The federal prosecutor’s office wants to see 56 people and a company appear in court, including football agents, trainers, managers and board members of some clubs from the Jupiler Pro League. They are suspected of membership of a criminal organization, forgery through false scouting or consultancy assignments, active bribery, match fixing or money laundering.
The Antwerp Chamber of Indictment (KI) had to test the Special Investigation Methods (BOM) used against the law. Normally, such an assessment – the last step in the procedure before the chambers can consider a possible referral of the suspects – is a routine matter. Certainly because few or no special investigative techniques were used in the ‘Clean hands’ case, such as observations of suspects.
“Appearance of partiality”
But not so in the ‘Clean hands’ case. Frank Scheerlinck, the lawyer of the accountant of Dejan Veljkovic, Nedzad Tanovic, as well as Hans Rieder who is the lawyer of referee Bart Vertenten retaliated against the AI. Tom Bauwens, the lawyer of real estate agent Mogi Bayat, also filed a revocation request.
They did that because the same AI judges, who now had to judge the BOM methods, did so before when the deal with regretful optant Veljkovic was closed. According to the lawyers, in this way they show “an appearance of partiality” and they can no longer make an objective judgment. Although a different composition was urged, the three AI counselors involved did not agree.
The public prosecutor’s office at the Court of Cassation has now found them wrong. “Counselors in AI can rule on a request for additional investigation, and at a later stage on the referral of a suspect, asking the same question for additional investigation again,” the solicitor general said. “But that is always about a different dispute, while this is an identical dispute.”
“Work well done”
“In addition, the Court of Cassation has previously ruled that a judgment by the AI about the BOM control is binding on the sentencing judge,” adds Master Tom Bauwens, lawyer for Mogi Bayat. “The criminal court or the court of appeal can therefore no longer rule on the regularity of those investigative methods, that assessment has already been made and is fixed.”
The file on which the AI assessed on 25 October, and the file that is now being submitted to it, are identical, according to Master Bauwens: “Both the confidential part, about the special investigative methods, and the non-confidential part. We do not think that the justices in the judgment of 25 October did their job properly. On the contrary, we think they did their job well then. But they can’t correct themselves now, or at least aren’t impartial anymore. After all, they have already ruled on an identical dispute.”
