The judge has spoken. hefty sentences were handed out yesterday in the major corruption trial. The judges blame the convicts for tarnishing the image of the incorruptible government.

Former regional manager Mark J. of road construction company Janssen de Jong infra has to swallow. Not only because the court has just handed him a hefty sentence for bribing Limburg civil servants: 24 months in prison, 10 of which were suspended. But also because the sentence is much harsher than that of J.'s former boss, general manager Rob A., who received 'only'12 months in prison (6 suspended). "The groundworker is punished harder than the director" hums J., who remains silent. The prosecution had also demanded equal sentences against both suspects: 24 months in prison, 6 of which were suspended.J. in particular maintained contacts with the bribed officials and gave them a lot of cash and other gifts. But A. was aware of this and also co-perpetrator,reasoned the prosecution. In any case, he did not blow the whistle on his subordinate J.. The judges also blame A. for the latter. But the fact that he knew about the evil practices does not mean that he is a co-perpetrator. "We flatly disagree with that," responded Chief Public Prosecutor Cees van Spierenburg to the court's distinction between A. and J. "These main suspects did everything together." There is therefore a real chance that the prosecution will appeal against A.'s sentence.

Even though the sentence for A. is a lot lower than demanded and even though four of the 15 suspects were acquitted, Van Spierenburg is satisfied. Eleven hefty convictions are on the tally. And for seven convicted officials, the sentences are nearly equal to the demands. The fired county official Jan S. gets the brunt of it:15 months in prison of which three are suspended. Even minus the two months' remand, he will have to go to jail for quite some time if he is also convicted on appeal. This applies to three more former officials. S.,along with his also-convicted wife one of the few convicts present, looks staggered. "No.We won't say anything," is all they want to say, after hearing the verdict.

"We wanted to set an example with our firm demands.To deter others," explains Chief Public Prosecutor Van Spierenburg. The judges apparently went along with that, analyzes Professor of Criminology Hans Nelen of Maastricht University. Research by Nelen and his Amsterdam colleague Leo Huberts showed that judges rarely impose unconditional prison sentences in corruption cases. This became apparent in the 1990s, for example, in the corruption trials against Limburg officials and administrators. In the Jajo case, this is very different. Nelen: "Proportionally, reasonably heavy sentences were imposed.What I read from the judgments is that the court emphasizes that the required incorruptibility of the government has been damaged." That's right.According to the court, the bribing road builders and bribed officials damaged the public's trust in government. And harmed the province, municipalities and other businesses. A direct link between gifts and the quid pro quo provided by officials is often difficult to prove, the judges explained. But it is enough that they knew why they were pampered and also favored JaJo.

In the case of former Sittard-Geleen civil servant Ton B., the situation is very nuanced. Although he accepted a forbidden - and later 'disguised' as a loan - gift of twenty million, he still got off scot-free. He deliberately put JaJo on the wrong track by passing on a competitor's underestimated bid for the construction of a parking space. Because of that, JaJo tendered tens of thousands of euros lower,in favor of the municipality. "For him it feels like a victory over Spain in the final of the World Cup" says B.'s lawyer Ivo van de Bergh. Heerlen civil servant Fred P., former personal assistant of former mayor Toine Gresel, can cheer for a moment. He does get an "earful" because he did receive a high gift, but there is no evidence that A. wanted to coax the public relations officer into a quid pro quo. But all cheering is subject to change.For those involved can, and presumably will, appeal.