Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 220-7 Filed 08/11/21 Page 1 of 23
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 220-7 Filed 08/11/21 Page 1 of 23
`
`EXHIBIT 1.F
`EXHIBIT 1.F
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 220-7 Filed 08/11/21 Page 2 of 23
`
`ECLI : N L : RBN N E :2021 :341
`
`JudiciaÍ authority
`
`District Court of Noord-Nederland
`
`Date of judgment
`
`January 27,2021
`
`Date of publication
`
`February 9,2021
`
`Case No.
`
`ct 1Bt 197261 I HA ZA 20-28
`
`Areas of law
`
`Civil law
`
`Specific features
`
`First instance - three-judge panel
`
`Content indication
`
`Motion 843a DCCP granted in part
`
`Sources
`
`Rechtspraak.nl
`
`Judgment
`
`judgment
`
`DISTRIGT COURT OF NOORD-NEDERLAND
`
`Civil law section
`
`Location Groningen
`
`Case No. / Docket No.: C/181197261 lHAZA20-28
`
`Judgment in the motions of January 27,2A21
`
`in the matter of
`
`í [plaintiff 1l ,
`residing in Maassluis,
`
`2. [plaintiff 2],
`
`residing in Groningen,
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 220-7 Filed 08/11/21 Page 3 of 23
`
`plaintiffs in the main action and applicants in the motion,
`
`respondents in the independent motion,
`
`attorneys LS. Oosterhoff and O.E. van Erp Taalman Kip, practicing in Amsterdam,
`
`1 [defendant 1] ,
`
`residing in Groningen,
`defendant in the main action and respondent in the motion,
`applicant in the independent motion,
`attorney C. Grondsma, practicing in Leeuwarden,
`2. the close corporation
`
`[defendant 2],
`
`domiciled in Groningen,
`defendant in the main action and respondent in the motion,
`applicant in the independent motion,
`attorneys C. Grondsma, practicing in Leeuwarden,
`3. the public corporation
`
`[defendant 31,
`
`domiciled in Groningen,
`defendant in the main action and respondent in the motion,
`attorneys J.H. Duyvensz and M.J. van de Graaf, practicing in Amsterdam,
`4. the civil law foundation
`[defendant 4],
`
`domiciled in Groningen,
`defendant in the main action and respondent in the motion,
`attorneys J.H. Duyvensz and M.J. van de Graaf, practicing in Amsterdam,
`s. [defendant 5],
`residing in Paterswolde,
`defendant in the main action and respondent in the motion,
`attorneys J.H. Duyvensz and M.J. van de Graaf, practicing in Amsterdam,
`
`6. [defendant 6] ,
`
`without a known domicile in the Netherlands,
`defendant in the main action and respondent in the motion,
`applicant in the independent motion,
`attorney C. Grondsma, practicing in Leeuwarden.
`
`[the plaintiffs] are hereinafter referred to as the 'Heirs'. The defendants in the main action and the
`respondents in the motion are hereinafter separately referred to as [defendant 1], [defendant 2],
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 220-7 Filed 08/11/21 Page 4 of 23
`
`[defendant 3], [defendant 4], [defendant 5] and [defendant 6]. Where reference is made to
`[defendant 1], [defendant 2] and [defendant 6] jointly, they will be referred to as [defendant 6] et al.
`Where reference is made to [defendant 3], [defendant 5] and [defendant 4]jointly, they will be
`referred to as [defendant 3] et al.
`1 The proceedings
`
`1 . í. The course of the proceedings is evident from the following:
`
`- the summons also containing a motion in terms of Article B43a of the Dutch Code of Civil
`Procedure, ('DCCP'), of November 14,2019,
`
`- the motion containing a change of claim in the Heirs' motion of March 25,2020,
`
`- the answer to the motion of [defendant 3] et al. of May 6,2020,
`
`- the answer to the motion of [defendant 6] et al. of May 6,2020, also containing an independent
`motion in the ancillary proceedings on the basis of Article 843a, DCCP,
`
`- the answer to the Heirs' independent motion of July 1,2020,
`
`- the document containing exhibits (45 and 46) of the Heirs of November 10,2020,
`
`- the official record of the hearing in the ancillary proceedings of November 10,2020,
`accompanied by notes of the hearing of the Heirs, [defendant 3] et al. and [defendant 6] et al.
