LJN: BK0345, District Court of Maastricht , 03-702646-08
Date of ruling: 15-10-2009
Date of publication: 15-10-2009
Field of law: criminal
Type of proceedings: First instance - plural
Content indication: Promis judgment - contents indication: acquittal of landlord of complicity in drug trafficking
Excerpt
COURT OF MAASTRICHT
Criminal Law Sector
prosecution number: 03/702646-08
judgment of the plural chamber dated October 15, 2009
in the criminal case against
[defendant],
born in [birth details],
residing at [address].
Counsel is Mr. S. Weening, attorney at law in Maastricht.
1 Examination of the case
The case was heard in substance at the March 9 and October 1, 2009 sessions, at which the prosecutor,
the defense and the defendant made their positions known.
2 The indictment
The indictment is attached to this judgment as an appendix.
The suspicion, in brief and factual terms, is that defendant:
Fact 1: together with others, has brought hard drugs into and out of the Netherlands, or is complicit therein
has been by making premises available for the storage and trafficking of hard drugs;
Fact 2: has sold hard drugs together with others, or has been an accomplice to this by selling premises at
make available for the storage and trafficking of hard drugs;
Fact 3: was a member of a criminal organization whose purpose was to bring within and outside the Netherlands
(or selling) hard drugs;
Fact 4: laundered rental income derived from crime;
Fact 5: created false mortgage applications and deeds.
3 The assessment of evidence
3.1 The prosecutor's position
The prosecutor does not consider it legally and convincingly proven that the accused, together with others, was guilty of importing, exporting and trafficking in hard drugs (facts 1 and 2 primary). It also does not consider it proven that the accused was a member of a criminal organization engaged in the trafficking of hard drugs (offense 3). The prosecutor demanded that the defendant be acquitted of this.
The public prosecutor does consider it proven that the accused was complicit in the import and export of and trade in hard drugs by making premises available for this purpose. If the accused did not know about the trade in drugs from his premises, he has in any case knowingly exposed himself to the considerable chance that hard drugs were traded from his premises. The prosecutor deduces this from wiretaps and the manner in which and the persons to whom the defendant rented his premises. The suspect used identity cards of persons whose identity cards appeared to be missing or stolen. In this way the suspect ensured that his administration appeared to be in order.
The prosecutor also considers proven that the defendant was guilty of forgery (offense 5). The defendant stated, contrary to the truth, that the homes he purchased were intended for his own occupancy, whereas his intention was always to rent these homes. The defendant also stated, contrary to the truth, that he had no other financial obligations and/or that he had certain
income enjoyed.
By committing forgery with respect to the mortgage applications and deeds, the defendant acquired ownership of several properties. Subsequently, the defendant enjoyed rental income by renting these properties to
rent to third parties.Also, according to the prosecutor, the defendant enjoyed rental income derived from trafficking in hard drugs. Suspect therefore had rental income derived from crime and was guilty of money laundering (offense 4).
3.2 The position of the defense Counsel has taken the position that the accused should be acquitted of all charges.According to counsel there is no evidence that the accused knew or could or should have suspected that the persons named in the indictment, or other tenants named in the file, were engaged in the import and export of or trade in hard drugs. Nor is there any evidence that the defendant made premises available to the persons named in the indictment.
According to counsel, the defendant was careful in renting out his premises. As a result, defendant should be acquitted of offenses 1 through 3.
With regard to fact 4, counsel brought forward that it cannot be proven that the accused was aware of the trade in (hard) drugs from his premises. For that reason, there is no question of laundering rental income derived from crimes under the Opium Act. Nor was the defendant's rental income derived from the crime of forgery (offense 5). By signing mortgage offers, or notarized deeds, there was no forgery at the time of signing. At most, the defendant was guilty of breach of contract by not occupying the premises himself, but renting them out. Counsel also argued that a mortgage offer cannot be equated with a mortgage application, as charged. The offers signed by the defendant should therefore be disregarded.
