Forfeiture overreach

Convicting someone for vote buying is one thing. Calling the salary earned while serving in Parliament “illegally obtained profit” is another. That leap would set a precedent that damages law, politics, and trust. In that context, the Court ruled against the Prosecutor’s bid, and many would argue rightfully so.  

Here are the facts. The Court found indications of vote buying by a former MP and perjury tied to the 2024 election. It also found that the MP performed his duties and worked for a time in Parliament. On that basis, the Court ruled that wages and transitional allowances were not “wederrechtelijk verkregen voordeel.” Work was performed. Salary followed.

To break it down for the casual reader; the prosecutor claimed that the salary collected by an elected MP could be seized because that MP was elected based on proven acts of vote buying. So, the prosecutor argued that the fact that he was elected on the back of an illegal act, for which he has already been convicted, placed him in position to collect a salary.  As such, that salary is now connected to the illegalities and can be claimed back.

The judge said hold up, pump the brakes.

However, the attempt to confiscate wages treats the office of MP itself as contraband. That collapses two different ideas. A crime that helps win a seat, and compensation paid for actual work once seated. The law on forfeiture targets proceeds of crime. Kickbacks. Bribes. Secret payments. Not the public salary attached to a constitutional office when duties were carried out.

There is after all, causation to consider. Forfeiture demands a clear link between crime and profit. Salary for legislative work is not a bribe. It is paid by law to the office holder who shows up, votes, sits in committee, and serves. Stretching causation from a tainted election act to months of wages for performed tasks breaks the test.

The Prosecutor’s theory is also hard to square with common sense. It is like standing on a box to climb a fence to pick your neighbor’s mangoes, then calling the mango a grape. You can punish the trespass. You can demand restitution for the fruit. You do not get to rewrite what the fruit is.

The justice chain should be careful here with such overreach. Fight vote buying with strong cases. Seek convictions that hold up. Ask for fines, bans from office, and clear electoral remedies. But keep forfeiture where the law placed it. Target money that flowed because of the crime. Not statutory pay for work actually done.

‍