`1.2. Finally, a date was scheduled for the judgment in the ancillary proceedings.
`tI
`2.23. ln a decision of July 1 , 2019, at the Heirs' request, this Court ordered a preliminary witness
`examination to hear [defendant 1], chief executive officer [defendant 4] [name 13], board member
`[defendant 4], [defendant 5] and [defendant 6].
`P.J. Duinkerken was appointed as the investigating judge. The witnesses were heard on September
`18,2019. During the preliminary witness examinations, [defendant 5] gave the following statement
`(where relevant here):
`
`(...)"ln response to your question as to who I believed to be the beneficiary at the time, I would like to
`invoke my right to remain silent. I would like to explain this by stating that at the time I had a
`statement by the executive director [name 2] at my disposal and I wanted to check whether it was
`accurate. Regarding the date of that statement I would like to invoke my right to remain silent. I do
`however confirm that this statement dates from before the date on which the money was paid in the
`account of [defendant 4l'( )
`2.24. ln a notice of appeal of February 12, 2020, [defendant 5] appealed the decisions of the Board
`of Discipline on the Heirs'complaints, the Tax and Customs Administration and the Dean. The Dean
`and the Tax and Customs Administration and the Dean also filed an appeal. On October 4,2020, the
`oral hearing before the Disciplinary Appeals Tribunalwas held.
`
`2.25. ln decisions of December 4,2020 (ECLI:NL:TADRARL:2020:61), part of the Dean's appeal was
`declared well-founded. The Disciplinary Appeals Tribunal set aside the disputed decisions with docket
`nos. 19-375 and 19-376, suspending the practise of [defendant 5]and [name 12]for a period of four
`weeks of which two weeks were conditional. The Disciplinary Appeals Tribunal set aside part of the
`decision (with docket no. 19-377) on the Dean's complaint against the executive directors of
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 220-7 Filed 08/11/21 Page 5 of 23
`
`[defendant 4]while declaring the complaint against [defendant 5] well-founded, without imposing any
`disciplinary measures.
`
`2,26. ln decisions of December 4,2020 (ECLI:NL:TADRARL:2020:62), part of the appeal of
`[defendant 5] was declared well-founded. The Disciplinary Appeals Tribunal set aside part of the
`Board of Discipline's decision on the Heirs' complaint (docket no. 19-371) relating to the measure
`imposed by the Board and issued a reprimand to [defendant 5].
`
`2.27. ln decisions of December 4,2020 (ECLI:NL:TADRARL:2020:49), part of the appeal of the Tax
`and Customs Administration MKB Groningen was declared well-founded. The Disciplinary Appeals
`Tribunal set aside part of the disputed decisions with docket nos. í 9-373 and 19-374 while issuing a
`reprimand to [defendant 5] and [name 12].
`
`3 The claim in the Heirs' motion
`
`3.1 . The Heirs claim (after increasing their claim) an immediately enforceable judgment
`ordering [defendant 1] et al., principally, to issue copies, and, alternatively, to allow
`examination of the following records, with the defendants at which the claim is directed being
`stated in brackets:
`
`tl
`x. as set out in para. 49 of the summons, the deceased spoke with [defendant 5] at [defendant
`3l on or around February 22,2016. lt follows from the Tax and Customs Administration's
`timeline (exhibit 21 to the summons) that the deceased had left "a folder with some
`documents at [defendant 3]". The Heirs claim a copy of or examination oft the full file of the
`deceased that is held at [defendant 3], including the documents that the deceased left at
`[defendant 3] on or around February 22,2016 (of [defendant 1], of [defendant 5] and of
`[defendant 3l',
`
`y. during the preliminary witness examination, [defendant 5] of [defendant 3] stated the
`following:
`
`( - )"ln response to your question as to who I believed to be the beneficiary at the time, I would
`like to invoke my right to remain silent. I would like to explain this by stating that at the time I
`had a statement by the executive director [name 2] at my disposal and I wanted to check
`whether it was accurate. Regarding the date of that statement I would like to invoke my right
`to remain silent. I do however confirm that this statement dates from before the date on which
`the money was paid in the account of [defendant al'( )
`The Heirs claim examination of or a copy of this statement (of (defendant 3l and of (defendant
`5l ),
`t1
`5 The assessment
`Action plan
`
`5.1. lt must be assessed in these proceedings whether [defendant 6] et al. and [defendant 3]
`et al. must disclose (or allow examination of) the records requested by the Heirs. The Heirs
`base their claim on Article B43a DCCP.