3.3 The opinion of the court
The court will acquit the defendant of facts 1, 2 and 3 of the indictment. The following is an explanation of how the court arrived at this verdict. Next, the court will discuss facts 4 and 5. The court will declare these facts proven.
3.3.1. Introduction
As part of an investigation into the import, export and trafficking of hard drugs by a
partnership of suspects conducted a search on January 14, 2008
occurred in a dwelling located at [M.street] 57 in Maastricht. This residence is owned by the defendant. In this dwelling a large quantity of hard drugs was found during the search. Mail items were also found in the name of [co-accused 1]. The results of the search indicated that the
residence at [M.street] 57 was used as a stash site by [co-defendant 1].
The police investigation further revealed that the suspect not only owned this residence, but also several other residences. With respect to a number of these residences, the police found reports in XPOL of violations of the Opium Act from 2005. The investigation subsequently focused on the persons named in the indictment and on the suspect.
3.3.2. The court's opinion regarding organized trafficking in hard drugs
The Court is of the opinion that the file contains lawful and convincing evidence that [co-defendant 1], together with others, was guilty of exporting and trafficking hard drugs. The file also shows that there was a criminal organization, of which [co-accused 1] was part. In the opinion of the court, this organization was aimed at exporting and/or selling hard drugs.
In addition to [fellow suspect 1], this organization included [fellow suspect 2], [fellow suspect 3],[fellow suspect 4], [fellow suspect 5] and [fellow suspect 6].
The court does not consider it proven that there was such a relationship between the organization of [co-defendant 1] et al. and the [co-defendant 7], [co-defendant 8], [co-defendant 9] and [co-defendant 10] mentioned in the indictment, that these persons must be considered participants in this organization.
The question to be answered next is whether the defendant was a member of the criminal organization of [fellow suspect 1] and/or there was an organized connection between him and [fellow suspect 7],[fellow suspect 8] and/or [fellow suspect 10]. With regard to the latter, the Court considers that there is no criminal-law relevant connection between the defendant and [fellow suspect 7], [fellow suspect 8] or [fellow suspect
10]has not been proven. However, in the opinion of the District Court, it has been established that the defendant received the rent of two houses located at [N.straat] 18a and 24a in Maastricht from [co-accused 9]. The police found narcotics in these residences on 23 April 2008, but the residences cannot, however, be connected
with trafficking in hard drugs by [fellow defendant 9] or other persons, nor with the activities of the aforementioned criminal organization. In the opinion of the court, [co-defendant 9] deliberately had the hard drugs found present, but it has not been shown that the defendant was in any way aware of this.
3.3.3. Contacts of the accused with the decriminal organization of [fellow suspect 1] in relation to the premises [N.straat] 8a and 10a in Maastricht The file shows that the organization of [fellow suspect 1] made use of two premises that did not belong to the accused. The investigation subsequently revealed that members of the organization needed new premises at some point. The Court concludes that [co-defendant 1], his brother [co-defendant 2], [co-defendant 3], [co-defendant 4] and [co-defendant 5] worked together to rent new premises in order to continue the narcotics trade from there. The wiretaps and text message traffic showed that the defendant was approached to do this. Defendant has acknowledged that it is he who can be heard on several taps. The accused also acknowledged to have had contact in person and by telephone with [fellow suspect 4] about the renting out of his houses situated at the [N.straat] 8a and 10a in Maastricht. It is clear, that the accused made these houses available to [co-suspect4] for rent. The houses located at [N.straat] 8a and 10a were searched on 23 April 2008. No narcotics were found in the residences. Nor does the file contain any evidence of trafficking in hard drugs from these premises.
In addition to the contacts with [co-accused 4] described above, the accused had contact with [co-accused 1] and [co-accused 2]. It has not been established that this contact related to the rental of [N.street] 8a and 10a. According to the defendant, this contact related to the handling of damage to the property at [M.street] 57. The court was unable to find any evidence in the file from which it follows that this assertion by the defendant is demonstrably untrue.
