High Court Advisory: Buncamper Corruption Convictions to Stand in Landmark Caribbean Case.

toonjiemaria15012026THE HAGUE / PHILIPSBURG:---  In a decisive step toward concluding a major Caribbean corruption scandal, the Advocate General of the High Court has advised that the convictions of former high-ranking Sint Maarten official Claudius Buncamper and his wife, Maria Buncamper-Molanus, for bribery and forgery should be upheld. This recommendation reinforces earlier court rulings and marks a significant moment for justice and public accountability in the region.

The case, which emerged from the extensive "Ruby" investigation launched in 2018, exposed a sophisticated network of corruption centered on the manipulation of public contracts and the misuse of government funds for personal enrichment. The Advocate General’s conclusion, published on January 13, 2026, systematically dismantled the defense's appeals, paving the way for the Supreme Court's final judgment, expected on March 24.

A Sophisticated Scheme of Bribery and Deceit

At the core of the scandal was the public tender for the management of the Sint Maarten landfill, known locally as the "Dump." Claudius Buncamper, then the Head of Infrastructure Management at the Ministry of VROMI (Public Housing, Spatial Planning, Environment, and Infrastructure), abused his authority to ensure a specific company was awarded the lucrative contract.

Court documents reveal that Buncamper and his wife did not merely accept bribes; they orchestrated the entire scheme. They provided insider information and actively helped draft the winning bidder’s tender documents. Digital forensics proved crucial, with metadata from Word files showing Maria Buncamper-Molanus’s user account as the "creator" of key documents.

In exchange for this illegal assistance, the Buncampers demanded substantial kickbacks. These were channeled through seemingly legitimate business dealings. The winning company was coerced into hiring Maria’s administrative services firm at inflated prices and employing their son, who reportedly collected a salary despite rarely showing up for work.

Falsified Invoices and Public Funds

The corruption extended beyond the landfill tender. The "Ruby" investigation also uncovered a long-running fraud where Claudius Buncamper had private expenses paid for by the government. These costs, which included home security systems and personal renovations, were funneled through a third-party contractor managing the island’s sewage treatment plant.

To conceal the fraud, invoices were systematically altered to appear as legitimate expenses related to the sewage plant. These falsified documents were then submitted to the Ministry of VROMI and paid out from a provisional budget post, effectively causing taxpayers to unknowingly fund the Buncampers' private expenditures.

Judicial Outcome and Implications

While the Advocate General advised upholding the convictions, a minor sentence reduction was recommended due to the lengthy duration of the legal proceedings. The original sentences handed down by the Joint Court of Justice were severe:

  • Claudius Buncamper: Sentenced to 32 months in prison and a seven-year ban from holding any public office.
  • Maria Buncamper-Molanus: Received a 12-month suspended prison sentence and was ordered to perform 210 hours of community service for her role as a co-perpetrator.

The defense's argument that the lower courts had wrongfully reached their convictions was dismissed. The Advocate General found the evidence compelling and the court's reasoning "not incomprehensible," highlighting the strength of the prosecution's case.

This landmark case sends a powerful message about public integrity and the rule of law in the Dutch Caribbean. It demonstrates that even complex, high-level corruption can be unraveled through diligent investigation and the power of digital evidence. The convictions stand as a critical precedent, reinforcing that public officials who betray their trust for personal gain will be held accountable.

 

Click the links below for the advice.

https://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:PHR:2026:59;

https://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:PHR:2026:58