Sevinger’s Shadow Grows: What the Court’s Money Trail Reveals

Earlier, I wrote about the corruption case against Benny “Avestruz” Sevinger, comparing it to the Dutch trial of Richard de Mos. That piece focused on legal nuance, evidence, and outcomes. But since then, new developments have emerged.

On April 3, 2025, the Court of First Instance in Aruba issued a ruling in the ontnemingszaak – the forfeiture case connected to Sevinger’s criminal conviction. For those still arguing that Benny was unfairly targeted, this 15-page ruling offers not just accusations, but forensic accounting – and a financial story that speaks louder than any political spin.

But before we get to the numbers, we must look back at what happened last July.

The Appeal That Changed Everything

Sevinger’s legal battle began with a trial in the Court of First Instance of Aruba. That court acquitted him of several charges and found him guilty only of lesser offenses. He received a sentence of twelve months, of which six were conditional. After automatic deductions and credit for pretrial detention, the net jail time would have amounted to approximately three months.

Even that relatively light sentence would have carried political consequences but the to be served was minimal. Sevinger however, took a calculated risk by appealing the decision – a risk that, as I wrote at the time, came with serious risk e due to some apparent flaws in the initial judgment.

The gamble backfired.

In July 2024, the Joint Court of Justice didn’t just uphold the charges – it expanded them, finding Sevinger guilty of more serious offenses, including embezzlement, bribery, and abuse of office. His sentence was quadrupled to 48 months, with a net sentence of nearly 30 months behind bars. The court sent an unambiguous message: abuse of public office will not be tolerated.

Sevinger responded by lashing out, accusing the judiciary and prosecution of political bias. As I said then, such claims – without evidence – are not only unfounded, they are dangerous. They erode public trust in the very system that upholds our democracy.

From Fence to Fortune: Afl. 840.051,91

That same spirit of accountability carried into the forfeiture ruling. In my earlier column, based on the decision by the court it was estimated that Sevinger had improperly received around Afl. 180.120 in gifts and cash. That included a garden fence (Afl. 14.400), gym equipment (Afl. 19.897), and funds funneled through his foundation, Fundacion Curason Berde.

But that was only the tip of the cactus.

The forfeiture court concluded that Sevinger unlawfully enriched himself to the tune of Afl. 840.051,91. It wasn’t just a few gifts. This was a structured, prolonged pattern of unexplained wealth and lifestyle upgrades, including:

• Extensive renovations to his home (Afl. 455.247 in materials and labor)
• Frequent travel (Afl. 70.913)
• Rent payments for a daughter’s apartment in the U.S. (Afl. 39.462)
• Real estate and share purchases (Afl. 20.000)

“He Worked Hard” — But the Math Doesn’t Lie

Supporters of Sevinger often argue: he worked hard, held mortgages, had a long public service career – why wouldn’t he be able to afford a better lifestyle?

It’s a fair question. But the court has answered.

Ministers in Aruba earn about Afl. 180.000 gross per year. Over nine years, that income is substantial. But the court didn’t guess – it calculated.

Sevinger and his wife brought in Afl. 839.436,56 in (cash) income from various sources. Yet their cash spending over the same period was Afl. 1.631.665,78. That’s a shortfall of nearly Afl. 800.000 – even after accounting for savings, loans, and the sale of property. On top of that, the court identified Afl. 74.719,94 in direct, provable gifts linked to acts of corruption.

So no, the claim that “there’s no proof he received money” is no longer accurate. There is not just proof – there is a detailed financial audit reviewed and approved by the court.

Financial Snapshot & Court Calculation (Sevinger & Spouse, 2009–2017)

• Starting Cash (as of Jan 1, 2009):       Afl.           454,75
• Total Cash Receipts (2009–2017):       Afl.   839.436,56
• Total Cash Spending (2009–2017):     Afl. 1.631.665,78
• Unexplained Shortfall: Afl.   792.229,22

• Specific Unlawful Benefits: Afl.      74.719,94
• Excluded Transactions: Afl.      27.897,25
• Subtotal from Transactions: Afl.      46.822,69

Total Unlawful Enrichment: Afl.      840.051,91

Source: Court ruling, April 3, 2025

The Tax Department: Alert or Complacent

One can’t help but wonder: will the Tax Department now do its part? The court has clearly outlined the income, the spending, and the unexplained shortfall. Are the tax filings over that same period consistent with the financial reality the court exposed? In the past I know certain tax inspectors started the week by coming through the media to see if there was any indication of spendings that didn’t match the tax fillings made. Like how can you report 2 expensive Rolex’s stolen when you report a minimal income? Or will the tax authorities shy away from auditing a former minister? Because if the spending outpaces the declared income – and taxes weren’t paid on the difference – the consequences shouldn’t end in criminal court. The tax department is going to want its fair share. Justice, after all, has more than one door.

