WILLEMSTAD – A dispute has emerged between the Algemene Rekenkamer Curaçao and the Government of Curaçao over how funds allocated to the Criminaliteitsbestrijdingsfonds should be accounted for in the country’s public finances.
The disagreement is outlined in the recently published Report on the 2023 Annual Accounts of the Country of Curaçao by the Audit Chamber. According to the ARC, the Crime-Fighting Fund falls under the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice and should therefore be included in the annual financial statements of the country. In the view of the watchdog, this is necessary to ensure proper parliamentary oversight and transparency over the use of public funds.
The government, however, takes a different position. In its formal response to the ARC, it argues that the Crime-Fighting Fund operates as a separate entity established by national ordinance and should not be treated as a regular organization without legal personality. The government maintains that the Landsverordening Criminaliteitsfonds provides the legal basis for the fund to receive its resources, including revenues transferred from fines imposed by the state.
According to the cabinet, a separate protocol linked to the ordinance governs the transfer of these funds, making the flow of money lawful even if the fund itself does not have independent legal personality. On that basis, the government concludes that there is no requirement to include the Crime-Fighting Fund in the annual accounts of the country.
The Audit Chamber has rejected that reasoning. In its report, the ARC states that the government’s explanation does not alter its assessment and that its position remains unchanged. The watchdog continues to insist that the fund should be accounted for within the country’s financial statements, in line with principles of transparency and public accountability.
The differing interpretations highlight an ongoing tension between the government and the Audit Chamber over financial governance and oversight, particularly in areas linked to justice and public safety. Whether the issue will lead to changes in reporting practices or further debate in Parliament remains to be seen.