Brison defense recast prosecution’s bribery case as a chain of assumptions, weak inferences, and flawed crypto evidence

GREAT BAY--The defense of former Member and Chairman of Parliament Rolando Brison has presented a broad challenge to the prosecution’s bribery case, arguing before the Court of First Instance that the case is built more on inference and interpretation than on direct proof of a corrupt agreement.

According to the defense, the prosecution has drawn a bribery narrative from a range of facts that may appear suspicious at first glance, including cash movements, crypto-related transactions, private chats, policy advocacy, and Brison’s personal financial circumstances, without establishing the legal standard required to prove bribery. Central to the defense position is the argument that the prosecution has not demonstrated a clear quid pro quo, namely that money or benefits were accepted in exchange for official action.

Brison along with co-suspects, appeared before the Court of First Instance this week in connection with the “Lissabon” bribery investigation, which began in February 2023 under the direction of the Attorney General’s Office. Brison is accused of soliciting and accepting bribes during his time as an MP and, in part, as Chairman of Parliament, while the co-suspects are alleged to have paid those bribes. The Prosecutor has requested prison sentences of 12 to 24 months, a five-year ban on Brison holding public office, and repayment of US $52,190.35 in alleged unlawfully obtained assets.

A major focus of the defense concerns the handling and interpretation of crypto-related evidence. In its submissions, the defense argues that the prosecution included private wallet keys or passphrases in the case file and later acknowledged that doing so was an error. The defense says that is important because it suggests investigators were not as careful with the digital evidence as they should have been. Brison’s legal team also argues that when the wallet information was checked, it did not show the balance or transaction history the prosecution claimed it did. In simple terms, the defense is saying the prosecution may have told the court that certain crypto wallets held money or showed activity linked to bribery, when the wallet data itself did not clearly back that up.

The defense contends that this issue is significant because part of the prosecution’s theory appears to rely on linking Melkar (money movements connected to a digital-asset setup) transfers, cash movements, and crypto-related interactions to alleged bribery. Brison’s legal team argues that investigators failed to sufficiently test an alternative explanation that had already been presented, namely that some of these transactions were connected to over-the-counter crypto trading rather than unlawful payments. According to the defense, a more complete forensic review, including wallet tracing and transaction analysis, was necessary before drawing criminal conclusions.

The filings also challenge the prosecution’s broader interpretation of Brison’s financial situation. In one submission, the defense argues that prosecutors reviewed Brison’s bank accounts, spending patterns, cash withdrawals, and the absence of visible crypto-platform transactions, and then treated those observations as evidence against his explanation. The defense says that approach overlooks how over-the-counter crypto trading can function in practice, particularly for a politically exposed person who may face restrictions or complications when attempting to use conventional banking channels for crypto-related activity. In that context, the defense argues that the lack of direct bank-to-exchange transfers is not, by itself, proof of wrongdoing.

A similar argument appears in the defense submission concerning co-suspect Robbie Dos Santos. There, Brison’s legal team argues that prosecutors treated round-number transfers as inherently suspicious, even though digital-wallet transactions can be entered in U.S. dollar amounts and automatically converted into crypto values. The defense also points to the fact that Robbie allegedly had Brison’s identification, knew Brison was a politically exposed person, and processed activity through an account created with formal KYC documentation. KYC means “Know Your Customer.” These are identity checks that banks, crypto platforms, and other financial services use to confirm who a person is. According to the defense, these circumstances are relevant when assessing whether the transactions are more consistent with documented financial dealings than with a concealed bribery arrangement.

The defense says the prosecution is trying to turn Brison’s public support for cryptocurrency into proof of corruption. According to the defense, Brison spoke openly about crypto in terms of regulation, legal rules, safeguards, and tax compliance, not as a way to secretly help Sunny Gehani or anyone else make money. The defense argues that even if Sunny or others may have benefited from Brison’s views, that does not automatically mean Brison was being paid off. Their point is that a politician can support a policy idea in public because he believes in it, and that alone is not evidence of bribery or personal gain.

In simple terms, the defense is saying this: just because two things happened, Brison supported crypto, and Sunny may have benefited from crypto, does not mean those two things were part of a corrupt deal. They are arguing that the prosecution is assuming too much. A public policy position, even one that helps certain people or businesses, is not the same as secretly doing favors in exchange for money.