3.3.4. Investigation of the (remaining) premises and administration of the defendant
Subsequently, the police investigated the (remaining) premises of the accused and his administration. From the findings, as described in the file and the statements of the accused, made during his interrogation by the police and at the hearing, the court considers that the following picture emerges.
The defendant stated that he acquired his properties for the purpose of renting out the properties. He also sublet two houses that he had rented himself. In short, the defendant wanted to use the rental income to pay off the mortgage loans and thus provide for his retirement with the accumulated capital in the form of real estate. According to the defendant, he earned about €150 per sublet property.
property. On several occasions during the years beginning in 2005, the defendant was confronted with the police finding drugs in his premises. The defendant entered into many leases and had many tenants during the years 2003 through April 2008. The defendant has argued that when he entered into the leases, he wanted to see the tenant in person, always checking the ID of the person signing the lease. Whether this
tenant, however, then actually occupied the dwelling, the defendant hardly checked. Suspect also did not interfere with the use of the apartments, as long as no nuisance or major problems arose. Furthermore, defendant was content to pay the rent in cash, not caring who exactly paid the rent for whom. The records were found to contain multiple, overlapping rental contracts. It also appeared that some contracting parties rented several premises at the same time. The suspect's explanation for this was that he did not keep good records of when a contract had actually ended. Several persons in whose names contracts were found stated that they had never rented a house from the suspect. These persons have also stated that their identity documents were missing.
or had been. Another witness testified that she signed a lease in her name with the defendant for the benefit of someone else and that the defendant knew this.
3.3.5. Conclusions of the court regarding facts 1, 2 and 3.
The court is of the opinion, in view of what is stated under3.3.4. that the defendant, as landlord
acted unprofessionally: his rental records were sloppy and he was indifferent to the use
of his premises, as long as he was not bothered by them and the rent was paid. This is to be blamed on him, especially
now that defendant has been confronted on several occasions since 2005 with police finding drugs in his
premises.
In making this accusation, the court disregards the fact that several persons have stated that they have never been of
defendant to have rented. Based on the evidence at hand, the court is not
conclusively established that defendant used identity documents, of which he knew
That these did not belong to the actual tenants.
The question to be answered by the court is whether the manner described above in which defendant
rented out his premises and kept records of these, realizing that drugs were more frequently found in
his residences, justify the conclusion that defendant intentionally (in whatever variant) for the purpose of
the drug trade by the organization of [co-defendant 1] et al. made his premises available, and he made himself
guilty of the charges under 1, 2 and 3.
The court finds that this is not the case. To this end, the court considers the following.
With the prosecutor and counsel, the court finds that the record does not reveal any clues
contains to conclude that defendant is guilty of the charges under 1 primary, 2 primary and 3. It cannot be proven that the defendant, in close and conscious cooperation with others
has been guilty of importing and/or exporting and trafficking hard drugs. Also, there is no
defendant's participation in the criminal organization described above. The above described in 3.3.3.
contacts with members of the organization, cannot support this conclusion.
With respect to the complicity in drug trafficking charges under 1 in the alternative and 2 in the alternative
the court considers the following.
It cannot be established that the defendant knew that [co-defendant 1], [co-defendant 2], and [co-defendant 4] were engaged in
engaged in narcotics trafficking. The wiretaps contained in the file offer to this end
insufficient hard leads. No decisive significance can be attributed to the fact that the accused repeatedly indicates in the tap conversations and the text messages that he does not want to speak by telephone.
The record contains no evidence on the basis of which it can be determined that pure
defendant's intent to traffic in hard drugs by [co-defendant 1] et al. and complicity therein.
In the court's opinion, there was also no conditional intent on the part of the defendant to traffic in
hard drugs by [co-defendant 1] and on complicity therein. The circumstance that defendant
acted unprofessionally and administratively sloppy in leasing his properties and finding
narcotics in his premises in the past, do not implicate in this case that defendant knowingly and
knowingly accepted the substantial probability of making himself an accomplice in the trafficking of hard drugs by
[co-defendant 1] et al.
