The Former CEA member acquitted, employee identified as F.v.d.B., who had previously been convicted for involvement in illegal firearm possession. The ruling was delivered Wednesday afternoon via video conference after the court found doubts in the testimony of key witnesses.
Earlier, the Prosecutor General (PG) had argued that F.v.d.B. was guilty and requested a sentence of 18 months in prison, with 12 months conditional. However, the court concluded that the evidence presented did not sufficiently support the accusations.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to November 7, 2020, when police responded to a disturbance at a bar in Ponton involving two men. During the intervention, officers detained a man identified as P., who was found carrying a bag containing a .32 caliber pistol.
According to police reports, P. immediately claimed that the firearm belonged to F.v.d.B., who was also detained shortly afterward. P. was later convicted for possession of the firearm.
Defense Claims Setup
During the appeal hearing, F.v.d.B. strongly denied the accusations and stated that he had never possessed the weapon. He argued that the entire situation was a setup against him, allegedly orchestrated by two individuals, P. and another man identified as L.
F.v.d.B. told the court that he did not know L. personally and insisted he had never carried the firearm or the bag in which it was found. He explained that he normally carried only a wallet.
Police also discovered F.v.d.B.’s mobile phone inside the bag found with P. However, the accused stated that he had left his phone on a table inside the bar and believes someone may have taken it.
Prosecutor’s Argument
The Prosecutor General argued that the testimonies of P. and L. both pointed to F.v.d.B. as the owner of the firearm. The prosecution also highlighted that P. worked with F.v.d.B., making it unlikely that he would falsely accuse him.
Based on these statements, the prosecution maintained that the bag and weapon belonged to F.v.d.B. and that his explanation about the phone being taken from the table was not credible.
Defense Raises Doubts
Defense attorney Mr. Steward argued that there was no concrete evidence proving that F.v.d.B. possessed the firearm.
He emphasized that:
-
No fingerprints from F.v.d.B. were found on the weapon.
-
The gun was discovered in the possession of P.
-
Witness statements from P. and L. contained contradictions.
The defense also noted that L., who had been present with P. at the time, had previously been acquitted in the case.
The lawyer further pointed out that F.v.d.B., who had worked for CEA for 23 years, lost his job as a result of the accusations. He also criticized the length of time the case took to reach trial, leaving his client in prolonged uncertainty.
Court Finds Witness Testimony Unreliable
After reviewing the evidence, the Court of Appeal concluded that the statements from witnesses P. and L. raised significant doubts.
Security camera footage from the bar showed P. entering the establishment and picking up something from a table, though it was unclear what he took. During questioning by the investigating judge, P. admitted he could not remember exactly what he had taken.
Because of these inconsistencies, the court determined that it was possible that the witnesses attempted to shift responsibility onto F.v.d.B.
As a result, the Court of Appeal declared F.v.d.B. not guilty and acquitted him of the charge of complicity in illegal firearm possession.
