In a case of theft amounting to 60,000 euros from a second-hand store where he was employed between 2012 and 2016, a defendant was found guilty by the Namur Criminal Court on Friday. However, due to the reasonable time limit being exceeded, the court granted a simple suspension of the pronouncement of the sentence.
According to the civil party and the public prosecutor, the defendant stole hundreds of articles from the store to be resold in other second-hand stores. The theft was only discovered when the boss noticed inventory problems and subsequently fired the defendant. During the hearing on February 10, the defendant denied the allegations and claimed that he never stole anything from the store. He stated that he had sold items to second-hand stores, but they were sourced from the internet or flea markets. He admitted to buying things that his store didn’t want from people, but he denied any involvement in theft.
The lawyer representing the injured boss, Me Holvoet, stated that the file was very clear and that hundreds of items had been stolen. The thefts only stopped following the defendant was dismissed. Me Holvoet claimed that the defendant’s accomplice was reselling the stolen goods in five different second-hand stores in Wallonia to avoid arousing suspicion. Investigators contacted these stores and found that the items sold by the couple matched those missing from the boss’s inventory.
The defendant’s lawyer, Me Meurice, pleaded for acquittal, stating that there was no objective evidence to prove his client’s guilt.
Noting that the reasonable time limit had been exceeded, the Namur Criminal Court granted the simple suspension of the pronouncement of the sentence to a defendant found guilty this Friday of the theft of hundreds of articles, for an amount of around 60,000 euros, in a second-hand store who employed him, between 2012 and 2016.
According to the civil party and the public prosecutor, the objects were stolen to be resold in other second-hand stores. The boss of the company fired the defendant when he realized inventory problems. The defendant denied the facts during the hearing on February 10: “I have never stolen anything from this store. I actually sold many items to second-hand stores, but they came from the internet or flea markets. Sometimes I bought things from people that my store didn’t want, but I never stole anything.”
Me Holvoet, lawyer for the injured boss, mentioned a very clear file. He specified that hundreds of objects would have been stolen, for a damage of nearly 60,000 euros “The thefts stopped following the dismissal of the defendant. His companion at the time was going to resell the stolen goods in 5 second-hand stores in Wallonia, so as not to arouse suspicion. Investigators contacted these stores and what was sold there by the couple exactly matches the items that disappeared from my client’s inventory.” Me Meurice, counsel for the defendant, pleaded acquittal, considering that no objective element came to prove his client’s guilt.
The Namur Criminal Court’s decision to grant a simple suspension of the sentence may have provided temporary relief to the defendant, but it does not change the serious nature of the allegations once morest him. While the defendant continues to maintain his innocence, the evidence presented by the prosecution suggests otherwise. The theft of hundreds of articles for a value of approximately 60,000 euros is not a minor offense, and the impact of such actions on the business and the people involved cannot be ignored. The outcome of this case may still be uncertain, but what is clear is that justice must be served.
