ANP Productions | Source: ANP
Yesterday at 2:24 PM
Amsterdam
The case revolves around a client of Roethof who was arrested in the summer of 2020. The client was placed under restriction, which means he is only allowed to have contact with his lawyer. The lawyer is also not allowed to share information. Yet information has emerged. This is said to be evident from decrypted Encrochat messages, in which three anonymous users spoke about the amount of money that had been seized from Roethof’s client.
“The judgment that I violated the restrictions is incorrect. The judgment is based on incomplete, incorrect and unverifiable information,” Roethof responds to the council’s ruling. “It concerns information from a completely anonymous source. Moreover, no weight was wrongly given to the fact that these restrictions were only imposed more than half a day after the arrest.”
Evidence
The Discipline Board states that on the basis of Encrochat messages in combination with cell tower data, “it can be established with sufficient certainty that Mr. Roethof violated the restrictions imposed on his client by sharing information about his client’s criminal case with third parties”. The council believes that Roethof has seriously damaged confidence in the legal profession.
Roethof: “It is a special sensation for me to find that ‘evidence’ that would lead to an acquittal in a criminal case is apparently sufficient in a disciplinary case to declare a complaint well-founded.”