Organised Crime and Undermining the Rule of Law: What Does It Mean for Ordinary Citizens?

For ordinary citizens, the fight against organised crime mainly means that you can be affected by measures without being a suspect yourself. The most common example is a landlord or owner whose property is closed by the mayor because drugs were found there, even though he knew nothing about it; the main exception is a closure that is disproportionate in your individual circumstances.

Organised crime reaches you through three bodies of law at once: criminal law, administrative law and civil law. Below we explain each of these tracks, how they reinforce one another, how data sharing between authorities works, and what an owner, tenant or entrepreneur can do when confronted with one of them.

Why does organised crime affect people who are not criminals?

Because the authorities do not only target criminals, but also the legitimate structures they use: buildings, companies, bank accounts and permits. Measures directed at those structures can hit owners, landlords and business partners who have done nothing wrong.

Criminal law is the most familiar track. Participation in a criminal organisation is an offence under Article 140 of the Dutch Criminal Code (Wetboek van Strafrecht, Sr). Involvement does not have to consist of committing offences yourself: making premises, a bank account or a vehicle available can be enough. Preparatory acts for large-scale cannabis cultivation are separately punishable under the Opium Act (Opiumwet).

Administrative law is where most people are actually caught. Article 13b of the Opium Act allows a mayor to close a dwelling or business premises where drugs are found. The measure is directed at the property rather than at the occupant, so an innocent owner or landlord can be confronted with a closure without any criminal involvement at all. A closure must nonetheless be proportionate, and that is where most successful challenges are made.

The Bibob Act (Wet Bibob) allows an authority to refuse or withdraw a permit, subsidy or contract on the basis of an integrity assessment of the applicant and the people around him. That reaches far more people than the criminal law does.

Civil law follows the administrative decision. A closure under Article 13b entitles a landlord to terminate the lease out of court under Article 7:231(2) of the Dutch Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek, BW). A landlord who fails to act after warning signs runs the risk of a closure and of claims.

The time limits in the administrative track are short. An objection must be lodged within six weeks, and because a closure order takes effect quickly, an application for interim relief usually has to be made at the same time.

I. Criminal law: when does cooperation become a crime?

Cooperation becomes a crime when you knowingly take part in an organisation that aims to commit offences. You do not have to commit those offences yourself; providing facilities to the organisation can be enough.

The undermining of the rule of law (ondermijning) begins with the entanglement of the criminal world and the legitimate economy. Criminals look for lawful structures to conceal illegal activities or launder proceeds.

• A hospitality business can serve as a vehicle for laundering drug money.
• A transport company may be used to move narcotics.
• A real estate portfolio can function as a buffer for criminal assets.

The defining feature of this type of crime is precisely that it looks legitimate at first glance. That is why the authorities also look closely at the people and businesses around a suspect.

Why is Article 140 of the Criminal Code so powerful?

Article 140 criminalises participation in a criminal organisation as such. The network itself is punishable, independently of the individual offences committed.

For the criminal law response, Article 140 of the Dutch Criminal Code is the central instrument. Because the organisation itself is targeted, the prosecutor can pursue those who facilitate the criminal infrastructure without transporting drugs or using violence themselves: the bookkeeper, the driver or the person who rents out a warehouse.

For a conviction, the prosecutor must prove that you belonged to the organisation and that you knew, in general terms, that it aimed to commit offences. You do not need to know which specific offences were planned. This makes it all the more important for entrepreneurs to act on signs that a customer or business partner is not what he seems.

Which investigative powers can affect you?

The legislator has given the police and the Public Prosecution Service (Openbaar Ministerie, OM) far-reaching powers to investigate organised crime. These include systematic surveillance, interception of communications and, under strict conditions, the use of undercover officers.

These methods do not only affect suspects. People in their immediate environment, business partners or fellow tenants can also come into view during an investigation. Awareness of these rules is therefore relevant for legitimate entrepreneurs as well.

If you are approached by the police as a witness or asked to hand over data, you are entitled to know in what capacity you are being approached. In case of doubt, seek advice before you make a statement.

II. Administrative law: what if your property is closed or your permit refused?

The mayor can close a dwelling or business premises where drugs are found, and public authorities can refuse or withdraw permits after a Bibob screening. Neither measure requires a criminal conviction.

