Court records identify St. Maarten bank reports and concealed lottery revenue as part of the case. Government must explain whether it pursued the island’s financial interests.
PHILIPSBURG::--- The United States is returning approximately US$29.7 million recovered in the Bientu case to Curaçao. The money will go to Curaçao’s Crime Fund, with no announced allocation for St. Maarten. That omission raises a sharper question than the mere fact that convicted lottery businessman Robertico “Robbie” Dos Santos operated here: the Bientu investigation itself began with financial transaction reports made on St. Maarten, and the trial court identified concealed revenue from his St. Maarten businesses.
According to the court’s account, a Windward Islands Bank compliance officer filed reports on January 10, 2008, concerning unusual cash transactions involving a company linked to Dos Santos. The court found that those reports warranted investigation and rejected a defense argument that the case had an improper start. A later prosecution filing stated that the matter was transferred to investigators in Curaçao because St. Maarten lacked sufficient financial investigation capacity at the time.
The St. Maarten connection continued into the financial findings. The court said its calculation of concealed revenue for 2004 through 2011 included N$ 15,864,161 in St. Maarten, described as a portion of lottery turnover set aside for Dos Santos and not declared to the tax authorities. That figure is concealed turnover, not an established amount of tax owed to St. Maarten or a calculated share of the US$29.7 million.
In a 2015 court filing, prosecutors also identified The Money Game N.V. and Jamaroma Lotteries N.V. as businesses operating on St. Maarten and subject to profit and turnover tax reporting. They said St. Maarten’s tax authority issued additional assessments. The filing does not establish whether those assessments were ultimately collected, changed on appeal, or remain outstanding.
The historical report supplied to SMN News concerns a dispute over Curaçao’s tax repentance regulation and political intervention during the investigation. The subsequent court proceedings are essential to understanding that dispute: the court examined challenges to the investigation and assessed evidence that included the St. Maarten transactions and concealed revenue. Curaçao’s own national risk assessment also describes money moving through banks in both Curaçao and St. Maarten.
The U.S. Department of Justice gives a specific reason for returning the forfeited funds to Curaçao. It says the transfer recognizes Curaçao’s losses and its assistance in obtaining and enforcing the court orders against money held in Miami. Curaçao prosecuted the case and requested the U.S. action. Those facts may explain the destination of this particular transfer, but the U.S. announcement does not address whether St. Maarten’s separately identified tax interests were raised or resolved.
That is where St. Maarten’s government owes the public answers. What became of the additional tax assessments against the St. Maarten companies? Was any money recovered? Did St. Maarten present its documented losses or investigative role to Curaçao or U.S. authorities before the transfer terms were settled? And did officials determine whether any portion of the forfeited Miami funds could be traced to revenue concealed on St. Maarten?
Curaçao says it will publish the signed agreement through official channels. SMN News has located the official announcements but has not located the signed agreement itself. The available record does not establish that St. Maarten is legally entitled to a portion of this US$29.7 million. It establishes ample reason to demand an accounting from St. Maarten’s ministers of Justice and Finance about what the country investigated, assessed, collected, and pursued.