In view of the foregoing, there is no legal and convincing evidence of intentional making available
setting of homes by defendant for the purpose of storing and/or trafficking narcotic
means by [co-defendant 1] et al. Accordingly, the Court will acquit defendant of facts 1, 2 and 3.
3.3.6 The facts 4 and 5
Since the court will acquit defendant of facts 1, 2 and 3, defendant cannot be blamed for
knew that the rental income he received came from importing and/or exporting and/or trading in
narcotics. However, the court does deem lawfully and convincingly proven that the defendant received rental income
had in his possession while he knew they were from the crime of forgery. The
court will therefore, for the sake of clarity, first determine fact 5 and explain that the defendant falsely made a
made up mortgage application. Next, the court will explain that the defendant has pleaded guilty
made to whitewash (Fact 4).
3.3.7. Forgery
The defendant acquired multiple properties in property during the period from March 25, 2003 to 13
August 2004. On file are quotes for mortgage loans, mortgage applications,
mortgage deeds, deeds of conveyance and other writings. Several writings were signed by the defendant.
Defendant testified at the hearing that he deliberately concealed the fact that the homes he purchased,
did not want to occupy themselves, but wanted to rent out (with the exception of the property at Veldwezelt in Belgium).
In order to avoid falling through the cracks, the defendant has also deliberately, on each occasion, applied to different financial institutions
applied for mortgage loans. Subsequently, defendant signed several mortgage offers. In violation
with the truth, the defendant thereafter also knowingly signed the notarized deeds, in which he had, in various
made a commitment not to rent out or use the property without permission
for their own use.
The court shares counsel's view that a distinction should be made between the
writings "mortgage application" and "mortgage offer." The file also clearly shows these writings
distinguished. The court notes that although the defendant signed mortgage offers in which
Defendant has stated contrary to the truth, or possibly contrary to the general conditions
that the home would be used for personal use, but these offers should be disregarded
remain, since the only charge was that the defendant was guilty of forgery with
regarding mortgage applications and deeds.
With respect to the notarized deeds, the court concludes that these writings are also outside of
should be considered, as the court finds that the indictment does not contain sufficient
factually reflects that these deeds were prepared by notaries and not by the defendant. Moreover, the
court established that several notarial deeds were executed and signed in places other than Maastricht.
Since only Maastricht was charged as the place of perpetration, these acts had not been included in any statement of evidence
can be included.
The court concludes that, on balance, defendant falsely prepared one mortgage application.
This concerns the application "Optima Mortgage Application" dated August 13, 2004. This writing indicates
That the property located at [N.street] 24 in Maastricht be purchased for personal use. By
signing at Maastricht on August 13, 2004, the defendant stated all the information provided to
completed truthfully, whereas prior to this signature he already intended to purchase the property
going to rent out, which in the court's opinion implies that he falsely made this writing.
3.3.8. Laundering fact 4
Defendant, after signing the mortgage application described above, purchased the property located at the
[N.street] 24A in Maastricht obtained ownership. Also, for the purpose of purchasing the
home, after signing an offer, obtained a mortgage loan from [company O.].
Various rental agreements found in defendant's records show that defendant
rented out this residence during the period charged. Even on April 23, 2008, the residence was still rented out.
The defendant stated that [co-defendant 9] paid the rent for the property in April 2008.
Defendant therefore enjoyed rental income during the period charged from renting the property to
the [N. street] 24a, after he entered this dwelling by means of committing the crime of forgery in
property had obtained.
Because defendant knowingly1 made a false mortgage application on the basis of which he ultimately received the
could acquire property, it cannot be otherwise, than that he knew that the rental income from the property from felony
were from. In doing so, the defendant was guilty of money laundering. This does not alter the fact that the
lender apparently made little further inquiry to determine whether defendant's application to
had filled out truthfully.