How does an administrative closure work?

Under Article 13b of the Opium Act, often called the Damocles Act (Wet Damocles), the mayor can close premises where drugs are sold, delivered or supplied, or are present for that purpose. It is an administrative measure, not a criminal penalty: no conviction is required.

The closure is imposed through an order under administrative enforcement (last onder bestuursdwang) and is usually for a fixed period, for example three or six months. The aim is to restore public order, to break the link between the premises and the drugs trade and to make clear to the surrounding area that the authorities are acting. The text of the provision can be found in Article 13b of the Opium Act.

Why can a closure also affect the owner or landlord?

Because the measure is directed at the premises, not at the person who dealt drugs there. The owner or landlord is confronted with the closure even if he had no knowledge of what was taking place.

A landlord who rents out an apartment to a tenant who runs a small drug operation may suddenly face a closure order, lost rental income and possible claims. Whether he could have prevented it is only assessed later, during the objection or appeal stage. At that point, what the landlord actually did to supervise the property becomes decisive.

How does the proportionality test work?

The mayor has discretion: he may order a closure, but is not always required to do so. The administrative court reviews whether the closure is suitable, necessary and proportionate, in relation to the seriousness of the violation, the circumstances of the person affected and the public interest.

For a long time, courts reviewed closure orders with a light touch. The Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State (Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State) now reviews proportionality more fully and requires the interests of the person affected to be actively weighed: personal circumstances, degree of culpability and the consequences of the closure.

Two recent rulings show how this works in practice:

• In ECLI:NL:RVS:2025:2922 (16 July 2025), the Council of State accepted that the mayor was entitled to close a dwelling because of serious drug dealing, but held that the closure was disproportionate for the occupant, who was in an advanced stage of pregnancy and had a special connection with the home. The closure order could not stand.
• In ECLI:NL:RVS:2026:475 (28 January 2026), the Council of State upheld a three-month closure despite the occupant’s medical vulnerability. Large quantities of hard drugs had been found in several rooms, and the municipality had offered help with alternative housing.

The lesson is that personal circumstances really are weighed, but that they must be substantiated and weighed against the seriousness of the case. An owner who demonstrably had no knowledge of the criminal activity and actively exercised supervision is in a very different position from one who ignored warning signs.

What legal remedies do you have against a closure order?

You first lodge an objection (bezwaar) with the mayor, within six weeks. If the objection is rejected, you can appeal to the administrative court; in urgent cases you can ask the preliminary relief judge to suspend the order at the same time.

The objection is not a formality. It gives you the opportunity to set out your personal circumstances, your supervision efforts and any relevant facts in full. Under Article 6:13 of the General Administrative Law Act (Awb), you can in principle only go to court if you first lodged an objection. It pays to be complete from the start: the objection is your best opportunity to have the decision reconsidered.

In urgent situations, and a closure is almost always urgent, you can at the same time request a provisional measure from the preliminary relief judge (Article 8:81 Awb). That judge can suspend the enforcement of the order until a decision on the objection or appeal has been taken.

In practice this is an important tool for landlords and property owners. A closure can last months and cause serious financial and reputational damage. Being able to limit that damage while the main proceedings are ongoing is valuable.

What is the Bibob screening, and does it only apply to permits?

The Bibob Act allows public authorities to refuse or withdraw permits, subsidies and contracts if there is a serious risk that they will be used to commit offences or to benefit from criminal proceeds. It also applies to certain real estate transactions with a public authority.

Alongside the closure power, the authorities have this second instrument that is often underestimated. Anyone applying for a hospitality licence in a municipality that applies Bibob policy may be asked to provide extensive financial and business information, for example about the financing of the business and the people behind it.

What is less well known is that a Bibob screening can also apply to real estate transactions in which a public authority is a party: the purchase of municipal property, leasehold arrangements or the lease of premises from a public body. For entrepreneurs who are active in the real estate market, or who have expansion plans involving publicly owned property, this deserves explicit attention.

A Bibob decision can be based on facts concerning people in your business environment, not only on your own conduct. You can challenge such a decision through objection and appeal, and you have the right to respond to the findings before the decision is taken.

