WILLEMSTAD — The defense team of former president of the Central Bank of Curaçao and Sint Maarten Emsley Tromp has firmly rejected suggestions that their client was in urgent need of personal funds, calling that assumption entirely unfounded.
During appeal proceedings in Tromp’s criminal case, his lawyers argued that there is “absolutely nothing—literally nothing—to indicate that Tromp was facing financial distress or urgently needed money.” According to the defense, the prosecution’s theory of motive is speculative and unsupported by evidence.
The case centers on an agreement dating back to 2009 involving a bank loan of USD 400,000. The loan was formally intended for Armani Exchange N.V., which at the time operated two clothing stores. Prosecutors allege that, despite the wording of the agreement, the funds were ultimately transferred to a private account belonging to Tromp, specifically a pension account, and argue that this points to falsification of documents.
Tromp’s attorneys emphasized that in cases involving alleged falsification, it is not sufficient to claim that a document does not reflect how funds were later used. According to them, the law also requires proof of intent. “The idea that the agreement was falsified because Tromp supposedly needed money personally is completely invented,” the defense stated.
They further argued that the prosecution’s own investigative findings undermine its position. While the Public Prosecution Service has pointed to the use of the funds as evidence that the agreement was materially false, the defense maintains that those same findings show the opposite. A substantial portion of the money was transferred to an investment account and, according to the defense, remained there.
After nearly nine years of investigation, the defense questioned why the prosecution continues to rely on what they describe as a hypothetical criminal scenario, constructed to persuade the court to reach a conviction. They also criticized the ruling of the Court of First Instance, which convicted Tromp on this point using reasoning that differed from the prosecution’s theory.
According to the defense, that judgment rests on grounds that are just as unstable as the prosecution’s argument. The appeal court is expected to further examine whether the elements of intent and falsification have been sufficiently established.