PHILIPSBURG:--- Theodore “Theo” Emanuel Heyliger was once a central figure in Sint Maarten’s political and business landscape: a lawmaker, a behind-the-scenes dealmaker, and a man many credited with shaping development around the island’s lucrative cruise-port precinct. In 2024–2025, however, a string of criminal and civil rulings transformed his legacy — and left him both a convicted prisoner and the subject of a nine-figure civil judgment. This profile examines who Heyliger is, how he operated, the cases that brought him down, and what his convictions and the October 28, 2025, court verdict mean for Sint Maarten’s politics and development sector.
From prominence to prosecution: a brief biography
Heyliger rose to prominence through a combination of political office and business involvement in port-area real estate. Over many years he accumulated influence among decision-makers responsible for approvals and concessions at the Dr. A.C. Wathey Cruise Terminal and adjacent commercial zones — territory where tourism dollars and retail rents generate significant profits. That influence, allied to close ties with local developers and intermediaries, left him well placed to shape which projects moved forward.
Observers say Heyliger’s style was typical of small-state political entrepreneurship: cultivating access, broker deals, and mobilizing both political and commercial networks to deliver projects — and, at times, payments — through a web of companies and lease constructions.
The criminal convictions: Larimar and related matters
Prior to the civil ruling that made headlines on October 28, 2025, Heyliger was convicted in criminal proceedings relating to bribery and money-laundering (often reported under the umbrella of the “Larimar” investigations). Those criminal cases resulted in a multi-year prison sentence; reporting indicates Heyliger was ordered to commence a custodial term at Pointe Blanche. The criminal proceedings focused on alleged payments and intermediated rental arrangements that prosecutors said masked illicit transfers to individuals in positions of influence.
Criminal courts judge elements of proof beyond a reasonable doubt; civil courts apply a lower threshold. The fact that Heyliger was found criminally liable in separate proceedings gave public prosecutors and civil plaintiffs concrete documentary and testimonial material to draw on in later civil claims.
The Zebec civil verdict: USD 92.1 million
On October 28, 2025, the Court of First Instance of Sint Maarten issued a detailed written judgment in a high-profile civil suit brought by Zebec Development N.V. The court found that Heyliger committed an onrechtmatige daad (unlawful act) by abusing his power in relation to the Dutch Village project at the cruise terminal and that his conduct caused Zebec to suffer substantial loss. As a result the court ordered Heyliger to pay USD 92,100,000 in damages plus statutory interest, and it declared these parts of the judgment immediately enforceable.
28102025081922-0001
The civil proceedings canvassed a complicated factual matrix: competing development agreements, a prior settlement with another developer (SMQDC), lease and sublease arrangements involving companies such as Harbour Arcade, PF Skyline and Diamond International, and so-called “key money” clauses that the court scrutinized as potential conduits for illicit payments. The court accepted that irregular payment flows and rent arrangements existed and that Heyliger benefitted from them, but it drew a narrower legal conclusion about who could be held civilly liable. In short, the court pinned personal responsibility on Heyliger but declined to hold Ocean Drive Properties N.V. (ODP) and certain business principals liable because Zebec had not met the evidentiary standard as to those parties’ direct causation of the contract termination.
How he operated — the patterns identified
Across the criminal and civil records, a pattern emerges:
- Use of intermediary entities and layered lease/sublease agreements to shift funds and create “key money” obligations that benefited parties linked to Heyliger.
- Influence over port approvals and consent processes, where a single powerful official could affect which developer obtained the prized retail parcels at the cruise terminal.
- Opportunistic capture of high-value retail rights adjacent to cruise operations — a zone where being first or preferred translates into substantial long-term revenue.
The court found that some payments were effectively rewards for creating or channeling opportunities, and while it stopped short of finding every commercial actor guilty of collusion, it concluded Heyliger had abused his role to the detriment of Zebec.
28102025081922-0001
Political and institutional ramifications
Heyliger’s fall has several immediate and medium-term implications for Sint Maarten:
- Rule-of-law signal: A high-profile criminal conviction and a nine-figure civil award send a strong message that political power can carry civil and criminal accountability. That may deter future abuse or at least raise the political and financial costs of them.
- Procurement and governance reforms: The cases highlight weaknesses in transparency around port leases, approvals, and conflict-of-interest checks. Expect calls for tightened procurement rules, clearer disclosure of beneficial ownership, and stronger audit trails for concessions.
- Investor uncertainty vs. cleansing effect: In the short term, some investors may be wary of reputational and political risk in Sint Maarten. Over time, however, clearer rules and better enforcement could improve the business climate by reducing the risk of covert manipulation.
- Enforcement and recovery challenges: Collecting USD 92.1 million from an individual is legally possible but practically hard. Zebec, prosecutors, and creditors will need to trace assets, pursue attachments, and possibly litigate across jurisdictions. That process could take years.
Assessment: legacy and likely next steps
Heyliger’s trajectory — from political insider to convicted felon and civil debtor — is likely to be a defining episode in Sint Maarten’s political history. The civil judgment confirms a public-facing legal determination that his conduct caused severe economic harm to a private developer. Coupled with the criminal convictions, the twin rulings have already reshaped public debate about transparency and oversight in development projects.
What comes next is predictable but complex:
- Appeals are likely. Civil defendants typically appeal large judgments; this will extend litigation and may delay enforcement.
- Asset tracing and enforcement actions. Zebec and prosecutors will pursue available assets; successful seizures could partially satisfy judgments, but recovery at scale is uncertain.
- Policy responses. Lawmakers and oversight bodies will face pressure to adopt reforms to procurement, register beneficial ownership and strengthen anti-corruption units.
Final word
Theodore Heyliger’s case is more than the downfall of one man. It is a case study in how concentrated political influence, opaque commercial arrangements and weak transparency can intersect — and how persistent legal action, both criminal and civil, can unravel that web. For Sint Maarten, the episode offers painful short-term disruption but also an opportunity: to strengthen institutions and ensure that the island’s most valuable assets — its port, its tourism infrastructure, and public trust — are governed with clearer rules and enforceable standards.