LEAKED. THE TAPE of conversation between Peter R. de Vries, Royce de Vries and Khalid Kasem about ‘bribery’ (which was not bribery)

LEAKED. THE TAPE of conversation between Peter R. de Vries, Royce de Vries and Khalid Kasem about ‘bribery’ (which was not bribery)
LEAKED. THE TAPE of conversation between Peter R. de Vries, Royce de Vries and Khalid Kasem about ‘bribery’ (which was not bribery)
--

Above you can listen to a conversation between Peter R. de Vries, Royce de Vries and Khalid Kasem. This recording came into the hands of the AD via ‘De Drie Musketiers’ and has now also ended up at GeenStijl via ‘De Drie Musketiers’. We have chosen to publish the recording (with minimal editing). Below we explain why.

Ever since the first publication of the AD, we at GeenStijl have also paid a lot of attention to the recordings. Not only because of the content of the revelations, but especially because we as a medium get excited when it comes to the media, especially when the media are not allowed to publish about something.

Fortunately, the publication ban has been lifted, but in recent days there has been a lot of confusion in the public debate about what exactly Kasem was accused of (in the original AD article, but also in the dean’s report) and what he himself claimed. has about his actions. See, for example, this column in NRC, or https://twitter.com/Chrkij/status/1773255551574495720 from an NPO presenter. In a (quickly published) response to the dean’s report, Royce de Vries says in the FD: “It confirms what my father and I concluded at the time: Khalid’s bribery story was nothing more than a sandwich story.”

We wonder: a monkey story from whom? From the AD? Or from Khalid Kasem himself?

In the first publication about this conversation, the AD writes that Khalid Kasem was accused by Hans (who is not called Hans but is called Hans all the time, now also by us) to Peter R. de Vries on February 25, 2019, of has received 8,000 euros, for which he could get Hans out of prison early. “Hans says that he gave two envelopes: one with 5,000 euros and one with 3,000 euros. It is not clear what happened to that money, and whether the official was bribed with it. Hans is convinced that Kasem pocketed it.”

The dean now also writes that the bribery probably did not take place. “My finding regarding the alleged bribery is that it did not take place. This is not only stated by all those involved, but is also very unlikely and makes little sense given the underlying structures and processes of the Judicial Institutions Agency.”

“From Mr. Kasem’s own statement I conclude that he made inappropriate statements towards his client Hans, by giving the impression that “a third” should be paid when that was not the case.”

Kasem states on his Insta: “The Algemeen Dagblad has given the impression in its publications that I had bribed a civil servant and/or made a proposal to do so.” The second part of this statement is in direct contradiction to the dean’s conclusion above. GeenStijl believes it is important to make the recording heard in order to appreciate Kasem’s statement.

At the beginning of the recording, Peter R. de Vries explains clearly that in both cases (Kasem has defrauded a customer or Kasem has bribed an official) there is a problem. Kasem then continually gives the impression that he has bribed a civil servant, because he apparently does not want to admit to Peter R. and Royce de Vries that he has made “inappropriate statements” towards Hans.

In an initial response to the AD, Royce de Vries stated that his father confronted Kasem with the story that he had bribed an official. However, that is not what the recordings of the conversation show. They give the impression that Kasem is confronted with the fact that he has defrauded a customer, and himself claims to his office colleagues that he has actually bribed a civil servant. “I also perhaps get carried away too quickly in a client’s position and I really want to do well.”

GeenStijl once again asked Royce de Vries a number of specific questions about the recording. He gave the following response: “It is unclear to me what Geenstijl’s article supplements previous articles. I therefore first refer to (part of) the response I sent to the AD on January 5 last (my full response was published with the article in question):

The events in question date from 2019, five years ago now. At the time we were confronted with the story that Khalid allegedly bribed an official. That was a very serious accusation and my father – the office manager at the time – confronted him about it. It has not been established that bribery actually took place. Besides the explanation that Khalid gave us at the time, my father and I – even at the time – had no indication of this. In general, the story seemed very unlikely to us, also based on other information we had at our disposal. Afterwards, Khalid also repeatedly denied to me that he was guilty of bribery. It was important to me that the matter be resolved in the interests and to the satisfaction of Khalid’s client, which is what happened. I have therefore seen no reason to take further action, other than internally.

