Dutch corporate governance expert loses posts over links to fraudster

A Dutch academic and media pundit specialising in corporate governance and integrity has lost his university and government watchdog roles after it emerged that he had knowingly gone into business with a convicted fraudster.

Jaap Koelewijn, who wrote a column in a Dutch newspaper and regularly appeared on TV and radio, had hired a man named only as Michel G, who served a 10-month prison sentence for financial fraud, to work at his two investment funds under a false name.

A second man, who is currently facing fraud charges, was also found to be acting as a legal adviser to one of the companies.

The revelations made by the Het Financieele Dagblad newspaper were all the more surprising given that Koelewijn had commented in the media on the multimillion-euro fraud committed by Michel G at the time of his arrest in 2012.

When confronted by the Dutch newspaper, Koelewijn said he was giving him “a second chance”.

In response to the development, the Nyenrode Business University said they would no longer employ Koelewijn as a professor. He has lost his position as a board member on the pension fund of the Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets. The real estate investment fund Synvest, where Koelewijn was an adviser, said they were also cutting ties.

Koelewijn has been a regulator contributor to Dutch TV and radio shows, on which he has said his policy when advising companies is to ask: “How can fraud be done here?”

A spokesman for Koelewijn said the academic now accepted that he had made an error.

“Mr Koelewijn accepted the position of an employee, who in the past had been in contact with the judiciary, at two investment funds were he is involved in, on the basis that everyone in life deserves to have a second chance,” the spokesman said.

“Both funds had all necessary compliance measures in place, the employee never had access to the administration or finance, but purely executed a commercial role. Mr Koelewijn admits that his reasoning for giving this employee a second chance is a miscalculation. The employee is no longer involved at the funds.”