Public Prosecution Service requests the Definitely suspected Fraud in Magistrat’s Exam (Ghent)

The Supreme Court for the Justice (HRJ) reported on 3 March 2024 that there were indications that a member of the HRJ the case of the comparative admission exam in January of that year until the judicial internship, and the content of the improvement guide, delivered to one participant in advance. As a member of the Examination Board, the Ghent Advocate General CB gave the statement in advance to a trainee lawyer, who is the son of a department procurer in Bruges and a judge in Ypres. According to the HRJ, the candidate and the jury member had admitted the fraud in an interview with the other members of the Examination Board. The Department Procurer of Ypres also admitted that he received the case from the exam from CB and spoke to his daughter, who participated in the exam.

The HRJ had transferred the file to the Ghent Attorney General with the request to start a criminal investigation and a disciplinary procedure. The criminal investigation moved into the Court of Appeal of Brussels, where a councilor-investigator was appointed. The four magistrates were suspended on a disciplinary field and the disciplinary court must judge them, because it can only impose heavy disciplinary sentences. The Ypres department procurer was previously restored by the Disciplinary Court for his role in the fraud in the magistrate exam, to the office of Substituut Procurer des Konings. The Public Prosecution Service did appeal, as a result of which the disciplinary court on appeal in Brussels still has to comment on the case.

Read too. Parket appeals against judgments of the disciplinary court in files on fraud in magistrate exam

After the fraud case, CB resigned from the HRJ after the fraud case and was suspended as magistrate during the investigation. The suspension from the office as an order measure for the duration of the prosecution, which is extended until a final decision falls, is accompanied by a detime of twenty percent of the gross. CB appeared on Wednesday afternoon before the disciplinary court in Ghent, but his lawyers first asked the treatment with closed doors.

Lawyers Luc Arnou and Patrick Waeterinckx referred to the two criminal investigations that are still on the exam fraud. It is about the major criminal investigation of fraud and the ancillary case with possible consequences for the unlawfulness of the evidence. The whole case came to light when the son of the Department Procurer made searches in the Bruges law firm where he worked as a trainee, but his computer would have been hacked according to the defense, so that the evidence may be obtained unlawfully. « Those investigations are not yet over and there is a risk that names or facts are mentioned that can later be placed in the wrong context, or that the privacy of people will be violated, » argued lawyer Patrick Waeterinckx.

Read too. Why the magistrate exam is so strict: « A bad judge can cause much more damage than a bad lawyer »

However, the Disciplinary Court ruled that the social interest is going through and let the case continue with open doors. The chairman started with the interrogation of CB and asked him how he had come to the facts. « It was a brash from collegiality. I am not a corrupt magistrate and I never got anything or asked about those people. There was no criminal attitude. I wanted to help those people. » The chairman stated that a witness described him as ‘an incredible pleaser’. « No, I am not. I am a collegial person. All evaluation reports throughout my career state that I find collegiality very important. The psychologist who appointed the counselor described me as egoistic or selfish, but I am not. »