III. Civil law: what is the legal position of the landlord?

A closure gives the landlord the right to terminate the lease out of court. At the same time, the landlord can himself be held responsible if he failed to supervise the property properly.

Can the landlord terminate the lease after a closure?

Yes. Under Article 7:231(2) of the Dutch Civil Code, the landlord may terminate the lease out of court once the property has been closed under Article 13b of the Opium Act. No failure to perform by the tenant is required.

The closure itself is a sufficient legal basis, and the landlord does not need to wait until the closure order has become final. The Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal confirmed this in ECLI:NL:GHARL:2023:1291 (14 February 2023). The court stressed the landlord’s legitimate interest in preventing drug activities in his property and upheld the termination, even though the tenant argued that he had otherwise been a good tenant.

That said, the tenant can still challenge the termination in court. In exceptional cases, for example with a very minor violation or very serious personal circumstances, the court can find that relying on the termination is unacceptable under the standards of reasonableness and fairness.

Is the landlord automatically liable?

No. A closure order does not automatically make the landlord liable under civil law. This point is often lost in reporting about organised crime.

The court looks at all the circumstances. Did the landlord know about the criminal use of the property? If not, should he reasonably have known? Did he exercise adequate supervision, and did he respond appropriately to warning signs?

In the administrative case law on closures, the Council of State expects owners and landlords to exercise concrete supervision of their property. Simply stating that you knew nothing is not enough. In ECLI:NL:RVS:2022:2443 (24 August 2022), the Council of State upheld a six-month closure where the owner had received a copy of the tenant’s identity document through a third party, had never met the tenant and had not checked his registration. According to the court, a contractual ban on drug activities does not in itself show that the owner actually supervised the use of the property.

A landlord who carefully screened the tenant, carried out periodic inspections and responded in writing to complaints is in a considerably stronger position than one who did nothing after signing the lease.

If the landlord falls short, he risks losing rental income and bearing repair costs himself. Where he has obligations towards others, for example a co-owner, a mortgage lender or a party from whom he rents the property himself, those parties can hold him liable for their loss under Article 6:74 of the Dutch Civil Code if he failed to perform his contractual obligations. Liability towards third parties, such as neighbours who suffer damage from criminal activity on the premises, can arise under Article 6:174 of the Dutch Civil Code (liability for defective buildings and structures) or the general tort provision of Article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code. Whether such a claim succeeds depends heavily on the facts.

What can you do as a landlord to limit your risk?

The answer lies in a combination of careful screening at the start, active supervision during the tenancy and thorough documentation of everything you do. That is also the question landlords ask us most often.

At the start of the tenancy, carefully verify the identity, income and background of the tenant. For residential letting, the Good Landlordship Act (Wet goed verhuurderschap), in force since 1 July 2023, requires landlords to use a transparent and objective selection procedure and not to discriminate. If you doubt whether documents are genuine, ask for references and verify the information. Record your screening in writing: if a dispute ever arises, documentation is your best defence.

Supervision does not end there. Periodic inspections give you the opportunity to recognise signs of misuse in time, provided they are based on the lease and carried out proportionately, because the tenant’s right to privacy is also protected.

Always respond to complaints from neighbours in writing and with care. If there are concrete indications of criminal activity, send the tenant a written warning or notice of default and seek legal advice promptly. The earlier you act, the smaller the chance that you are drawn into administrative or civil proceedings.

Do contractual clauses protect you?

Clauses against misuse of the property in the lease are sensible, but a general exemption clause by which you try to exclude all liability for the tenant’s criminal activities will only hold up in court to a limited extent.

Under Dutch law, an exemption clause cannot be invoked where that would be unacceptable under the standards of reasonableness and fairness (Article 6:248(2) of the Dutch Civil Code). In ECLI:NL:HR:2021:153 (29 January 2021), a case about a commercial lease, the Supreme Court held that this must be assessed on the basis of all the circumstances of the case. In practice, relying on such a clause in cases of intent or deliberate recklessness is generally considered unacceptable. A lawyer can help you draft clauses that offer real protection and will withstand scrutiny by the court.