`
`5.2. At the oral hearing it was noted, on behalf of [defendant 6] et al., that if the motions were
`granted, either fully or in part, it would be logical for them (rather than for [defendant 3] et al.)
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 220-7 Filed 08/11/21 Page 6 of 23
`
`to disclose the requested records. After setting out the review framework relevant to the
`assessment, this court must therefore first discuss the claims directed at [defendant 6] et al.
`and the general defenses they have raised. Next, it will discuss the defenses relating to the
`separate records whose disclosure (or examination) is requested. Following this, the claims
`relating to [defendant 3] et al. are discussed. Finally, this court will decide on the independent
`motion that [defendant 6] et al. have filed.
`
`Obligation to produce exhibits
`
`5.3. On the basis of Article B43a(1) DCCP, anyone with a lawful interest, may request, at his
`own expense, examination of, a copy of or an extract from speclflc records relating to a legal
`relationship to which he or his legal predecessor is a pafty, from the party who has the records
`at his disposal or in his custody, a claim which, in the absence of objections, should in
`principle be allowed.
`
`5.4. Generally speaking, a lawfulrnferesf within the meaning of Article 843a(1) DCCP exists if
`the party requesting that copy does not have that document at its disposal but is familiar with
`its existence and would like to enter that document into the proceedings.
`
`5.5. For the assessment of a claim on the basis of Article 843a DCCP, the existence of the
`legal relationship to which the claim relates must be sufficiently plausible. There is no general
`answer to the question of what is regarded as a 'sufficient' degree of plausibility within the
`context of a claim based on Article 843a DCCP if an unlawful act is asserted. This always
`depends on the valuation of the parties' assertions and defenses and the persuasive power of
`any evidence that has already been filed. On the one hand, the basic assumption is that this
`does not have to comply with the degree of plausibility required for allowing a claim for an
`injunction or relief or a damages claim in summary proceedings based on an (impending)
`failure in performance or unlawful act; on the other hand, a higher degree of plausibility of the
`asserted failure in performance or unlawful act is required in the assessment of a claim for
`access than in a claim for seizure of evidence (Dutch Supreme Court July 10,2020,
`ECLI:NL:HR:1251).
`
`5.6. The requested documents must be sufficiently specific; there must be a sufficiently
`concrete assertion that and why the specific documents are relevant in order to avoid a
`"fishing expedition". Article 843a DGCP does not serve to request documents that parties
`believe to be of possible use in the proceedings. ln the Theodoor G/lssen Bankiersjudgment
`(Dutch Supreme Court October 26,2012, ECLI:NL:HR:2012:8W9244),
`the Dutch Supreme
`Court found that documents are sufficiently specified to qualify as 'specific' within the meaning
`of Article 843a DCCP where there is a reasonable ground to assume that the requested
`documents exist and where the claim relates to subject that is carefully demarcated. The
`records do not in all cases have to be individually described. A description of the categories of
`documents is sufficient.
`
`5.7. Under Article 843a(3) and (4) DCCP, a claim for the submission of records does not need
`to be complied with by a person who is bound by confidentiality by virtue of his office,
`profession or employment (paragraph 3) or if there are compelling reasons for not doing so
`(paragraph 4).
`
`tl
`the motions relatinq to [defendant 3l et al.
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 220-7 Filed 08/11/21 Page 7 of 23
`
`5.38. Except for the records listed at y, the claims for disclosure are directed at [defendant 6]
`et al. and [defendant 3] et al. lf the claims relating to [defendant 6] et al. (except for the
`records listed at p, v and x) are allowed almost in their entirety, this court will only deliver a
`ruling at this point by way of a preliminary ruling on the claims at x and y and stay any rulings
`on the other claims of [defendant 3] et al. Following the disclosure of documents by [defendant
`6l et al., the Heirs may deliberate and comment on whether and if so why they persist, either
`fully or in part, in their motions to the extent that they are directed against [defendant 3] et al.
`A ruling will then be delivered on those claims.