The defendant received rental income from more homes during the charged period. These
rental income was derived from the crime of forgery in a manner similar to the
rental income from the residence at [N.street] 24a and were therefore laundered by the defendant. The defendant has
with respect to these properties as well, had various deeds drawn up and signed by the notary. In all these
writings, the defendant knowingly, contrary to the truth, caused the obligation to record the property for
own use or not to rent without permission.1 These are the
following homes inMaastricht:
- N.street] 8a, 10a;
- A.street] 16;
- T.street]28c;
- V.street] 57b;
- F.street] 68b.
With respect to the defendant's other residences mentioned in the case file, the court could not
find that defendant was guilty of forgery at the time of acquisition. This
dwellings will therefore not be included in the proof of evidence.
3.4 The statement of evidence
The court finds lawfully and convincingly proven that the defendant
Fact 4
in the period from April 1, 2005 to April 23, 2008, in the municipality of Maastricht on several occasions an object, to
namely rental income, had at his disposal while he knew that the item was from any crime,
after all, from committing forgery as mentioned in Article 225 of the Penal Code;
Fact 5
on August 13, 2004 in the municipality of Maastricht a mortgage application, being a writing intended to
to serve as evidence of any fact, falsely made up, for the defendant falsely stated that
he, defendant, would use the property, to which the aforementioned mortgage application related, for his own use
use such writing for the purpose of using that writing as genuine and unadulterated or having it used by others
use.
The court does not consider proven what more or otherwise has been charged. The defendant will be charged with that
acquitted.
4 The criminality
The proven facts provide the following offenses:
Fact 4
money laundering, committed multiple times
Fact 5
forgery.
No facts or circumstances have become plausible that preclude the criminality of the acts.
Defendant is punishable because no circumstance has been shown to preclude his punishability
5 The sentencing process
5.1 Prosecution of the prosecutor's office
The prosecutor, based on what she found proven, claimed to impose on the defendant a prison sentence of 15 months, 275 days of which were suspended with a probation period of 2 years.
In addition, the prosecutor ordered that the defendant receive 240 hours of community service.
5.2 The position of the defense
Counsel took the position that defendant should be acquitted of all charges.
In the alternative, counsel asked the court to award a sentence equal to the time that
defendant spent in pretrial detention.
5.3 The court's opinion
In determining the penalty to be imposed, consideration was given to the nature and severity of what was proven, to the
circumstances under which the proven thing was committed and on the person of the accused, as one and
other emerged from the examination at the court hearing. The court will disregard the officer's
of justice differ, as the court will acquit defendant of facts 1, 2 and 3. Also with respect to fact
5 the court considers significantly less proven than the prosecutor.
In the opinion of the court, a sanction other or lighter than a
unconditional custodial sentence. In particular, the court considered the following.
Defendant, by means of preparing (or having prepared) false mortgage applications and notarized deeds, has
managed to acquire owned homes in order to make as much money as possible from the rental of these homes.
merit. Defendant knowingly and unscrupulously misled financial institutions. The defendant also
systematically had notaries draw up deeds with conditions that the defendant knew he was not going to comply with
comply. Furthermore, the defendant has pleaded guilty to money laundering.
The reliability of notarized deeds for financial-economic purposes is of obvious importance. The
importance of truthfully filling out mortgage applications or quotes for financial institutions at
for the purpose of making decisions about mortgage loans to be made, also needs little
explanation. The court does note, however, that both banks and notaries apparently have a very
have taken an easy attitude toward an ordinary individual with an unremarkable income, who in
acquired a large number of properties within a few years. It is shown, for example, that within a few
months in 2004 purchased three properties, with the notarial deeds being done at the same notary office
his past without apparently prompting any critical inquiry. However, that does not take away from the fact that
the court charges the defendant with his conduct and, in principle, the imposition of a prison sentence
commandments.
The court takes into account the fact that the defendant has not previously been convicted of criminal
facts.The court also took heed of sentences imposed in similar cases and of
defendant's personal circumstances. All things considered, the court finds that to defendant a
unconditional term of imprisonment should be imposed equal to the duration of the remand.
6 The legal requirements
The decision is based on Articles 57, 225 and 420bis of the Criminal Code.