That same distinction between political advocacy and criminal intent also appears in the sections involving Alex Dijkhoff. In the filing addressing Alex, the defense argues that issues such as the proposed health levy or LGT had an independent public-interest basis tied to financial pressure on St. Maarten’s health and social funds. According to the defense, these were not policy ideas created solely to benefit a private party. The filing states that even if Dijkhoff might have stood to gain commercially at some later stage, any such benefit would have been indirect and contingent on multiple separate decisions by Parliament, the executive branch, and implementation agencies.

The defense further argues that no documentation was found showing Alex Dijkhoff had been appointed by Brison to perform work on the LGT matter. Brison’s legal team presents that as a significant point, stating that if there was no formal assignment or direct appointment, then it becomes more difficult to argue that Brison used his office in a concrete way to secure private benefit for Dijkhoff.

In addition, the defense characterizes Dijkhoff’s communications with Brison as part of the ordinary contact elected officials have with businesspeople, constituents, and other interested parties. Politicians regularly receive proposals, requests, complaints, and ideas from a wide range of individuals. According to the defense, Brison’s role in many of those interactions was to refer matters, make introductions, or follow up with the proper authorities, rather than to guarantee results or improperly influence decisions. The defense says this distinction is important because it believes the prosecution is assigning criminal significance to access and political follow-up without sufficiently proving abuse of office.

More broadly, Brison’s legal team argues that a politician engaging publicly on digital assets, legal reform, economic matters, or stakeholder concerns should not automatically be viewed as tailoring public office for private benefit. Across the various submissions, the defense suggests that the prosecution is, at times, collapsing the difference between advocacy, access, and criminal conduct.

The defense says some of the things in the case may look bad at first, like cash, private messages, careful wording, or messages that sound like someone is pushing for action, but that appearances alone do not prove corruption. According to Brison’s lawyers, talking discreetly can make sense when dealing with cash, cryptocurrency, or personal matters, and does not automatically mean something illegal was happening. They also argue that some of the messages involving Alex Dijkhoff were simply examples of normal political follow-up, like asking questions, pressing an issue, or pushing it through the proper government channels, rather than threatening people or secretly pulling strings.

The defense is also trying to show that some smaller details in the case may not be as solid as the prosecution suggests. For example, Brison’s lawyers dispute the claim that he stayed for free in a penthouse connected to one of the co-suspects. They say rental documents and utility bills show otherwise. On its own, that may seem like a minor point, but the defense is using it to make a bigger argument: if the prosecution got some of the smaller facts wrong or overstated them, then the court should be careful about accepting the larger bribery story without stronger proof.

The defense also says that messages which sound tense, angry, or focused on money do not automatically prove bribery. According to Brison’s legal team, some of those messages may be better explained as arguments over loans, debts, repayments, private disagreements, or normal political back-and-forth. Their point is that just because messages look bad or sound aggressive does not mean they show an illegal deal for favors.

Taken as a whole, the defense filings are meant to challenge the entire foundation of the prosecution’s case. Brison’s legal team says his financial dealings, crypto activity, public policy positions, and private conversations are all being viewed in the worst possible light, without enough proof that there was an actual corrupt agreement. That includes his dealings with people like Alex Dijkhoff, which the defense says may show communication and shared interests, but not proof that Brison gave anyone official power, direct control, or secret favors in exchange for money.

The prosecution is asking for prison sentences of 12 to 24 months, a five-year ban on Brison holding public office, and repayment of US $52,190.35 that it says was obtained unlawfully. But the defense says the case still has major weak points, especially when it comes to the digital evidence, how money movements are being interpreted, Brison’s public advocacy on policy matters, and the question of motive.

Finally, on a personal note, the defense says Brison was under real financial pressure during the worst of COVID and that prosecutors are taking that context out of the story. In the filing on his financial position, Brison says his parliamentary salary had been cut, that he was also helping other people through the crisis, and that some messages to Dijkhoff were simply short-term requests for help from a friend, not payments tied to official favors. The defense also says prosecutors focused too narrowly on Brison’s bank account while ignoring his explanation that some crypto activity happened through cash withdrawals and over-the-counter trading, especially since he says formal crypto-platform access was difficult and bank transfers to crypto platforms were not allowed.

On Dijkhoff, the defense acknowledges that he helped Brison during those difficult months, but tries to make clear that help did not amount to control or a bought relationship. Brison’s position is that even while Dijkhoff was helping him personally, he still pushed back when he thought Dijkhoff was asking too much, refused to create unrealistic expectations, and did not blindly pressure ministers on Dijkhoff’s behalf. So the defense is framing the relationship as one of friendship, crisis support, and political discussion, not dependence in the sense of Dijkhoff having influence over Brison in exchange for official favors.

Several WhatsApp chat screenshots and other communications were presented to support the defense arguments.

‍