`atxandaty
`5.39. The report by the inspector [name 1í] of the Tax and Customs Administration, filed as
`exhibit 21 to the summons (cited in these proceedings as'the timeline'), states the following:
`
`On Monday February 22, 2016, Mr. fplaintifl [court: the deceasedl discussed with [defendant
`5l the amendment to the articles of assoclation of [name 2] and the matter of the 'declaration
`of being alive', among other things. Mr. [plaintiff] left a folder with some documents with PB
`[court: [defendant 3]1.
`
`5.40. At x, the Heirs request the disclosure of the folder with documents that the deceased left
`with [defendant 3] on or around February 22,2016. This court concurs with the Heirs' view
`that the content of the folder which the deceased had handed to [defendant 5j may help the
`Heirs in substantiating their position relating to the ownership of the stock and the money
`found in the home of the deceased. Regarding the legal relationship that is required for
`reliance on Article 843a DCCP, this court refers to its findings in para. 5.14. Regarding the
`records whose disclosure is requested, this court finds that there are reasonable grounds to
`presume that the requested documents exist. Nor have [defendant 3] et al. disputed that the
`deceased left a folder with [defendant 5] on February 22,2016.
`5.41. Aly, the Heirs request the disclosure of the statement of the deceased which [defendant
`5l has at his disposal. During the preliminary witness examination, [defendant 5] stated the
`following about this.
`
`"ln response to your question as to who I believed to be the beneficiary at the time, I would like to
`invoke my right to remain silent. I would like to explain this by stating that at the time I had a
`statement by the executive director [name 2] at my disposal and I wanted to check whether it was
`accurate. Regarding the date of that statement I would like to invoke my right to remain silent. I do
`however confirm that this statement dates from before the date on which the money was paid in the
`account of [defendant 4]"
`
`5.42. This court concurs with the Heirs' view that the document (or at least the statement)
`deemed to be regarded as sufficiently specific can help them in substantiating their position
`relating to the ownership of the stock and the money found in the home of the deceased.
`Regarding the legal relationship that is required for reliance on Article 843a DCCP, this court
`refers to its findings in para. 5.14.
`
`5.43. lt follows from the foregoing that the requirements set out in the first paragraph of Article
`8a3a(1) DCCP for the disclosure of the records referred to at x and at v are satisfied.
`
`5.44. On the basis of Article 8a3a(3) and (4) DCCP, a motion for the submission of records
`does not have to be complied with by a person who is bound by confidentiality by virtue of his
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 220-7 Filed 08/11/21 Page 8 of 23
`
`office, profession or employment (paragraph 3) or if there are compelling reasons for not
`doing so (paragraph 4).
`
`5.45. The Heirs assert that it follows from the files found by the Tax and Customs
`Administration on the business computer of the deceased that the latter had contacted
`[defendant 5] in a private capacity and that the documents handed over in that context do not
`fall under the duty of confidentialÍty because the Hairs are entitled to disclosure in their
`capacity as his legal successors by universaltitle.
`
`Should this court find that the folder with documents does fall under the duty of confidentiality
`of [defendant 5], the reliance on (derivative) legal privilege should be rejected according to the
`Heirs due to the compelling interests on their part in gaining insight into the scale of their
`father's estate. Especially as the defendants in this case are not only the clients of [defendant
`5l but also of [defendant 5], [defendant 3] and [defendant 4] and the latter have engaged in
`criminal actions because funds have been embezzled according to the Heirs.
`
`5.46. ln that context [defendant 3] et al. assert that they are not bound to disclose these
`records because [defendant 5] had not carried out work for the deceased in a private capacity
`and the deceased had handed over the documents in his capacity as board member of [name
`2l andlor as the authorized representative of [defendant 6]. [Defendant 5] must observe the
`confidentiality of any information entrusted to him by clients [defendant 6] and [name 2] In his
`capacity as attorney. [Defendant 3] et al. claim that they therefore have (derivative) legal
`privilege.