7 The decision
The court:
Exoneration
- acquits defendant of the charges under 1, 2 and 3;
Evidence statement
- Declares the charges proven, such as described above under 3.4;
- acquits defendant of what was more or otherwise charged;
Punishability
- Declares that the proven facts constitute the offenses described above under 4;
- declares defendant punishable;
Penalties
- sentences defendant to a prison term of 175 days;
- Provides that the time spent by the defendant on remand prior to the execution of this judgment shall be
shall be deducted upon execution of the prison sentence imposed.
This judgment has been rendered by Mr. I.M.Etman, chairman, Mr. M.C.A.E. van Binnebeke and Mr. B.G.L. van der Aa,
Judges, in the presence of Mr. A.P. Jansen,Registrar, and was pronounced at a public hearing on October 15, 2009.
Outside is
Mr. M.C.A.E. van Binnebeke is unable to co-sign this judgment
APPENDIX I: Indictment
The defendant was charged, after amendment, with
1.
he in or about the period from January 1, 2007 to April 23, 2008 in the municipality of Maastricht, in each
case in the Netherlands, one or more times (on each occasion) together and in association with another or others, at least
alone, intentionally brought within and/or outside the territory of the Netherlands, as referred to in article 1 paragraph
4 and 5 of the Opium Act, quantities, or at least a quantity, of a material containing heroin
(diacetylmorphine)
and/or
quantities, at least a quantity, of a material containing cocaine
and/or
quantities, at least a quantity, of a material containing MDMA
and/or amphetamine
in each case (in each case) a quantity, of a drug referred to in List I attached to that law;
In the alternative, or at least,if the foregoing should or could not lead to an order, that:
[co-defendant 1] and/or [co-defendant 7] and/or [co-defendant 3] and/or [co-defendant 5] and/or
[co-defendant 8] and/or [co-defendant 4]and/or [co-defendant 9] and/or [co-defendant 6] and/or
[co-defendant 10] and/or [co-defendant 2] and/or one or more other(s) in or about the time period of 1
January 2007 through April 23, 2008
in the municipality of Maastricht, in any case in the Netherlands,one or more times (each time)
together and in association with another or others, at least alone, intentionally within and/or outside the
territory of the Netherlands, as referred to in Article 1 paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Opium Act,
quantities, at least a quantity, of a material containing heroin (diacetylmorphine)
and/or
quantities, at least a quantity, of a material containing cocaine
and/or
quantities, at least a quantity, of a material containing MDMA and/or amphetamine
in each case (in each case) a quantity, of a drug referred to in List I attached to that law,
To and/or in the commission of which crime(s) defendant in or about the period of January 1, 2007
until April 23, 2008 in the municipality of Maastricht, at least in the Netherlands, several times, at least once
(on each occasion) intentionally provided opportunity and/or means and/or information and/or intentionally assisted
has been, by giving to those [co-defendant 1] and/or [co-defendant 7] and/or [co-defendant 3] and/or
[co-defendant 5] and/or [co-defendant 8] and/or[co-defendant 4]and/or [co-defendant 9] and/or
[co-defendant 6] and/or [co-defendant 10] and/or [co-defendant 2] and/or one or more other(s) one or more
make premises(s) available for the purpose of storing and/or dealing in the aforesaid drug
(and) referred to in List I attached to that Act;
2.