IV. Privacy: how is your data shared, and what are your rights?

Authorities may only share your personal data if there is a legal basis and the sharing is necessary and proportionate. If you believe your data has been processed or shared unlawfully, you can request access, correction or erasure, and file a complaint.

Combating organised crime requires cooperation. Municipalities, the police, the Public Prosecution Service, the Tax and Customs Administration (Belastingdienst), the Fiscal Intelligence and Investigation Service (FIOD) and other bodies exchange information to build a complete picture of criminal networks. That cooperation is indispensable, but it also creates risks for the privacy of citizens who, sometimes unjustifiably, have come into view.

Which rules apply to data sharing?

The sharing of personal data between public authorities is strictly regulated. The main frameworks are the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the Dutch GDPR Implementation Act (Uitvoeringswet AVG, UAVG), the Police Data Act (Wet politiegegevens, Wpg) and the Bibob Act.

Data may only be shared if there is a clear legal basis and the processing is necessary and proportionate. Police data may only be provided to other bodies in specific situations, for example where there is an overriding public interest (Article 19 Wpg) or within designated partnerships that work together against serious crime (Article 20 Wpg). Data sharing should never be a routine administrative act: every disclosure requires a concrete and demonstrable justification.

What can you do if you think your data was shared unlawfully?

You can ask the authority for access to your data under Article 15 GDPR, and request correction or erasure or object to the processing. If that does not produce the desired result, you can file a complaint with the Dutch Data Protection Authority or, against a decision of a public authority, lodge an objection and then appeal to the administrative court.

Your rights are not unlimited. In ECLI:NL:RVS:2026:903 (18 February 2026), about the Tax and Customs Administration’s former Fraud Signalling Facility (FSV), the Council of State held that the ministry had given the person concerned sufficient information to check his data, and that it could refuse erasure because the data were still needed for the public investigation into the system itself. The court does review whether the authority’s refusal is proportionate.

For police data, different rules apply than under the GDPR: the Police Data Act has its own rules on access, correction and erasure. A lawyer can help you determine which regime applies and which route is most effective.

Conclusion: why is organised crime everyone’s business?

The fight against organised crime and undermining is no longer confined to the fringes of society. The instruments the authorities use, such as administrative closures, Bibob screenings and integrated data sharing, also affect people who have done nothing wrong.

In many cases that is intentional. The government wants to prevent legitimate structures from being misused, and a certain degree of scrutiny and supervision is unavoidable for that purpose.

That does not mean the law leaves you unprotected. Proportionality and reasonableness are enforceable standards against which decisions are reviewed. The court looks at your personal circumstances, your conduct and your efforts. Those who have their affairs in order, with careful screening, active supervision and thorough documentation, are in a fundamentally different legal position from those who do not.

Are you facing a closure order, a Bibob investigation or questions about your liability as a landlord? Do not wait. Objection and appeal deadlines are short, and timely advice can make the difference between a successful defence and a decision that affects your business or property for years.

Legislation referred to: Article 140 Criminal Code, Article 13b Opium Act, Articles 7:231, 6:74, 6:162, 6:174 and 6:248 Civil Code, GDPR, Police Data Act, Bibob Act, Good Landlordship Act, General Administrative Law Act (Awb).

In summary

• Organised crime reaches ordinary citizens through criminal law, administrative law and civil law, often without them being suspects.
• Under Article 13b of the Opium Act, the mayor can close premises where drugs are found, also if the owner knew nothing; the closure must be proportionate.
• You can object to a closure within six weeks and ask the preliminary relief judge to suspend it.
• After a closure, the landlord can terminate the lease out of court under Article 7:231(2) Civil Code; landlords are expected to supervise their property actively.
• Data sharing between authorities requires a legal basis and must be necessary and proportionate; you have rights of access, correction and complaint.

Organised crime and undermining the rule of law: frequently asked questions

Our criminal law and real estate lawyers advise owners, landlords and entrepreneurs on property closures, Bibob screenings, a landlord’s duty of care and data sharing questions. You can find more about our firm at lawandmore.eu. Unsure where you stand? Tell us about your situation. We will let you know your options within one working day.

How Law & More can help you with this is explained on our criminal lawyer page.