A media statement from Mr. Dest. With kind regards,

After  being  persecuted  for  five  years  for  alleged  fraud  and  embezzlement  and  only  after  I  demanded  
closure  of  the  preliminary  investigation  and/or  the  case,  I  was  acquitted  by  the  Court  of  First  Instance  of  
all  fraud  charges.  I  was  moreover  acquitted  for  four  (4)  of  the  eight  (8)  embezzlement  charges  and  
sentenced  to  one  (1)  day  of  jail  time,  conditional,  with  a  probation  term  of  also  one  (1)  day  for  the  
remaining  four  (4)  charges  of  embezzlement.  This,  whilst  the  Court  of  First  Instance  explicitly  cleared  me  
from  having  personally  benefitted  in  any  way,  shape  or  form  from  the  established  embezzlement  cases,  
other  than  having  partaken  in  an  organized  Christmas  dinner  for  employees  of  the  Tourist  Department  
and  invited  guests.  The  crime  I  committed  was  apparently  that  I  ate  and  drank  at  said  Christmas  dinner.    
I  was  thus  solely  sentenced  according  to  the  Court  of  First  Instance  for  contributing  to  the  usage  of  
funds  destined  for  payments  of  general  tourist  expenses,  for  other  government  related  expenses,  
namely  maintaining  the  Tourist  Office  in  New  York.  The  Court  of  First  of  Instance  thereby  considered  
that  for  the  charge  of  embezzlement  to  be  legally  proven,  it  is  not  required  for  someone  to  have  
personally  benefited  by  acquiring  goods/properties.  
The  only  reason  why  I  was  given  a  conditional  sentence  of  one  (1)  day  with  an  unusual  probation  term  of  
also  one  (1)  day  is  that  according  to  the  Court  of  First  Instance  it  is  by  law  not  possible  to  find  me  guilty,  
without  imposing  some  form  of  punishment.  
The  punishment  imposed  by  the  Court  of  First  Instance  is  a  clear  indication  of  its  assessment  of  the  
culpability  in  this  case.  I  have  been  taking  through  the  wringer,  made  subject  to  the  strong  arm  of  the  
judicial  force  for  using  funds  from  Government,  but  to  pay  for  other  government  expenditures,  whilst  
the  Sint  Maarten  Government  structurally  failed  to  timely  fund  the  accounts  for  the  New  York  Tourist  
Office.  It  is  not  me  who  invented  and  sanctioned  this  payment  form.  This  payment  form  found  is  birth  in  
the  mere  necessity  to  have  the  New  York  Tourist  Office  remain  operational,  an  office  that  catered  to  the  
backbone  of  the  Sint  Maarten  tourism  economy.  I  continued  an  established  practice,  sanctioned  and  
known  by  the  Sint  Maarten  Government  for  years  that  structurally  funded  that  office  too  late.  In  
essence,  I  am  been  investigated  for  five  (5)  years,  prosecuted  and  now  being  punished  for  carrying  out  
my  duties  as  a  civil  servant  and  acting  for  the  benefit  of  the  Sint  Maarten  Government  and  public.    
I  have  mixed  feelings  about  this  verdict.  On  the  one  hand,  I’m  glad  to  be  acquitted  of  all  the  severe  
charges  and  feel  vindicated  by  the  fact  that  the  Court  of  First  Instance  established  that  I  did  not  profit  in  
any  way  from  what  is  legally  qualified  as  embezzlement.  I  understand  that  using  funds  for  a  different  
purpose  than  intended,  even  if  it’s  used  to  pay  for  other  tourist  related  government  obligations,  can  in  
the  opinion  of  the  Court  of  First  Instance  also  be  qualified  as  embezzlement.  On  the  other  hand,  I  am  not  
keen  on  having  a  criminal  record,  even  one  for  a  mere  conditional  one  (1)  day  jail  sentence,  with  a  
probation  term  of  one  (1)  day  that  in  practice  will  cease  to  exist,  one  day  after  the  verdict  becomes  
irrevocable,  unless  I’m  found  guilty  of  committing  a  crime  that  same  first  day  after  the  verdict  becomes  
irrevocable.  I  fought  hard  to  redeem  my  good  name  and  honor  and  for  principal  reasons,  I  am  
considering  filing  a  partial  appeal.  The  main  question  that  remains  that  in  my  opinion  has  not  been,