Crime does pay
Januari 29th, 2008 will reach the history books as the day crime legally does pay.
A hindustan drugdealer from The Hague has been allowed to keep his ‘bijstand’, a fact undeniably righteous.
Until you know the circumstances.
The man (42 years of age) is a known and convicted drugdealer, has been sent to prison for it some 5 years ago. He behaved well during his detention and has been granted a test leave. He did not return to prison.
Over the following 5 years, the man has remained a fugitive from the law, and had to get his bread and butter somewhere. So her presumably took up the drugdealing again, and applied for bijstand at his municipality.
This might seem stupid, but has proven not to be. His application was granted, and he received about €46.000 in monthly payments from the state.
Somehow, someone found out, and put the man back in jail (where he belonged in the first place). Also, the state has tried to get back the 46 thousand euro’s, unrightfully paid to a man running from the law.
The 29th, the judge has ruled the man does not have to pay back the money, as "withdrawal of detention is not a legal ground to refuse ‘bijstand’".
Escaping from jail does not nullify your right to receive social income, even while it is suspected the person is obtaining sidemoney through illegal activities?
Moreover: how is it possible that this man goes undetected as an escapee, even while he applied for ‘bijstand’ with his real name and real address?
I’ll probably never understand our legal system, considering the fact purchasing dope can be deducted from taxes. (Dutch link)
2 thoughts on “Crime does pay”
If I read the link carefully, there’s nothing wrong with the law currently, just how people use it. Expenses are not deductible when they are associated with crime. However, the expenses that were allowed to be deducted were not associated with a proven and trialed crime so could thus be deducted as normal business expenses. Unlucky, but not really weird to me.
We can’t go punishing people for untrialed ‘crimes’ – that’s one of the principles of the law. Innocent until prove guilty etc.
About the social security… that’s a bit weird. In this case, I suppose the law should be changed. Although the judge is, in my opinion, to be commended for upholding the law even in a case of a blatant mistake in it. The moment judges start using their judgment to complement the law, we’re in deep trouble, so I think hÃ© did the right thing. Now let’s hope our government will.
I agree on both counts with you.
The first is a clear error by the ADA, although defining the purchase and sale of (hard?)drugs as your business does not seem to be right. Weird case nonetheless, not even taking into account the fact that most people reading it, will not do it as thoroughly as you and me.
I’m not judging the judge (/seth) here, but I’m simply showing the absurdness of the law at hand. It is wrong and should be altered. We agree fully. 😉