Main characters
The Dutch Tax Scandal

Former director of the tax authorities, Hans Blokpoel juggled with the truth

FORMER DIRECTOR HANS BLOKPOEL JUGGLED WITH THE TRUTHInterview Hans Blokpoel by the Parliamentary Childcare Allowance Interrogation Committee, November 16, 2020He did not know exactly what happened in the fraud hunt for parents. However, he had warned about the consequences of the policy. This is what the former director of the tax authorities, Hans Blokpoel, told the Parliamentary Childcare Allowance Interrogation Committee at the end of last year. There are considerable doubts about the veracity of his statement. Because it is at odds with the interrogations of other protagonists and is not in line with official documents, according to research. “We are Pislink.” Author: Jan-Hein StropImage: © ANP/Remko de WaalA broad-shouldered man wearing angular glasses sat down opposite the committee. Within the tax authorities, he was known as a real macher — and as a fraud hunter who gave his officials the opportunity to push the limits of enforcement. Hans Blokpoel, the former director of the tax authorities, was called to the House on November 16 last year to open up about his own role in the benefits affair. He stated that he was at a considerable distance from the fraud hunt, knew no details and would even have warned against the tough approach. For example, at the Parliamentary Interrogation Committee on Childcare Allowance, he mainly tried to clean up, according to research by Follow the Money. The veracity of Blokpoel's statement — made under oath — is heavily questioned, sources around the committee and within the tax authorities tell FTM. Because if you compare his interrogation with that of other protagonists and with various official documents that have previously been made public, a different picture of the former director emerges. Why did the well-meaning parents have to suffer from the allegedly 'wrong' parents? What did Blokpoel know about this approach and its consequences? Who decided to stop surcharges without proper suspicion — policy that lasted until mid-2016? Why did the well-meaning parents have to suffer from the allegedly “wrong” parents? What did Blokpoel know about this approach and its consequences for parents? It interrogation the former top official had to make this clear. How did Blokpoel lead the infamous Combiteam Approach Facilitators (CAF) in the period 2013-2017? The CAF was established in 2013 to tackle fraudulent childcare agencies and other childcare institutions. But soon, the CAF also targeted many thousands of parents, whose allowance was stopped without prior investigation or well-founded suspicion. Subsequently, parents had to provide an excessive amount of supporting documents. Had they made a mistake or a piece was missing, they had to all reimburse the allowance received: the zero tolerance-policy.How did the benefits affair start? The affair started when parental allowances were unfairly stopped. The tax authorities identified them as fraudsters since 2013, even though they were rarely. They were characterized in this way at the request of the CAF: Combiteam Approach Facilitators. It would involve several hundred parents. The first revelations about the affair date back to 2019, partly thanks to lawyer Eva Gonzálex Pérez, who assisted parents in the so-called CAF-11 case, which got them rolling. Thanks to persistent questions from MPs Pieter Omtzigt (CDA) and Renske Leijten (SP), plus thorough work from RTL News and allegiance, the full extent of the case came to light in early 2020: tens of thousands of parents were affected. After the cessation of their allowance, they often had to repay thousands, if not tens of thousands, of euros, and were usually unable to do so. Many of them are now faced with high collection costs, debt restructuring and eviction. In addition, it turned out that parents had to refund the full allowance if they had not or not fully paid the so-called “personal contribution”. This was completely separate from suspicions of fraud. Their offence was in no relation to the 'disproportionate' enforcement applied by the tax authorities, ordered by the Ministry of Social Affairs. The Parliamentary Interrogation Committee on Childcare Allowance drew devastating conclusions in its report. Unprecedented Injustice. Principles of the rule of law have been violated, citizens have been crushed by a harsh system without a human touch, with a leading role for the Tax Administration. Was Blokpoel just the “landlord” of the fraud team? When committee member Renske Leijten (SP) asked about his responsibility, Blokpoel described himself as the “landlord” of the CAF. With that formulation, he suggested that he had been at a considerable distance from daily practice. He said he did not know the details of the investigations. He said he did not know whether the CAF gave advice on how to approach individual parents and childcare institutions. He also did not know about orders from the CAF to the Allowances department to suspend payment to parents, he stated. What the CAF did was recorded in so-called “weekly reports”, several of which appeared at the committee and in documents provided as part of WOB requests. These reports discuss in detail individual cases, the harsh treatment of parents and the cessation of benefits. Here's what Blokpoel told the committee about it:Leijten: “So who were those weekly reports for exactly?” Blokpoel: “At least not for me.” Leijten: “Not for you? Not either of you? ' Blokpoel: “No.” Leijten: “You were the owner of the CAF team. So who did you think made weekly reports about the CAF activities for whom? ' Blokpoel: 'I have no idea about that. 