`
`5.47. This court's preliminary finding is that, in the light of the explanation given by [defendant
`5l (or at least [defendant 3] et al.), the Heirs have not asserted sufficient relevant facts and
`circumstances on the basis of which it should be assumed that the documents at x and at y
`were handed to [defendant 5] in his capacity as the attorney of the deceased. lt does not
`follow from the conversation notes filed with this court as exhibit 46, which the deceased drew
`up after talking with [defendant 5] and civil law notary [name 8] on March 9, 2016 that the
`folder contained private data of the deceased. ln his report of their talks, the deceased
`referred to the content as'draft new Articles of Association, General Meeting, Old Age
`Pension 2016, declaration of being alive, my extensive explanation, etc'.lt has therefore not
`been shown, for now, that the Heirs can lay claim to the records referred to at x and at y in
`their capacity as legal successors by universal title. lt must be presumed in law for the time
`being that the records were entrusted to [defendant 5] in his capacity as attorney of [name 2]
`and/or [defendant 6]. This is not altered by the fact that the deceased may have instructed a
`civil law notary of the firm of [defendant 5] to prepare a notarial deed or testament.
`
`5.48. An attorney is part of the limited group of persons who are obliged to observe
`confidentiality in respect of anything that is entrusted to them in their capacity as attorney by
`virtue of the nature of their function in society. Consequently, an attorney may rely on legal
`privilege in order to refrain from disclosing information. The basis for this right to legal privilege
`is a general legal principle operating in the Netherlands that, for this trusted adviser, the public
`interest in uncovering the truth in court is outweighed by the public interest of anyone being
`able to contact him for assistance and advice freely and without fear of their discussions being
`disclosed. This principle is, inÍeralia, explicitly enshrined in civil law in Article 165(2Xb)and (3)
`DCCP and the provisions of Article 8a3a(3) DCCP (cf. Dutch Supreme Court March 1, 1985,
`ECLI : NL: HR:AC9066 Nofaris Maas).
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 220-7 Filed 08/11/21 Page 9 of 23
`
`5.49. The duty of confidentiality also applies, in principle, to persons who carry out work for
`the attorney or civil law notary to whom records were entrusted in those capacities. They may
`rely on derivative legal privilege. The assessment of whether records qualiíy for reliance on
`legal privilege is, in principle, for the attorney relying on such privilege to decide.
`
`5.50. Legal prtvilege is not an absolute right that can never be overridden. ln very exceptional
`circumstances, the interests of uncovering the truth must take precedence over attorney-client
`privilege. lf the attorney relying on legal privilege is himself suspected of involvement with
`serious criminal activity, and there are reasonable indications oÍ that suspicion, he may not
`rely on legal privilege. The Dutch Supreme Court finds that in those cases there are very
`exceptional circumstances to justify overriding attorney-client privilege (Dutch Supreme Court
`June 14, 2005, ECLI:NL:HR:2005.4T4418).
`
`It is not possible to summarize, in terms of a general rule, the answer to the question of which
`circumstances should be classified as very exceptional. The simple fact that an attorney is
`classed as a suspect is not enough, in any event, but the suspicion of a serious crime - such
`as the attorney forming a criminal conspiracy with specific clients - would be. ln those cases,
`the interests of those clients who have entrusted certain knowledge in that criminal situation to
`the attorney, on the assumption that it will be kept secret, must yield to the interest of
`uncovering the truth.
`
`5.5'1. ln view of the assertions made by the Heirs in that context, this court finds that it has for
`the time being not been shown that there are very exceptional circumstances that mean that
`the interests of uncovering the truth in this case must take precedence over attorney-client
`privilege. The motion for the disclosure of the records listed at x and at v will be denied at this
`stage of the proceedings.
`I]
`6 The decision
`
`This court
`
`ln the ancillary proceedinqs
`i1
`6.5. denies, by way of a preliminary ruling, the claims set out in para. 3.'1 at x and at y of
`[defendant 5] and [defendant 3],
`tl
`This judgment was delivered by M.A.B. Faber-Siermann, P.J. Duinkerken and M. Griffioen
`and pronounced in open court by. P.J. Duinkerken on January 27, 2021.
`
`rhl477
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 220-7 Filed 08/11/21 Page 10 of 23
`
`.1* 1
`
`l, Anne Hermine Hendriks, residing in Amsterdam, duly sworn as a translator for the English language
`by the District Court of Amsterdam and listed under number 2321 in the Dutch Register of Sworn
`lnterpreters and Translators (ReglsÍer beédigde tolken en vertalers) of the Dutch LegalAid Board
`(Raad voor Rechtsbijstand), the official register of sworn interpreters and translators recognised and
`approved by the Dutch Ministry of Justice, certify that the foregoing document is a true and faithful
`translation of the Dutch source text, a copy of which is hereby attached.
