The EncroChat hack is said to be a French military state secret and that's why even the judge can't know about it
Disclosure of French state secret information about the EncroChat hack ended up with three Rotterdam judges. That is why they are now being replaced.

Camil Driessen
July 26, 2021 at 9:26 PM
Reading time 2 minutes
The Public Prosecution Service does not know how the state secret ended up with the judges: "How, when or in what way this exactly happened is unknown."

“We have made good use of the fact that criminals blindly trust crypto communication and talk freely,” said Andy Kraag, head of the National Criminal Investigation Department last year after hacking communication service EncroChat. "We received a wealth of criminal messages that allowed us to expose much of the underworld."


Also read this article:How a phone hack flawlessly exposes the narco-state of the Netherlands

As hard as the police patted themselves last summer about the hacking of EncroChat by a French-Dutch Joint Investigation Team (the Lemont investigation), the Public Prosecution Service has been trying since then to keep secret exactly how that hack took place. To the frustration of lawyers who want to attack the lawfulness of the hack in dozens of criminal cases, because it revealed incriminating chats for clients.

The Public Prosecution Service states that the hack of the EncroChat server in Roubaix is ​​a French military state secret and should therefore never be disclosed. Even judges are not allowed to know about it. The sparse information about the hacking operation is invariably painted black.

In case of change, the judge himself asks to be replaced, as opposed to a challenge. In that case, one of the parties to the proceedings requests a replacement from the court.

In both cases, an independent 'chamber' with three judges considers the request , while safeguarding the impartiality of the court is central.

Last year, 675 appeal requests were made , 17 were granted. The Council for the Judiciary does not count requests for non-disclosure.

Recent examples of non- disclosure include a judge who resigned because a suspect is a trainer at his son's football club and because her children's former daycare center was a party to the lawsuit.

The Public Prosecution Service was therefore angry when it turned out this spring that details about the EncroChat operation appeared in British lawsuits. The British would have "damaged trust" by disclosing information from meetings "about practical and legal forms" of cooperation in court cases, the Public Prosecution Service wrote.

Not on your own initiative
And now it appears that the French state secret has ended up with the three Rotterdam judges in the Sartell criminal case, a prestigious drug case in which ten suspects are suspected of large-scale cocaine smuggling, membership of a criminal organization and money laundering. The main suspect is Roger P., better known as Piet Costa because of his ties to Costa Rica.

The court president appears to have received an unexpurgated version of an authorization for the 'Lemont' hacking operation at EncroChat this year. She then discussed this with her two colleagues, according to a ruling by the special non-disclosure chamber of the Rotterdam court at the end of last week, in which the judges are removed from the case.

Because the judges know the French state secret, they now know more than the defense and the prosecutors from the Sartell case and their impartiality is therefore at stake, the non-disclosure chamber noted.

It is remarkable that the secret could only reach the judges through the Public Prosecution Service

It is remarkable that the state secret document only seems to have ended up with the judges via the Public Prosecution Service, because only the ministry has it. Nevertheless, the Public Prosecution Service states that it does not know how the state secret ended up with the judges. "How, when or in what way this exactly happened, is not known to the Public Prosecution Service."

The judges did not submit the request for non-disclosure on their own initiative, but after the Public Prosecution Service asked them to do so. Jan-Hein Kuijpers, lawyer for the main suspect Roger P., says he is displeased with the state of affairs. "The defense was not asked for an opinion about a possible change, while the Public Prosecution Service was able to comment on it." The lawyer states that he probably would not have aimed for a change, precisely because the Public Prosecution Service did. "It makes you think about the motives of the Public Prosecution Service to hide the trade with France."

The consequences of the change for the Sartell case are still unclear. If this delay increases, the suspects may receive a penalty. The case is still in the preparatory phase and will now have to be continued with three new judges. They will have to read through thousands of pages of procedural documents.

The Public Prosecution Service announces that it hopes that the planned substantive treatment will continue at the end of this year (first session day 15 November). "But then the new judges will have to come quickly."

https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2021/07/2...ken-over-de-motieven-van-het-om-a4052469