'In short, Blokpoel said that the weekly reports were not intended for him, and said he did not know who they were intended for. The “landlord” had little insight into what was happening in his building. Former colleagues contradict Blokpoel. Those statements are at odds with both the statement that former Director General of the Tax Administration, Peter Veld, submitted to the Interrogation Committee, as with that of the Director of Allowances, Gerard Blankestijn. Veld was the top boss of the tax authorities, and was one step higher in the official hierarchy than Blokpoel. Veld said that Blokpoel was not the 'landlord', but the 'trigger' of the CAF team — quite another thing, in other words. Veld stayed up to date with the CAF through the Anti-Fraud Management Team, which also included Blokpoel. That team was now just set up to inform the top of the tax authorities about the progress of the CAF, Blankestijn said during his interrogation. “The purpose [it was] mainly also to include in this MT [Combating Fraud, red.] to share the experiences from the CAF. “Then, committee member Attje Kuiken (PvdA) van Blankestijn wanted to know what Blokpoel's role was: “Mr. Blokpoel also linked back from the CAF to the MT Fraud? Is that correct? ' To which Blankestijn replied: “Yes, weekly reports were shared. Experiences were shared. That's right. “The fact that Blokpoel, as directly responsible for the CAF, said that the documents went completely past him is not credible. So BlankeStijn contradicted Blokpoel: the latter did know the weekly reports, as they were periodically discussed with Peter Veld in the MT Fraud. And that also goes without saying: lower level officials rarely only answer verbally to managers. Veld did not deny reading those weekly reports. In fact, he declared that he was “subscribed” to those reports. The way in which Blokpoel distanced himself from policy at the Interrogation Committee is causing considerable resentment from the Benefits Department. “We're mad,” says a well-informed source. “Close everything” and “consciously push the limits” The stopping of surcharges without research was done with Blokpoel's knowledge and consent. In an undisclosed passage from the minutes of the MT Fraud dated 3 February 2014, it states that Veld and Blokpoel then discussed the possibility of stopping benefits: “[X] states in response to the childcare institution case that one option is also the payment:” [X] states in response to the childcare institution case that an option is also the payment to suspend surcharges. He asks Allowances to view this. ' A previously wounded weekly report by the CAF dated November 21, 2014 also states: “The MT Fraud discussed that payment can be stopped even in a reasonable doubt.” BlokPoel really wants to shut everything down, including surcharges, even if they are probably good.Email official, Nov. 4, 2013 In addition, the Interrogation Committee received an email from a tax office dated November 4, 2013, which states: “In addition, the Interrogation Committee received an email from a tax office dated November 4, 2013, which states: “In addition, the Interrogation Committee received an email from a tax office dated November 4, 2013, which states: “blokpoel really wants to close everything, including surcharges, even if they are probably good. [..] He presents it to Peter [Field, red,], and that's where a line comes in. ' That policy has been put in place: stop en masse, even among parents who have done nothing wrong. “How should I interpret that quote?” committee member Tom van der Lee asked about “closing”. Blokpoel: “As something I certainly couldn't have said.” But the MT Fraud of February 3, 2014 and the other published CAF documents show that Blokpoel was tough; he couldn't see a thing that the 20 percent benevolent parents would suffer from the alleged 80 percent “wrong” parents. All he said about it in the MT that day was: “This [the tough approach, red.] can have undesirable consequences for the 20 percent good. “The former director sold this sentence to the committee as a warning that he uttered at the time. For him, it was an “enormously important focus”. “Watch out that we don't identify the search for a rogue facilitator with the fact that something is automatically wrong with that customer package.” But that's exactly what happened: the entire “customer package” was classified as a fraud. “As a direct order from the General Director of Taxation [Blokpoel], CAF has to limits of treatment In the minutes of 3 February 2014, Blokpoel left untouched, according to the minutes of 3 February 2014, saying that the approach where the good guys would suffer from the 'mistakes' was a 'dilemma'. For example, he suggested that effective fraud control is not possible without falsely labeling parents as fraudsters and stopping their allowance. Blokpoel did not call for a different approach, quite the contrary. A little further down in the same minutes, it says: “Hans Blokpoel states that tax enforcement control takes time so far. CAF is faster and consciously pushes the limits of our possibilities. ' One of this MT's “action points” on the 80/20 problem was the question: “How do we include politics in this?” “Consciously pushing the boundaries” — that's not slip of the tongue. It was a standing policy. Because months later, an official noted in the weekly report on November 21, 2014: “CAF has as a direct order from the General Director of Taxation [Blokpoel, red.] to limits of treatment to look for it. Even if it were eventually found out at the hearing [in court, red.] that we have to go back to treatment is an acceptable risk. ' This shows that Blokpoel yourselves ordered them to explore the borders, at the risk of crossing them, and wait to see if the judge would whistle back on the tax authorities. This indeed happened later, when the Council of State ruled that stopping surcharges was unlawful. A year later, Blokpoel was also convinced of his policy. In an email dated November 8, 2015, the national