`
`Amsterdam, August 10, 2021
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 220-7 Filed 08/11/21 Page 11 of 23
`
`ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2021:341
`
`Rechtbank Noord-Nederland
`Instantie
`27-01-2021
`Datum uitspraak
`09-02-2021
`Datum publicatie
`C/18/197261 / HA ZA 20-28
`Zaaknummer
`Civiel recht
`Rechtsgebieden
`Bijzondere kenmerken Eerste aanleg - meervoudig
`Inhoudsindicatie
`
`Incidentele vordering 843a Rv ten dele toegewezen
`
`Vindplaatsen
`
`Rechtspraak.nl 
`
`Uitspraak
`
`vonnis
`
`RECHTBANK NOORD-NEDERLAND
`
`Afdeling privaatrecht
`
`Locatie Groningen
`
`zaaknummer / rolnummer: C/18/197261 / HA ZA 20-28
`
`Vonnis in de incidenten van 27 januari 2021
`
`in de zaak van
`
`1 [eiser 1] ,
`
`wonende te Maassluis,
`
`2. [eiser 2],
`
`wonende te Groningen,
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 220-7 Filed 08/11/21 Page 12 of 23
`
`eisers in de hoofdzaak en in het incident,
`
`verweerders in het (zelfstandig) incident,
`
`advocaten mrs. I.S. Oosterhoff en O.E. van Erp Taalman Kip te Amsterdam,
`
`tegen
`
`1 [gedaagde 1] ,
`
`wonende te Groningen,
`
`gedaagde in de hoofdzaak en in het incident,
`
`eiseres in het (zelfstandig) incident,
`
`advocaat mr. C. Grondsma te Leeuwarden,
`
`2. de besloten vennootschap met beperkte aansprakelijkheid
`
`[gedaagde 2] ,
`
`gevestigd te Groningen,
`
`gedaagde in de hoofdzaak en in het incident,
`
`eiseres in het (zelfstandig) incident,
`
`advocaat mr. C. Grondsma te Leeuwarden,
`
`3. de naamloze vennootschap
`
`[gedaagde 3] ,
`
`gevestigd te Groningen,
`
`gedaagde in de hoofdzaak en in het incident,
`
`advocaten mrs. J.H. Duyvensz en M.J. van de Graaf te Amsterdam,
`
`4. de stichting
`
`[gedaagde 4] ,
`
`gevestigd te Groningen,
`
`gedaagde in de hoofdzaak en in het incident,
`
`advocaat mrs. J.H. Duyvensz en M.J. van de Graaf te Amsterdam,
`
`5. [gedaagde 5],
`
`wonende te Paterswolde,
`
`gedaagde in de hoofdzaak en in het incident,
`
`advocaat mr. J.H. Duyvensz en M.J. van de Graaf te Amsterdam,
`
`6 [gedaagde 6] ,
`
`zonder bekende woon- of verblijfplaats binnen of buiten Nederland,
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 220-7 Filed 08/11/21 Page 13 of 23
`
`gedaagde in de hoofdzaak en in het incident,
`
`eiseres in het (zelfstandig) incident,
`
`advocaat mr. C. Grondsma te Leeuwarden.
`
`[eisers] zullen hierna als 'de erven' worden aangeduid. Gedaagden in de hoofdzaak en het incident
`worden hierna afzonderlijk [gedaagde 1] , [gedaagde 2] , [gedaagde 3] , [gedaagde 4] , mr.
`[gedaagde 5] en [gedaagde 6] genoemd. Waar [gedaagde 1] , [gedaagde 2] en [gedaagde 6]
`gezamenlijk worden bedoeld zullen zij als [gedaagde 6] c.s. worden aangeduid. Waar [gedaagde 3] ,
`mr. [gedaagde 5] en [gedaagde 4] gezamenlijk worden bedoeld zullen zij als [gedaagde 3] c.s.
`worden aangeduid.
`
`1 De procedure
`
`1.1.
