Court approves investigation into former directors' financial structures

The investigations into Utrecht Holdings, the partnership through which UU and UMC Utrecht are trying to monetise scientific inventions, will continue throughout the next few years.

In 2023, University Holdings filed charges against three employees and former employees who allegedly enriched themselves with fraud and bribery. These include former director Gom van Strien, who worked at Utrecht Holdings from 2001 to 2009. The case made headlines after he was appointed by Geert Wilders as a scout for a new cabinet in early 2024. His successor, Oscar S., and a UU company lawyer were the other suspects. Director Oscar S. and the company lawyer were summarily dismissed in 2023.

Shares purchased by family members
The case revolves around a company, Heresint BV, founded by Van Strien and his successor. The company allegedly acquired shares of the biomedical company Nodens at a much too low price. Formally, they had nothing to do with this company, but the shares were purchased by their relatives and neighbours. This way, according to Utrecht Holdings, the two former directors managed to illegally pocket millions.

Research firm Deloitte launched an investigation on behalf of Utrecht Holdings and discovered several questionable cases. For example, S. deliberately provided the supervisory directors with false information so that they gave the green light to sell shares in the biomedical company Gendx for a low amount. Later, S. and the company lawyer obtained shares at favourable rates. Gendx was sold in its entirety for 135 million euros last year. A court judgment states that S. received 4.5 million euros for his shares in the process.

Wrong financial constructions
In the latest lawsuit, former director Oscar S. asked that previous court permission to request documents and mail from S. be annulled. But the court did not go along with that, with one exception. The court saw sufficient grounds for the collection of emails. Utrecht Holdings had been able to provide hard evidence of faulty financial constructions that warranted further investigation. One of the e-mails from the judgment reads: "You did not receive this e-mail, so throw it away." Both Oscar S. and Gom van Strien deny having acted against the rules.

This was a civil case in which the directors were held responsible for damages caused to Utrecht Holdings. A criminal case is also pending. This spring, the tax police FIOD conducted a search at Van Strien's house to gather more evidence.

Wrongful dismissal of in-house lawyer
An appeal court case from the company lawyer also happened in the summer. The lawyer was employed by UU for many years and challenged his dismissal confirmed by the subdistrict court. He had been fired for his involvement in share trading around the company Gendx with which he had made a lot of money. The appeals court vindicated the lawyer and held that UU should not have dismissed the man. The lawyer's rebuttal was that he had operated with the permission of his supervisor. The supervisor in question was Oscar S. Even though the man became a multimillionaire through his stock trading, the judge imposed a severance payment of 72,000 euros plus additional compensation of 60,000 euros on the university.