New Names, Familiar Patterns

What’s especially revealing in this latest ruling are the new names that surfaced – not politicians, but companies and entities that hadn’t appeared in earlier judgments.

Businesses like Fantastic Garden (Afl. 25.201,64), L.A. Ornamental (Afl. 14.400,00), and the already known Vectra Gym from fellow defendant P. Susebeek  (Afl. 19.897,20) were linked to gifts or purchases made on Sevinger’s behalf – often in kind, often in cash, and often without clear justification. We also see entities like Nautilus Travel (Afl. 65.695,78), Banjo-Lux (Afl. 31.268,59), and Island’s Best (Afl. 39.640,70) woven into the financial trail – all paid in cash  – all pointing to a lifestyle that could not be funded legally. These names are mentioned in the decision. No flag was raised by these cash spendings by a minister? 

This wasn’t a one-off mistake. It was a pattern.

The Defense: Defeated Arguments

Sevinger’s legal team put forward a range of explanations to challenge the prosecution’s case. As often happens in complex cases, the court weighed those arguments carefully but ultimately found them unconvincing.

• Piñata and garage sales by his wife were mentioned as sources of cash income, but no concrete evidence supported them – and not anywhere close to Afl. 800K.
• Multiple house renovation reports offered differing totals – Afl. 67.000, Afl. 191.279, and Afl. 218.630 – leading the court to question their reliability.
• Claims that a daughter paid her own rent and travel expenses were not substantiated with financial records.
• The argument that utility bills were tied to a different address was also rejected.
• And finally, a request to delay the ruling pending the outcome of the Supreme Court Appeal was denied, as the court found no procedural grounds to postpone.

As a lawyer, I fully understand the defense’s role to raise all reasonable arguments available. They did what good advocates do: present alternatives, challenge assumptions, and press the court for clarity. But in this instance, the evidence – especially financial – seem to have outweighed those efforts.

Sevinger has announced that he will appeal this forfeiture ruling. That is his legal right. And while things can always change on appeal, it is worth noting that this would return the case to the same appellate court that previously quadrupled his sentence in July 2024. That fact alone suggests the path ahead is not without legal risk.

A Tale of Two Politicians

Some still point to the case of Dutch politician Richard de Mos, who was acquitted of corruption charges, as evidence that Benny Sevinger may also have been unfairly treated. But that argument doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. The difference is simple but decisive: De Mos was acquitted. Benny was convicted.

The Dutch court found insufficient proof of criminal intent or personal enrichment. The Aruban courts – two of them – came to the opposite conclusion in Sevinger’s case. The appellate court didn’t just uphold the charges, it quadrupled his sentence. The forfeiture court then followed the money and confirmed that his wealth couldn’t be explained by legal means. That distinction matters. One man walked free because the evidence didn’t hold. The other now owes Aruba more than Afl. 840.000 and faces a long prison sentence. That’s not politics – that’s justice doing its job, one case at a time.

Justice Speaks Out

Just one day after the court handed down the forfeiture ruling in Sevinger’s case, the Prosecution took the stage – literally.

During the installation of three new judges at the Joint Court of Justice on April 4, 2025, a senior representative of the Prosecutor addressed the audience. While the tone was ceremonial, the message could not have been clearer. The speaker noted – without naming names – that Aruba has seen a wave of corruption cases involving former ministers. Some were convicted at first instance. Others were sentenced on appeal, stripped of their right to hold office. One sitting minister was even arrested in late 2024.

And then came a line that cut through the noise:

“The Public Prosecution Service is not politically motivated… When a politician is prosecuted, it is only because there is evidence of a punishable offense.”

In the wake of Sevinger’s repeated claims of political bias, this statement was more than clarification – it was a quiet but forceful affirmation of institutional independence. Coming less than 24 hours after a ruling that exposed over Afl. 840.000 in illicit gain, this was not just symbolic. It was principled. It was timely. And it was necessary.

Closing: Follow the Money, Find the Truth

Corruption doesn’t begin with bags of cash. It begins with justifications. It’s deserved. It’s owed. It’s politics. But when you follow the money, those narratives collapse.

This ruling doesn’t just confirm guilt – it confirms the scale, the method, and the impact. And it reminds us that no matter how popular or powerful a figure may be, no one is above the law.

Still, it’s important to remember that behind every conviction is a human being. Sevinger had a long career in public service, and there may have been moments where his work made a difference. But even before this criminal conviction, courts –  including in civil proceedings – had already condemned and even nullified decisions made during his tenure, particularly when it became clear that good governance was not his strong suit.

See you next week. In the meantime, head over to www.lincolngomez.com to read all my blogs and listen to the latest podcasts.