The response is consistent with the statement I gave after the Dean’s investigation. For the sake of brevity, I refer to that response and the Dean’s investigation report. I cannot provide further explanation or substantiation because I am bound by my confidentiality.”

All three office mates agree during the conversation that what was discussed could become very annoying for them in terms of publicity. The recording shows that Kasem is constantly working on proposing a story that the office can tell to the outside world (and to Hans) that will cause as little publicity damage as possible.

Again: Royce de Vries now calls the idea that Kasem bribed an official ‘a sandwich story’. But the recordings make it crystal clear who the primary source of that monkey story is: Khalid Kasem. There is only one person who can explain why he came up with that monkey story.

GeenStijl also asked Khalid Kasem a number of specific questions. He responded as follows:

“The accusation you mentioned under 1. is incorrect. The other questions are not relevant.

I have provided full explanation and explanation on this matter to the Dean in recent months. On Thursday, March 28, the Dean of the Amsterdam Order concluded, after extensive research, in the public summary of her report:

“My finding regarding the alleged bribery is that it did not take place. This is not only stated by all those involved, but is also very unlikely and makes little sense given the underlying structures and processes of the Judicial Institutions Agency. The documents confirm that the processes were followed correctly.”

I have nothing to add to that.”

Kasem’s previous response to the AD can be read here, his complete response to the dean’s statement can be read here. However, there are now several lawyers and non-lawyers in the public debate who have serious questions about Dean’s conclusion that a “norm-transmitting conversation” was sufficient for Kasem to make “inappropriate statements” to a client. See this post on LinkedIn, this response, https://twitter.com/WLaumans/status/1773056755716497818, https://twitter.com/JensOldeKalter/status/1773081380890575074, https://twitter.com/obolluyt/status/1773059497176498412this https://twitter.com/franktieskens/status/1773019905543082067this article in De Telegraaf and this opinion piece by a professor in De Volkskrant.

Also in light of that discussion, we think it is important to publish this conversation, in which it becomes clear how Kasem discusses a strategy with his office colleagues to cover up the matter. Especially because the dean, who apparently also had this recording, chose to further defend Kasem in various media against what she considered incorrect insinuations.

Moreover, the recording also clearly shows the importance of the original publication in the AD and the seriousness of the accusation against Khalid Kasem. The conversation does not discuss details of a case, but only the fraud (or bribery) by a lawyer. This does not affect the core of the lawyers’ duty of confidentiality. The safety of those involved is also limited by this publication, as the content of the conversation has already been published.

In addition, Khalid Kasem is not only a former lawyer who had an important role to play in protecting the rule of law, but he is currently still employed as a presenter at a public broadcaster that uses taxpayers’ money. is financed. That public broadcaster announced last week that it would discuss a possible return with Kasem this week.

In fact, during the first episode of ‘Sophie & Jeroen’, a minutes-long introduction praised the ‘sweetheart’ Khalid Kasem. The program also chose to invite Sven Brinkoff and Anis Boumanjal to discuss the dean’s report. This recording puts those editorial decisions of a prominent national television program in a different light.

The recordings were cut so as not to reveal the names of Hans (who is not called Hans) and Karel (who is not called Karel) and some proper names (and some words/phrases that could not be kept separately). As a result, a pun by Peter R. de Vries was cut from the recording, but that was not really a nice pun. We have also not published the first two minutes of the conversation, about a different matter. Since the accusation regarding Kasem’s old Van Oosten office is already public and Van Oosten has filed a complaint, we have not cut that fragment.

Reading this topic is free, but creating it costs time and (legal) support, or money. Your contribution is appreciated.


The article is in Dutch

Tags: LEAKED TAPE conversation Peter Vries Royce Vries Khalid Kasem bribery bribery

-

PREV Taylor Swift can call herself a billionaire
NEXT Eva De Roo gave birth to her son to the sounds of Kanye West’s ‘Runaway’: can music make childbirth go more smoothly?