendant has a criminal history including fraud and participation in a criminal organization. He is found guilty of attempted theft using violence and extortion resulting in death.

1. instance Utrecht District court
date of judgment 12-09-2003
date of publication 12-09-2003
Case number 16 / 110813-02
jurisdictions Criminal law
Special characteristics First instance - multiple
Special characteristics First instance - multiple
content Display
Defendant and his co-perpetrators on December 21, 2002 in a house at the Mereveld
Plein De Meern on refined and thoughtful manner attempted (victim) to rob a large sum
of money. Suspect has played a prominent role in setting up the plan. He invited the
victim to come to his house. Suspect knew (the victim) has a firearm in his possession.
Nevertheless suspect ignored the risks that could entail the plan. There has been close
cooperation between the suspect and his co-defendants. One of the co-accused was in
possession of a firearm and shot this at least three times. Suspect and his
co-defendants are thus not hesitated to use serious violence against fellow human
beings and has accused the fate of the victim apparently not at all bothered. The result
of this offense is brutally a young life is taken away.
Repositories Rechtspraak.nl
Pronunciation
COURT OF UTRECHT
Parquet Number: 16 / 110813-02 Date of judgment:
September 12, 2003 Contradiction
Counselor: Mr. WGL Citizens G / T:. No
CONDENSED JUDGMENT
of the Utrecht District Court, judge criminal, in the case against:
(Suspect)
currently detained in the prison Demer Luis Amsterdam.
ECLI: NL: RBUTR: 2003: AK3484

2. This judgment was rendered further research on the hearings of June 27, 2003, August 26, 2003 and August 29, 2003.
the indictment
The accused has been charged with what is specified in the summons.
At the request of the Prosecutor amend the facts complained of hearing on August 26, 2003 authorized.
Of the summons and of the application to amend the indictment are copies as Annexes I and II attached to this judgment. The content of these annexes
is considered to be inserted here.
The admissibility of the prosecutor
The DA is admissible, being shown no evidence of reasons, which stand in the way to the responsiveness.
acquittal
Not been legally and convincingly proven what is imputed to Defendant 2 under. The accused must be acquitted.
The proven statement
Proof Recital:
The exact circumstances of the shooting, which was followed by the arrival of (victim) at the residence of defendant the court is not clear, as it sees
insufficient grounds to undertake accompanied to (do) investigation. This applies both in respect of (victim), which is lethal hit, and in terms of
co-suspects and S. T., who have been injured by four bullets and bullet one, respectively. It is - all available data considered - extremely unlikely that
(victim) came to life other than one or two bullets, faded by one or more of the five defendants present in the home. (The court understood below under
"suspect and his co-defendants' five on December 21, 2002 in the home present suspects.)
The evidence shows the following:
* The accused was aware of the fact that the co-defendants O. and S. had a monetary claim on Greystone Holding BV, a company controlled by
defendant and his business partner (..) were the leaders.
* Suspect had consultations on December 20, 2002 and December 21, 2002 with the co-defendants
O. and S. about a money demand.
* discussed at these talks about a large sum of money amounting to approximately

3. Euro 300,000.00, at least a substantial amount of money by (victim) would be brought to the house of the suspect on December 21, 2002 as part of an
exchange transaction.
* Suspect has co-defendants O. and S. made the suggestion that he would abandon his home in the exchange transaction on December 21, 2002, and
that it instead (victim) would expropriate this sum. During these talks, agreements were made that the co-defendants would steal the money, he (the
victim), accused and any other person would be tied with tie-wraps.
* In the house of the suspect found its tie-wraps. Similar tie-wraps are also found in the barn at the home of co-defendant O..
* Statements of accused shows that co-defendant O. tie-wraps have met in the home of his pocket and held in his hands.
* Suspect knew (victim) was in possession of a firearm.
* At the time (victim) knocked on the door, stood accused to open the door. Defendant stated that the co-defendants have also risen and have taken
positions. It was dark in the hall, the hall and the kitchen. There were no lights.
* (Victim) the house of the suspect entered. The suspect B. with his gun shot at least three times in the direction of the hallway from the
kitchen. There is also shot with a different gun.
* (Victim) was killed by one or more bullets whose origin can not be determined.
From the above facts and circumstances, interrelated considered and in conjunction with other evidence, following the opinion of the court that under one
principal charges being proven legally and convincingly in the manner specified in Annex III this verdict. The content of this Annex is considered to be
inserted here.
Defense counsel:
Counsel at the hearing on behalf of the accused argued that the file has not been established that there has been talk on December 21, 2002 of
attempted robbery and extortion resulting in death. Counsel argues that in addition to the statements of the accused regarding the removal of the money,
there is a possibility that (the victim) has come up with a completely different agenda to the house of the accused, namely to bring suspect killed by order
of the Mr. (...). (Victim) started shooting immediately after arrival. He had no money on him. He at that time no other person than seen suspicious H. V ..
Seeing co-defendant T. was the first shot all cases. In that case there is attempted murder (victim) suspicious.
The court rejected the defense counsel, in view of the above consideration evidence, the documents and the court hearing, in interrelation and
cohesion.
To the extent that occur in the proven facts portion of the charge language and / or write errors, these are corrected in the conclusive statement. The
suspect was not harmed in his defense.
Which include one or more primary else is unproven accused. The accused must be acquitted them.
The Court bases its conviction that the accused has committed the facts found on the facts and circumstances contained in the evidence.

