COLE BAY:--- USLAUNDRY has rejected allegations of unlawful wastewater discharges into the Simpson Bay Lagoon, providing SMN News with a court judgment and a criminal complaint that reveals an employment dispute involving the former general manager who supplied the environmental accusations.
Managing Director Hans van der Moot said the company does not discharge untreated industrial wastewater unlawfully into the lagoon and denied any attempt to conceal or dilute wastewater to evade inspection.
The documents show the allegations emerged against the backdrop of a dismissal, litigation, and accusations about the handling of confidential company information. However, the employment judgment does not determine whether any environmental violation occurred.
Company Denies Illegal Discharges
In a written response to SMN News, Van der Moot disputed the allegations circulated by former General Manager Peter de Greeff and offered to explain the company’s water and wastewater systems.
“There is no unlawful discharge of untreated industrial wastewater into the lagoon, nor any practice intended to conceal or dilute wastewater to circumvent inspection or sampling,” he stated.
Van der Moot described USLAUNDRY as the island’s largest commercial laundry, serving the hospital and numerous hotels. He said its washing processes are phosphate-free, its professional laundry chemicals meet applicable standards, and its operations follow internationally recognized Risk Analysis and Biocontamination Control principles.
According to Van der Moot, the company tests water quality periodically, and it has made laboratory results, technical information, chemical documentation, and other records available to the VROMI Inspectorate.
These are the company’s representations. The correspondence and attachments reviewed for this article do not include an independent environmental inspection report establishing compliance or a violation.
Court Ruled in Company’s Favor in Employment Case
The September 18, 2026, judgment from the Court of First Instance of Sint Maarten confirms that USLAUNDRY brought proceedings concerning De Greeff’s employment and the return of company property and information.
The judgment records that De Greeff was dismissed with immediate effect on June 23, 2026. USLAUNDRY subsequently sought conditional dissolution of the employment agreement if the court found that the dismissal had not already ended it.
Although properly summoned, De Greeff did not attend the August 28 hearing. The court proceeded in his absence and granted the company’s unopposed request for conditional dissolution on the ground of an urgent reason.
The court also ordered De Greeff to pay USLAUNDRY US$7,500 in fixed compensation. It permitted that amount to be offset against an outstanding salary claim of the same value.
He was additionally ordered to pay Cg. 2,699.50 in legal costs.
The ruling therefore supports USLAUNDRY’s account that a substantive employment dispute preceded the environmental complaints. It should not be described as a ruling rejecting those environmental allegations, as the judgment does not address them.
Return of Company Records Ordered
The court ordered De Greeff to return company property and extensive categories of physical and digital information within 24 hours of the judgment.
These included business documents, customer and personnel records, supplier information, contracts, emails, WhatsApp backups, CCTV recordings, cloud files and access credentials.
The order also required him to declare that he had retained no copies or backups and would not continue using or distributing the material.
The court prohibited further use, distribution, publication or disclosure of confidential company information, customer data, personnel data and CCTV footage. It attached a penalty of US$1,000 per day or part of a day of noncompliance, up to US$50,000.
The judgment does not establish that such penalties have subsequently accrued.
Criminal Complaint Alleges Pressure Over Employment Dispute
USLAUNDRY also supplied a criminal complaint in which Van der Moot requests an investigation into alleged unauthorized access to company systems, retention and distribution of CCTV footage and business data, defamatory communications, and alleged attempts to exert pressure for a financial settlement.
The complaint presents the company’s account of conduct following the breakdown of the employment relationship. It alleges that confidential material and damaging messages were circulated to employees, customers and personal contacts.
Those accusations remain allegations contained in a complaint. The supplied documents do not establish a criminal conviction or confirm what investigative action police or prosecutors have taken.
Earlier Reporting Based on Complainant’s Correspondence
SMN News previously reported the wastewater allegations based on correspondence supplied by De Greeff, whose identity was withheld in that report. The article expressly noted that the material did not include independent laboratory findings, verified plumbing diagrams, permit conditions or an official inspection report confirming an unlawful discharge.
USLAUNDRY’s response now provides an additional account and documentary evidence of the employment conflict surrounding the complaints.
The court judgment establishes the existence and outcome of the employment proceedings. The criminal complaint records the company’s separate accusations. Neither document, by itself, proves or disproves the wastewater allegations.
USLAUNDRY Offers Access and Cooperation
Van der Moot invited a visit to the premises to inspect the installations and review technical documentation and laboratory results.
He said the company respects competent authorities' responsibility to investigate environmental complaints and would fully cooperate.
“This background is mentioned solely because it may be relevant to the context of the present allegations; it is not intended to discourage or interfere with any investigation,” he stated.
The documents show that this matter involves an established employment dispute alongside contested environmental accusations. Any conclusion about wastewater practices must rest on inspection findings, applicable permit conditions, and verified testing.