In a definitive ruling that concludes an eight-year legal battle, the Netherlands’ Supreme Court has upheld the seizure of €19.5 million in cash transported from Suriname. The decision affirms The Hague Court of Appeal’s August 2024 judgment, bringing finality to a complex international asset forfeiture case that began on April 17, 2018.
The funds were initially intercepted by the Dutch Fiscal Information and Investigation Service (FIOD) at Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport on suspicion of money laundering. The currency shipment, which arrived by air from Suriname, was owned by three commercial banks: De Surinaamsche Bank, Hakrinbank, and Finabank. The Central Bank of Suriname (CBvS) acted as the formal shipper for the consignment, which was destined for China.
Legal challenges were mounted by both the commercial banks and CBvS against the seizure. Throughout previous proceedings, the Supreme Court had twice ruled that decisions ordering the funds’ return were insufficiently motivated. The Hague Court of Appeal ultimately dismissed these complaints in 2024, allowing the seizure to remain in effect.
The appellate court determined that CBvS could not claim immunity under international customary law, finding insufficient evidence that the seized funds constituted Central Bank property or were being utilized for its core functions of monetary policy and currency management. The court characterized CBvS’s role as merely facilitative and noted it was not ‘highly improbable’ that criminal courts would eventually order forfeiture of the funds.
The Central Bank and commercial institutions subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, contesting the immunity rejection, the legal framework applied to seizure assessments, and the proportionality of maintaining the asset freeze.
In December 2025, the Advocate General recommended upholding the appellate decision. The Supreme Court adopted this advisory opinion and dismissed the appeals under Article 81 of the Judiciary Organization Act, indicating the complaints lacked grounds for reversal and raised no novel legal questions requiring substantive consideration.
This ruling concludes a internationally monitored case that has drawn significant attention to cross-border financial enforcement. The funds remain seized pending ongoing criminal investigations.