4. The criminality
There is no circumstance has become plausible that the criminality of the rule under 1 primary proven, so that it is illegal.
The lower one primary proven facts yields the following offense on.
Regarding one primary fact:
attempt to:
- theft, preceded violence against persons, committed with the intent to prepare for the theft,
and
- extortion,
when the offense is committed by has caused two or more persons or death.
The criminality of the accused
No circumstance has become plausible that excludes the criminal liability of the accused. The suspect is punishable.
Reason for the penalty to be imposed
In determining the penalty to be imposed, the court takes account of the seriousness of the offense, the circumstances under which it was committed and
the person of the accused.
As regards the seriousness of the offense and the circumstances under which it was committed, the court specifically considered the following:
- Defendant and his co-perpetrators on December 21, 2002 in a house at the Mereveld Plein De Meern on refined and thoughtful manner attempted
(victim) to rob a large sum of money. Suspect has played a prominent role in setting up the plan. He invited the victim to come to his house. Suspect
knew (the victim) has a firearm in his possession. Nevertheless suspect ignored the risks that could entail the plan. There has been close cooperation
between the suspect and his co-defendants. One of the co-accused was in possession of a firearm and shot this at least three times. Suspect and his
co-defendants are thus not hesitated to use serious violence against fellow human beings and has accused the fate of the victim apparently quite
unconcerned;
- The result of this offense is that life is brutally denied to a young man and irreparable suffering to the relatives of the victim. Such an offense carries a
very shocking character and brings out the immediate vicinity of the victim feelings of great fear and insecurity triggered the law.
As for the person of the accused, the court having regard in particular to:

5. - the contents of a suspect respective extract from the general documentation register dated December 24, 2002, stating that the defendant has
previous convictions, most recently in respect of co-perpetration of fraud, forgery on February 12, 1999 and participation in a criminal organization, to
imprisonment for a period of three years.
- An information report on the accused, the Probation Netherlands, Utrecht unit, dated April 10, 2003, prepared by Mrs C. Janse de Jonge,
probation officer.
The prosecutor has asked for the hearing that the defendant in respect of the under one primary and two alleged offense shall be sentenced to said- in
brief:
- a prison sentence of 8 years minus pre-trial detention.
The court finds, in view of the nature and severity of the aforementioned fact and taking into account the person accused a suspended prison
sentence after reporting period appropriate and necessary.
Storage confiscated goods:
Regarding the seized goods, namely:
- administrative documents (19 pieces);
- writing case;
- agenda,
the court will order the preservation of these objects for the benefit of the owner.
The applicable legislation
The punishment to be imposed is based on Articles 45, 312 and 317 of the Penal Code.
THE DECISION:
The court ruled as follows:
Declares not proven that the accused has committed two alleged offense and acquits the defendant thereof.
Declares proven that the accused under one primary alleged offense, as set out in Annex III of this judgment, has committed.
Declares not proven that the defendant under 1 is primarily more or else accused than above as proven adoption and acquits the defendant thereof.
Declares that it is under the first primary stated proven criminal, and that this leads to the offense mentioned above.
Declares the accused therefore punishable.

6. Condemn the defendant to imprisonment for a period of 6 YEARS.
Recommends that the time the convict spent before the implementation of that decision and remand insurance entirely in the execution of the
sentence of imprisonment shall be deducted.
Ordered the preservation of administrative documents, the document case and the agenda for the owner.
This judgment was passed by Mr AH
Weijsenfeld, president,
ML van der Bel and FMD Aardema, judges, assisted by mr. A. van
Beek, Registrar
and pronounced at the public hearing of this court on September 12, 2003.