When the word "electronic" sank the mango defense, Emmanuel and Dijkhoffz convicted

GREAT BAY--One of the more unusual defenses raised in the Jasmine corruption case, that references to “mangoes” were literally about fruit, ultimately failed under close judicial scrutiny and became a key part of the Court’s reasoning in convicting former minister Christophe Emmanuel (C.E.) on bribery-related charges. The defense failed on the use of one word "electronic", in a WhatsApp message.

In its judgment, the Court found that the term “mangoes,” used in conversations surrounding a permit application and the transfer of compensation, was in fact coded language for money and not a reference to fruit. The argument of the defense was plausible until one phone message discredited the whole thing.

The Court pointed in particular to a conversation in which it was said that the “mangoes” should not be sent electronically. Specifically, in a conversation dated August 7, 2017, defendant Alex Dijkhoffz (A.D.) told Emmanuel: “He want to send electronic and I said no,” after Emmanuel had earlier asked Dijkhoffz: “We were to go for the mangos this weekend, what happened?” From this conversation, the Court concludes that the suspect did not want to transfer the “mangoes” electronically and that this caused some delay in the transfer of the “mangoes.”

The court concluded that such wording made no sense if actual fruit were being discussed (since you cannot transfer a mango electronically), but fit the context of concealed cash payments intended to avoid traceability. That finding helped support the Court’s conclusion that monetary payments were tied to preferential treatment in the issuance of permits.

The Court of First Instance delivered its judgment on March 26, 2026, in the criminal matter known as the Jasmine investigation, which involved allegations of official bribery, abuse of office, and fraud linked to permit issuance and public procurement. According to the Prosecutor’s Office, the offences attributed to C.E. related to the period during which he held public office as a minister in St. Maarten. The Court sentenced C.E. to 29 months of unconditional imprisonment and imposed a five-year disqualification from holding public office for accepting bribes, abuse of office, and fraud.

But it wasn't just the mangoes that befell the two defendants.

The Court found that Alex Dijkhoff was not convicted over a single isolated favor, but over a pattern in which his relationship with then minister Emmanuel gave him an improper advantage in the handling of permit applications. According to the judgment, Emmanuel, as Minister of VROMI, had decisive influence over whether permits were issued, delayed, or moved forward, and C.E. made use of that influence through direct contact and repeated communication. The Court concluded that this went beyond ordinary follow-up on a permit file and amounted to active bribery, because Dijkhoff was found to have offered or promised money in exchange for favorable treatment in the permit process.

The verdict also makes clear that the Court saw the corruption not only in the payment itself, but in what C.E. expected to receive in return. The judges found that Emmanuel gave Dijkhoff inside information on permit applications, kept him updated on progress, informed him where documents needed to go, and helped create an advantage over others by speeding up or smoothing the process. In the Court’s view, this preferential treatment was a misuse of public office because permit decisions should have been handled objectively and impartially, not influenced by private arrangements.

The defense tried to frame the contact as ordinary permit-related assistance and denied that the messages proved any private arrangement for favors. Its case was that if there was no proven money, no proven quid pro quo, and no proven benefit secured through Emmanuel’s office, then the prosecution’s theory of preferential treatment tied to corruption could not stand. The Court rejected that argument.

The court found C.E. guilty of passive official bribery and co-perpetration of abuse of office. Co-suspect A.D. was found guilty of active official bribery and co-perpetration of abuse of office, and was sentenced to 11 months of imprisonment. The Court said there was sufficient evidence of preferential treatment in the handling of permits, as well as the acceptance of a gift from A.D., with the so-called “mangoes” determined to represent monetary payments. C.E., however, was acquitted on a separate allegation involving the receipt of a room allegedly provided by a third party.

Passive official bribery is when a public official receives, asks for, or agrees to accept money, gifts, favors, or some other benefit in exchange for doing, delaying, influencing, or not doing something connected to their office. The official is the one being bribed. That is why it is called passive bribery. The other side, the person who offers or gives the bribe, is usually accused of active bribery. A simple example would be: a minister or civil servant accepts cash or another benefit to help push through a permit, overlook a violation, or give someone special treatment. The crime is not only the payment itself, but the fact that public authority is being used for private benefit instead of the public good.

The Court also ruled on a second part of the case involving the flagpole project and several public tender procedures. In that file, the Court found evidence of co-perpetration of fraud and co-perpetration of abuse of office, together with others including then Chief of Cabinet M.R., in relation to the public tender process for the Prins Bernhard Bridge, Repairs to Roadside Barriers & Railings, Basketball Court, and Emergency Repairs Keys Bridge (Sucker Garden) projects. According to the ruling, this included the use of incorrect representations of fact and the submission of falsified quotations. The projects were awarded to a company in which the Chief of Cabinet held a 50 percent share.

In the file specifically concerning the flagpole project, C.E. was acquitted of bribery and abuse of office. The Court also considered the case against J.M.B., and while it expressed doubts about the course of events surrounding that matter, it found insufficient evidence to establish bribery. The Court concluded that the issue primarily involved possible misrepresentation and noted that J.M.B.’s claim that his company name had been misused could not be disproven. He was therefore acquitted of all charges.

The Prosecutor’s Office noted that a separate part of the Jasmine investigation remains pending, as the cases involving M.R. and J.E.B. were postponed and will be handled at a later stage by another judge. Those matters remain open and will be addressed separately from this ruling.

In commenting on the outcome, the Prosecutor’s Office stressed that integrity in public office remains essential to maintaining public trust, and said cases of this nature underline the importance of transparency and accountability in decision-making, especially where public authority and public resources are involved. The office said it was satisfied with the outcome of the complex investigation.

The Jasmine investigation was carried out by the National Detectives LrSXM and the Kingdom Cooperation Team (RST). According to the Prosecutor’s Office, the National Detectives focus on criminal activity within government, particularly involving civil servants, while the RST is a multidisciplinary investigative unit operating across the Caribbean parts of the Kingdom on complex and cross-border criminal investigations in close cooperation with local authorities.

‍

‍