he in or about the period from January 1, 2007 to April 23, 2008 in the municipality of Maastricht, at least in
the district ofMaastricht and/or elsewhere in the Netherlands, together and in association with others or another,
At least alone, multiple times, at least once (each time) intentionally sold and/or delivered and/or provided
and/or transported, in each case has intentionally had present, a quantity of a material containing
heroin and/or cocaine and/or tenamphetamine and/orMDMA and/or N-ethyl MDA (=MDEA) and/or amphetamine,
being heroin and/or cocaine and/or tenamphetamine and/or MDMA and/or N-ethyl MDA (=MDEA) and/or
Amphetamine, (in each case) (a) drug(s) listed on List I attached to the Opium Act;
In the alternative, or at least, if the foregoing should or could not result in an order, that:
[co-defendant 1] and/or [co-defendant 7] and/or[co-defendant 3] and/or [co-defendant 5] and/or
[co-defendant 8] and/or [co-defendant 4]and/or [co-defendant 9] and/or [co-defendant 6] and/or
[co-defendant 10] and/or [co-defendant 2] and/or one or more other(s) in or about the period of 1
January 2007 to April 23, 2008 in the municipality of Maastricht, at least in the district of Maastricht and/or
elsewhere in the Netherlands, together and in association with others or another person, at least alone, several times, at least
once (on each occasion) intentionally sold and/or delivered and/or provided and/or transported, in each case
has/had intentionally present, a quantity of a material containing heroin and/or cocaine
and/or tenamphetamine and/or MDMA and/or N-ethyl MDA (=MDEA) and/or amphetamine, being heroin and/or
cocaine and/or tenamphetamine and/or MDMA and/or N-ethyl MDA (=MDEA) and/or amphetamine(each) (one)
drug(s) listed on List I attached to the Opium Act,
To and/or in the commission of which crime(s) defendant in or about the period of January 1, 2007
until April 23, 2008 in the municipality of Maastricht, at least in the Netherlands, several times, at least once
(on each occasion) intentionally provided opportunity and/or means and/or information and/or intentionally assisted
has been, by giving to those [co-defendant 1] and/or [co-defendant 7] and/or [co-defendant 3] and/or
[co-defendant 5] and/or [co-defendant 8] and/or [co-defendant 4]and/or [co-defendant 9] and/or
[co-defendant 6] and/or [co-defendant 10] and/or[co-defendant 2] and/or one or more other(s) one or more
make premises(s) available for the purpose of storing and/or dealing in the aforementioned drug
(and) referred to in List I attached to that Act;
3.
he in or about the period from January 1, 2007 to April 23, 2008 in the municipality of Maastricht, in each
case in the district of Maastricht and/or elsewhere in the Netherlands, has participated in an organization, too
know a partnership of a number of natural persons of which, in addition to him, the defendant, participated
comprised [co-accused 9] and/or [co-accused 2] and/or [co-accused 3] and/or [co-accused 1] and/or
[co-defendant 4] and/or [co-defendant 5] and/or [co-defendant 6] and/or [co-defendant 7] and/or one or more
other(s), which organization intended to commit crimes referred to in Article 10 third, fourth and
fifth paragraph, namely, the multiple, at least once (each time) outside and/or within the territory of
Netherlands, at least the (each time) preparation and/or processing and/or selling and/or
deliver and/or dispense and/or transport heroin and/or cocaine and/or tenamphetamine and/or MDMA and/or
N ethyl-MDA and/or amphetamine, in each case from (a) drug(s) as referred to in the Schedule to theOpium Act belonging to the
list I;
4.
he in about the period from April 1, 2005 to April 23, 2008, in the municipality of Maastricht, at least in
Netherlands, one or more times (on each occasion) together and in association with one or more others, at least he,
defendant, alone, acquired or possessed an object, namely rental income, while he was
knew that the object-immediately or mediately-was from any crime, after all, from the in and/or
perform and/or from the
trafficking in drugs as mentioned in article 2 under A and/or B of the Opium Act and/or committing forgery in
writing as mentioned in Article 225 of the Penal Code;
5.
he in or about the period from March 25, 2003 to August 13, 2004 in the municipality of Maastricht
several times, at least once, (each time) (a) mortgage application(s) and/or mortgage deed(s), - (each) being a
falsely made or falsified writing intended to serve as evidence of any fact, after all
has (on each occasion) falsely stated that he,defendant,
-the dwelling(s), where the aforementioned mortgage application(s) and/or
mortgage deed(s) related to, would use for its own use
and/or
-has no financial obligation other than that which he has declared
and/or
- enjoyed (certain) income,
such (each time) with the intent to use that/those writing(s) as genuine and unadulterated or by others to
do use.