director of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises wrote: “Last week with Hans [Block pool, ed.] also further discussed the vision for CAF. Image from Hans: CAF remains important when it comes to exploring the edges. “In short: Blokpoel has nurtured and nurtured the hard line for years. And within the service, that line was seen as a success. But, according to him, “turning off” surcharges was something he “at least couldn't have said”. No “insight” into what happened with Supplements. When the CAF looked at the “edges”, for example, it ordered the Benefits Department to suspend payment or request supporting documents from parents. Commissioner Leijten asked Blokpoel about this: “As general director of the tax authorities, you had no idea what happened and was necessary in the case of Allowances?” Blokpoel thus pretended — under oath — to have never been responsible for the Blokpoel benefits department: “No, like I said: you have Customs and the FIOD and Surcharges and the fiscal part. And I was the general director of the tax section. “He thus pretended — under oath — never to have been responsible for the Allowances department. This statement is easy to refute: in July 2015, after a reorganization, Blokpoel was appointed chief operations officer and interim “Director of Taxes and Fees”. From February 2016, when he formally took office, he didn't just “see” what happened at Surcharges: he was responsible for it. His second Blankestijn, the director of Allowances, reported directly to Blokpoel, he told the committee. Blokpoel did not stay director for very long; he left the tax authorities at the end of 2016. The reason for his departure was never announced, but insiders assume that it is related to the failed reorganization of the tax authorities in 2016. The Broedkamer affair Shortly after his departure, Blokpoel was contradicted in an affair that shows that he often pushed (and crossed) borders. At the tax authorities, he has led a major project, the 'Breedkamer', since 2013. There, more than a hundred IT specialists worked to bring together data from eleven million citizens and two million companies in order to detect errors and fraud more quickly with analysis techniques (“big data”) that were rapidly emerging at the time. Blokpoel and his team were all too enthusiastic about experimenting. They had failed to comply with a number of fundamental privacy safeguards, so revealed tv show Zembla on February 1, 2017. Sensitive personal data was barely secured, so that employees — including external consultants — had undisturbed access to it: a major data breach.Then Zembla Blokpoel later asked if he knew about the lack of security, saying he had “no memory” of the leak. But as early as the spring of 2015, the tax authorities were warned about the security breach, reported Zembla based on documents. The management was urged to take measures to comply with the Data Protection Act. But nothing happened to that, the State Audit Service later found in an investigation. Employees stated that Blokpoel acted like a 'Napoleon', who does not tolerate snooping and looks down on employees who use the 'old-fashioned' way of control. Furthermore, he would not be served by criticism; employees sometimes ended 'crying' meetings. There is a remarkable agreement between the Broedkamer and the CAF, both of which were under Blokpoel's responsibility: both of them were derailed clubs that not only pushed the legal boundaries, but also crossed them.Broken cardThen there was also the appearance of a conflict of interest when tendering de Broed's IT systems room. It was won by IT consultant Accenture, with whom Blokpoel had ties. From pieces of Zembla It turned out that other participants received far less information than Accenture, so the tender seemed to be a good idea. One employee stated: “Everyone already knew: if Blokpoel comes in somewhere, Accenture will come along. That didn't feel good. It was the subject of discussion: is this true? ' He himself denied having favored Accenture. One research commissioned by Secretary of State Eric Wiebes of Finance (VVD), concluded that the department head under Blokpoel had indeed directed Accenture to be awarded. Blokpoel pressured people to lie about the successes. Ministers were shown a so-called successful product. Statement from Broedkamer employee When MPs visited the tax authorities in September 2016, they received an extensive presentation about the Broedkamer. It was a success story, as MP Pieter Omtzigt (CDA) recalled. Afterwards, there were major questions about this. “I know that at presentations [to politicians, red.] van de Breedkamer asked people to lie to make results more positive,” an employee explained to Zembla. “Blokpoel pressured people to lie about their successes. Administrators came by and were shown a supposedly successful product. They were not told that it was barely used and was still in the testing phase. “Since 2016, the former director has been a “hearing advisor” at the General Administration Service (ABD) — a parking space for expelled officials . In that capacity, Blokpoel will do interim jobs for the government, including as a “biodiesel advisor and advisor for the admission process of new means of transport” at the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management in 2019. This with a salary that, according to the ABD, is comparable to his salary as director of the Tax Service. At the end of his interrogation in the House, Blokpoel said: 'I hope you at least feel that I gave an honest answer to, best of luck, to all your questions, and that there are also a number of things I really don't know. ' Hans Blokpoel did not respond to questions from FTM.[With the cooperation of Martijn de Keizer.]
Date
19 March 2025
Author (s)
research
Source
No items found.
Readers' comments
No items found.