Horecaconcern X was criminally prosecuted for VAT fraud. X admitted to the tax fraud and reached an agreement with the Tax Authorities. The Rotterdam Court ultimately did not impose a penalty for the VAT fraud. A TV documentary covered the FIOD investigation, following police inquiries in Fuji and restaurant raids.
The court ruled that the documentary infringed on the privacy of the suspects. The Public Prosecutor appealed, and the Hague Court of Appeal determined that an unconditional penalty was appropriate. However, the court refrained from imposing a penalty due to the payment of tax debt and fines.
The Public Prosecutor violated the privacy of the suspects by providing the documentary maker access to information. The Public Prosecutor attempted to keep the documentary secret during the trial. The revelation of the documentary during the legal proceedings caused reputational damage. The reasonable time frame was violated in both the initial trial and the appeal.
Source: futd.nl
Note that this post was (partially) written with the help of AI. It is always useful to review the original source material, and where needed to obtain (local) advice from a specialist.
Latest Posts in "Netherlands"
- Tax Classification of Parking Lot Parcels with Paving: A-G’s Conclusion on VAT Status
- E-invoicing obligation in the Netherlands: where does The Hague really stand?
- AG Dutch Supreme Court: When Does Brick Paving Qualify as Developed Land in Dutch Law?
- Benelux Study Day on E-Invoicing (25 March 2025): Conclusions and Strategic Outlook
- Netherlands Reveals Four-Phase Plan for EU ViDA Implementation by 2030 Deadline
