Well, I now know that if I ever want to rob a bank, I should hop onto a plane for the Netherlands. It won’t cost me anything, as Criminals can deduct the cost of crime in the land of dikes and windmills - from the article
Stupid, stupid judge. I know pot is legal there, but that doesn’t mean you should be smoking it behind the bench. I feel sorry for all Dutch Dopers.
I don’t think it’s fair to call the judge stupid. According to the article, he was just enforcing the law:
The law seems stupid to me, but I’d like to learn more about it before passing judgement.
Sounds more than a little bit strange. Does this mean there can be no punitive damages? Fines are imposed as restitution only? What about say, misdemeanors, or even a simple traffic violation?
Does he have to claim the refund on a T4 or is that considered a gift 
UB: Does this mean there can be no punitive damages? Fines are imposed as restitution only?
Not sure, but remember that, according to the article, this guy has also been sentenced to do four years in prison. It’s not as though the financial restitution (less overhead costs) is the only consequence of his crime.
The “less overhead costs” rule about the financial situation of the criminal after the crime having to be the same as it was before the crime does sound peculiar on its face. However, it does kind of make sense if the idea is to discourage future crime. If punitive damages or asset forfeiture wiped out a criminal financially, wouldn’t that make recidivism more likely?
I s’pose it does make sense from that angle, Kimstu. I assume the gov’t then makes up the difference to the wronged party - in this case 2000 Euros. But wouldn’t that mean, in the final analysis, that the people are essentially subsidizing crime? What a weird conundrum.
Random Letters, Thanks for feeling sorry for me. The Netherlands has gone bonkers, lately.
It’s not the judge though. It’s the law.
Gerard Sta of justice says: It’s indeed possible for criminals to deduct their overhead expenses. “It’s about expenses directly related with the criminal act. So, expenses which a criminal otherwise wouldn’t have made. Second condition is that the crime must have been commited already”.
He gives another example: When a hemp plantation is being destroyed by the police, the nurseryman can declare his expenses.
Are we as mad as a hatter?
Oh yes.
I’m waiting for the next throat-slasher to declare his sword.
Wait a minute. Assuming the gun purchase was legal, the man’s financial picture is X before purchase and X-n afterwards. After the crime he has X-n+Z. Since the difference is between the moment before the crime and the moment afterwards he owes the whole Z amount right? Why is it –n+Z?
Does this mean that if you get caught drunk driving in the Netherlands you can deduct the cost of your bar tab?
hehehehe 
It wouldn’t surprise me at all.
We’ve gone mad, I tell you.
Also, there’s no ovens like Dutch ovens.
hehehehe And no uncles like Dutch uncles, huh. And there’s Dutch courage [of which we seem to have a lot, at the moment :rolleyes: ] and ofcourse the Dutch treat.
boy. Am I a happy camper. 
gum: *The Netherlands has gone bonkers, lately. *
Was this law passed “lately”, though? I couldn’t find any more information about the “deductible criminal expenses” law that’s being discussed here, but I don’t think the article implies anywhere that it’s a new law. Do you happen to have any more information about it?
Grey: Since the difference is between the moment before the crime and the moment afterwards he owes the whole Z amount right?
Not according to the linked article: it says that the criminal’s costs that “have a direct relationship to the criminal offence”, and wouldn’t have been incurred otherwise, are deductible from the amount required for restitution. So it’s not the moment immediately before the crime that’s being used as a basis of comparison to evaluate the criminal’s before-and-after financial status, apparently.
gum: *And there’s Dutch courage [of which we seem to have a lot, at the moment ] *
You mean, folks are drinking more than usual? (“Dutch courage” means boldness induced by alcohol consumption.)
To play devil’s advocate here:
I’m assuming the gun was confiscated by police. (The article doesn’t make this clear, but the analogy with police confiscating a cannibis plantation seems to suggest this.) So his financial picture is X before purchase and X-n+(a gun) afterwards. After the crime he has X-n+(a gun)+Z, after his arrest he has X-n+Z but no gun. Hence the difference between “before the crime” and “after the arrest” is indeed Z-n.
Apparently Dutch law works under the assumption that the punishment for a crime doesn’t have to include the financial losses associated with the police seizing the implements of the crime. Which is…interesting. I can see how this might be a defensible position, although I don’t agree with it myself.
Only if the police extract the booze you’ve already consumed from your bloodstream and confiscate it, I imagine.
IF the criminal had failed to get any money from the bank, would he still be able to claim the gun as expenses?
I don’t know about the Netherlands specifically, but in many European countries, there are indeed no punitive damages. However there are “ordinary” damages and fines.
Depends if he got caught, I imagine.
hehehehe Orbifold
Sort of like a Bloody Mary, huh.
I really don’t know much about this law. As soon as I start on the criminal path, I’ll look it up.
Well my point was that he legally purchased the gun with no intent to commit a crime. So the purchase has as much bearing on the case as the purchase of a car would. The gun exists outside of the crime since it can have a myriad of legal uses.
Now if he intended to purchase a weapon to commit a crime that sounds like some sort of conspiracy charge and so potentially illegal. So he committed a crime as he was purchasing it, it shouldn’t be considered a legitimate asset.
From the limited article, what a dumb idea, but there likely a subtle Dutch twist to it I’m unfamiliar with.
On preview I see Orbifold’s response. I guess if it’s a legal asset then it can be held by the state to be returned once the sentence is finished. Whether or not the state allows a convicted robber access to an asset that becomes devalued through his actions would be an interesting question.
A gun costs EUR 2,000 in the Netherlands? No wonder they have to rob banks.
Hahahahahaha *::wiping tears from eyes:: * Thanks for that, Finagle.
btw: I guess the reason they costs so much is because guns are illegal here. What do they cost in the USA?