`
`Het verloop van de procedure blijkt uit:
`
`- de dagvaarding tevens houdende de incidentele vordering ex artikel 843a Rv van
`
`14 november 2019,
`
`- - -
`
`de akte houdende een wijziging eis in het incident van de erven van 25 maart 2020,
`de conclusie van antwoord in het incident van [gedaagde 3] c.s. van 6 mei 2020,
`de conclusie van antwoord in het incident van [gedaagde 6] c.s. van 6 mei 2020, tevens
`houdende
`
`een zelfstandige vordering in het incident ex artikel 843a Rv,
`
`de conclusie van antwoord in het (zelfstandig) incident van de erven van 1 juli 2020,
`de akte houdende producties (45 en 46) van de erven van 10 november 2020,
`het proces-verbaal van de mondelinge behandeling in de incidenten van 10 november 2020
`
`- - -
`
`met aangehechte zittingsaantekeningen van de erven, [gedaagde 3] c.s. en [gedaagde 6] c.s.
`
`1.2.
`
`Ten slotte is vonnis bepaald in beide incidenten.
`
`1.3.
`
`Bij schrijven van 3 december 2020 en 4 december 2020 hebben [gedaagde 6] c.s. en [gedaagde
`3] c.s. gereageerd op de inhoud van het proces-verbaal van de mondelinge behandeling van 10
`november 2020 dat buiten aanwezigheid van partijen is opgemaakt. Bij brief van 11 december
`2020 hebben [eisers] c.s. zich uitgelaten over beide reacties.
`
`1.4.
`
`Nu de rechtbank de door [gedaagde 6] c.s. en [gedaagde 3] c.s. geplaatste kanttekeningen - met
`uitzondering van de hierna vermelde - onderschrijft, dient genoemd proces-verbaal op de in de
`daaraan gehechte reacties van [gedaagde 6] c.s. en [gedaagde 3] c.s. aangegeven wijze als
`aangevuld en/of gecorrigeerd te worden beschouwd. De rechtbank passeert derhalve de
`opmerkingen die namens [eisers] c.s. daarover zijn gemaakt, met uitzondering van het volgende.
`
`1.5.
`
`[gedaagde 3] c.s. wijzen op pagina 4 van het proces-verbaal waar als opmerking van mr.
`[gedaagde 5] staat geschreven: Het geld dat is ondergebracht op de bankrekening bij de
`Commerzbank te Leer die op naam van [gedaagde 6] stond betrof zwart geld afkomstig van de
`vennootschap van erflater.
`
`[gedaagde 3] c.s. stellen dat mr. [gedaagde 5] naar voren heeft gebracht dat het zwarte geld
`afkomstig was van de vennootschap [naam 2] waarvan [gedaagde 6] aandeelhouder was en niet
`erflater.
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 220-7 Filed 08/11/21 Page 14 of 23
`
`Onder voorbehoud van alle rechten.
`
`Op 23 mei 2018 heeft [gedaagde 1] de aandelen in [naam 2] in eigendom verkregen van enig
`2.19.
`aandeelhouder [gedaagde 6] .
`
`Na een dividenduitkering heeft [gedaagde 1] de aandelen in [naam 2] op 24 mei 2018
`2.20.
`overgedragen aan [gedaagde 2] . Als enig aandeelhouder heeft [gedaagde 2] kort na het
`verkrijgen van de aandelen besloten tot ontbinding van [naam 2] , met aanwijzing van [gedaagde
`1] als vereffenaar. De rekening en verantwoording is op 23 juli 2018 gedeponeerd.
`
`Naar aanleiding van de onder 2.16 bedoelde brief van 15 februari 2018 hebben de
`2.21.
`belastingdienst en de erven klachten tegen mr. [gedaagde 5] en mr. [naam 12] ingediend bij de
`Deken van de Orde van Advocaten in het arrondissement Noord-Nederland. De Deken heeft de
`klachten overgenomen en een zogenaamd dekenbezwaar bij de Raad van Discipline Arnhem-
`Leeuwarden ingediend. De mondelinge behandeling van de klachten heeft op 29 september 2019
`ten overstaan van de Raad van Discipline plaatsgevonden. Bij beslissing van 13 januari 2020 heeft
`de Raad van Discipline de klacht van erven omtrent de wijze waarop zij in de brief van 15 februari
`2018 door mrs. [gedaagde 5] en [naam 12] zijn bejegend gegrond verklaard en is een
`waarschuwing opgelegd. Door de belastingdienst geformuleerde klachten - kort gezegd - gericht
`op de onbetamelijkheid van de brief van 15 februari 2018 en het trachten te belemmeren door
`genoemde advocaten van een fiscaal onderzoek zijn, eveneens onder oplegging van de
`disciplinaire maatregel van een waarschuwing, gegrond verklaard.
