92 Million

We have questioned the workings of the justice system in this space many times, so often, in fact, that we are aware some have labeled us as “haters” of the Prosecutor’s Office or even of the judiciary. That is far from the truth. We are not haters, merely observers who remain curious about how the law is applied on St. Maarten, especially in high-profile cases and against so-called high-profile suspects. That curiosity naturally leads to many questions. Case in point: the verdict in the Zebec case.

The court threw out Zebec’s claims against the pricipals behind Ocean Drive Properties and SMQDC, but ordered Theo Heyliger to pay about 92.1 million dollars plus interest and costs. The court said timing, proof, and causation decided the case.

The key date was July 28, 2014, when Zebec ended its contract with SMQDC. Ocean Drive signed its deal a year later, in August 2015. The court said Zebec had to prove that Ocean Drive or its principals did something before July 2014 that caused Zebec to lose its contract. Zebec did not meet that bar.

At the same time, the court relied on earlier findings that Heyliger "influenced" a port decision maker and abused his position. This brings back memories of the Prosecutor's charge that Frans Richardson had used his position as Chairperson of the TEATT Committee in Parliament to influence matters at the port.

In Heyliger's case he did not manage to rebut those findings of "influence" against him, and he had no counsel present at the final hearing due to his current situation and related matters with previous counsel. In the absence of such, the court turned the provisional findings into a money judgment, a 92 million dollar judgement at that.

Zebec pointed to red flags. A 5,000 dollar monthly spread in a Harbour Arcade lease that seemed to benefit a company tied to an insider. A 2016 Bastion Zuid lease that showed a 480,000 dollar key money clause, followed by a 2017 lease without that clause. The court said these records were troubling, but did not prove who paid what, when it was paid, or that payments caused Zebec’s loss before July 2014.

That leaves the public with a basic puzzle. If later landlords and deals benefited from the project site, why is only Heyliger on the hook? The law, as we see it, requires proof that links actions to the 2014 termination. The paper trail that Zebec offered mostly starts after 2014. Same with the Frans Richardson case, how is it that the people who actually signed documents and granted permissions at the port, not Richardson, got away scott-free while he didn't?

So at the risk of being called haters again, just out of curiosity sake and for our own education, we ask questions such as:

• Did Heyliger’s lack of counsel at the end make the difference, and would a full rebuttal have changed the outcome?

• Should a provisional finding automatically become a binding money judgment when the defendant was unable to file a full rebuttal?

• If the court recognized questionable lease arrangements and unexplained financial spreads, why were those who profited from them cleared entirely?

• Is it consistent to hold one person responsible for “inducing” a port decision but release those who executed and benefited from the resulting contracts?

• Does this create a perception that political figures are punished while private parties who profit escape liability?

• Can someone be found liable for “inducing” a decision that occurred after the complaining party itself ended its own contract?

• If Zebec’s agreement ended in July 2014 and the Ocean Drive deal followed in August 2015, what direct act by Heyliger caused measurable damage before the termination?

• Is the judgment implying an influence that predates documented financial transactions—and if so, where is the corroborating evidence?

• The court accepted circumstantial evidence to confirm Heyliger’s “dominant position,” yet required direct proof of payments for others. Shouldn’t one standard of probability apply to all defendants?

• If suspicion is not proof for Ocean Drive, why was inference enough for Heyliger?

• Did the court demand an unrealistic level of evidence, “a dated receipt before July 2014”, that would be impossible in alleged covert dealings?

In our humble opinion, a fair justice system demands consistency. If evidence of questionable payments and timing was too weak to convict one group, it should also raise doubts about the solitary conviction of another.

That's not hating.

‍