`
`Het door de Deken tegen verschillende advocaten van het kantoor [gedaagde 3] geformuleerde
`bezwaar - kort gezegd - dat zij door het aanvaarden van contant geld tot een bedrag van
`
`€ 932.095,00, van welk geld declaraties tot een bedrag van € 366.695,00 zijn betaald, (de
`strekking van) gedragsregels niet in acht hebben genomen, is door de Raad van Discipline
`eveneens gegrond verklaard, zulks zonder oplegging van een disciplinaire maatregel.
`
`2.22.
`
`Na een daartoe door deze rechtbank verleend verlof hebben de erven op
`
`18 januari 2019 ten laste van [gedaagde 6] conservatoir derdenbeslag gelegd onder de
`[gedaagde 4] . Het beslag heeft doel getroffen tot een bedrag van € 436.871,41.
`
`Bij beschikking van 1 juli 2019 heeft deze rechtbank op verzoek van de erven een voorlopig
`2.23.
`getuigenverhoor bevolen voor het horen van [gedaagde 1] , voorzitter [gedaagde 4] [naam 13] ,
`bestuurslid [gedaagde 4] mr. [gedaagde 5] en [gedaagde 6] .
`
`Mr. P.J. Duinkerken is als rechter-commissaris benoemd. De getuigenverhoren hebben
`plaatsgevonden op 18 september 2019. Tijdens het voorlopig getuigenverhoor heeft
`
`mr. [gedaagde 5] (voor zover hier van belang) het volgende verklaard:
`
`(…)“Met betrekking tot uw vraag wie volgens mij destijds de rechthebbende was, beroep ik mij op mijn
`verschoningsrecht. Ik licht dat toe door te verklaren dat ik destijds beschikte over een verklaring van de
`bestuurder van [naam 2] en ik de juistheid daarvan wilde toetsen. Met betrekking tot de datering van
`die verklaring beroep ik mij op mijn verschoningsrecht. Ik wil wel bevestigen dat die verklaring dateert
`van een eerdere datum dan het moment waarop het geld op de rekening van de [gedaagde 4] is
`gestort”(…)
`
`Bij beroepschrift van 12 februari 2020 is mr. [gedaagde 5] in hoger beroep gekomen tegen de
`2.24.
`beslissingen van de Raad van Discipline op de klachten van de erven, de belastingdienst en de
`Deken. De Deken en de belastingdienst zijn eveneens in hoger beroep gekomen. Op 4 oktober
`2020 heeft de mondelinge behandeling ten overstaan van het Hof van Discipline plaatsgevonden.
`
`Bij beslissingen van 4 december 2020 (ECLI:NL:TADRARL:2020:61) is het hoger beroep van de
`2.25.
`deken (ten dele) gegrond verklaard. Het Hof van Discipline heeft de aangevochten beslissingen
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 220-7 Filed 08/11/21 Page 15 of 23
`
`met rolnummers 19-375 en 19-376 vernietigd onder oplegging aan mrs. [gedaagde 5] en [naam
`12] van de maatregel van schorsing in de uitoefening van de praktijk voor de duur van vier weken
`waarvan twee weken voorwaardelijk. Het Hof van Discipline heeft de beslissing (met rolnummer19-
`377) op de klacht van de Deken gericht tegen de bestuurders van [gedaagde 4] ten dele
`vernietigd onder gegrond verklaring van de klacht gericht tegen mr. [gedaagde 5] , zulks zonder
`oplegging van een tuchtrechtelijke maatregel.
`
`Bij beslissingen van 4 december 2020 (ECLI:NL:TADRARL:2020:62) is het hoger beroep van mr.
`2.26.
`[gedaagde 5] (ten dele) gegrond verklaard. Het Hof van Discipline heeft de beslissing van de Raad
`van Discipline op een klacht van de erven (rolnummer 19-371) vernietigd voor zover het de door
`de Raad opgelegde maatregel betreft en heeft mr. [gedaagde 5] de maatregel van een berisping
`opgelegd.
`
`Bij beslissingen van 4 december 2020 (ECLI:NL:TADRARL:2020:49) is het hoger beroep van de
`2.27.
`Belastingdienst MKB Groningen (ten dele) gegrond verklaard. Het Hof van Discipline heeft de
`aangevochten beslissing