Someone else’s car seized in a Dutch criminal case

Who is the garnishee and who claims to be the owner?

The seized party is the person from whom an object has been seized. This does not have to be the same person as the owner in every situation. A third party can claim to have their own right to the car. Therefore, ask under what name the attachment is registered and what role you have. The suspect may have a different interest than a financier, leasing company or family member who bought the car. A joint story that the car is ours may not provide enough legal direction.

Make it clear which right you invoke and what it is based on. Is it about ownership, a contractual claim, financing or just practical use? Those positions are not equal. The lawyer must be able to assess the third party's own interests without every communication going through the suspect. Also discuss whether independent assistance is necessary in the event of possible conflicting interests. Anyone who needs the car on a daily basis may have a great practical interest, but has not yet automatically proven that they are the legal rights holder.

Ask why the car remains impounded

The Code of Criminal Procedure has various seizure options. Article 94 may, among other things, play a role in establishing the truth or a possible later decision on the subject. Article 94a concerns security for certain financial claims or measures. Ask which basis applies now and whether it has been changed later. The mere fact that a car was owned by a suspect does not explain under what arrangement the continuation of the seizure must be assessed.

The OM explanation about seizure helps recognize which information and documents should be available. Keep proof of seizure and further decisions. A statement that research is still ongoing may be too general to understand one's own position. Ask the lawyer which specific test applies to the basis. A defense that only applies to the seizure of evidence is not automatically sufficient against a seizure that is also intended to secure recovery. Conversely, a future monetary claim may not suppress any ownership interest of a third party without a legal basis. (OM explanation about legal seizure of goods or assets)

A registration certificate is not the complete ownership history

Vehicle registration is important for vehicle obligations and identification, but is not the same as a full civil title assessment. The Civil Code, Book 3, provides rules on goods and transfer. Purchase, payment, delivery and agreements about use may be relevant to the file. A bank payment alone does not have to prove every element: perhaps it was a loan, donation or payment on behalf of someone else. The coherence of documents and statements must be made clear. (Civil Code Book 3)

Use original documents with data. Consider the purchase agreement, invoice, payment details and correspondence surrounding the purchase. Explain who received the car, who had keys and documents and what was agreed. A short contract that was only drawn up after the seizure has a different evidentiary context than a pre-existing agreement. This does not automatically make a later explanation untrue, but requires transparency about the origins. An owner file must explain the actual progress, not only create the most favorable paper title afterwards.

Actual use may support a statement or raise questions

Who drove the car, where was it usually kept and who paid for insurance, maintenance and repairs? Such information is not individually decisive, but can clarify the alleged ownership relationship. Someone can be the owner and lend the car out for a longer period of time. That explanation must then fit the agreements and other facts. A car that is used and paid for exclusively by the suspect may require further explanation than a short demonstrable loan.

Make the division of roles verifiable without deducing too much from one piece of information. An insurance policy in your name does not independently prove every ownership issue. A license plate on the suspect also does not rule out another owner in all cases. Ask the lawyer which combinations are relevant in the specific file. The RDW information about registration concerns its own administrative system. Let that registration fit the actual history, but do not treat the administrative name as universal proof that all other questions have already been decided.

Attachment to secure subsequent recovery poses its own question to the third party

When an object is seized to secure subsequent recovery and a third party requests its return, the question arises whether it is beyond reasonable doubt that that third party should be regarded as the owner. Even if ownership is established, special legal provisions regarding recovery of goods belonging to someone else may be relevant. Consider the situation in which goods have become the property of a third party to make enforcement more difficult and that third party knew or could reasonably have suspected this. Have the applicable terms and conditions explained carefully.

Therefore, just stating I am not a suspect is not a complete answer. Your own position can be investigated without being prosecuted for the main offense. Provide the lawyer with reliable information about cash flows, transfer date and reason for the construction. An unclear arrangement between family members can raise additional questions. Don't try to cover it up afterwards. The aim is to demonstrate which rights actually exist and which legal exception is or is not applicable, based on the existing facts.

A specific car store shows the importance of coherence

In HR October 15, 2024, ECLI:NL:HR:2024:1406, a third party stated that he was the owner of a car seized from a family member. The Supreme Court clarified the standard for attachment to ensure later recovery. Although the court had not applied that criterion in a recognizable manner, the cassation appeal was dismissed: the findings included that the alleged ownership was not beyond reasonable doubt. A favorable consideration of a legal error therefore did not result in the return of the car.

The specific circumstances included registration, location and the credibility of the explanation given. It is not a general rule that a car at the suspect's house can never belong to another person. The statement does show why documents and factual explanations should be read together. Use it to critically examine your own substantiation, not as a standard letter with the conclusion that every third party is right. A formally correct legal question must also be based on a convincing factual file.

A complaint is its own procedure

If restitution does not follow, the complaints procedure of Article 552a of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be relevant. Have your own capacity, submission route and deadlines assessed. Different terms apply depending on, among other things, the legal position and the course of the case. A general request for information does not automatically constitute a complaint. Therefore, do not wait for unlimited informal consultation when the car is in custody and a formal assessment is needed. Save every sent request and response.

The complaints judge does not automatically decide the entire criminal case or any civil dispute definitively. The procedure has its own test, linked to the seizure grounds and the information available at that time. Ask what result is requested and what documents are required for this. A third party can prepare differently as if only daily use is central, while legally ownership and a possible recovery interest must be assessed. Good advice brings the actual need and the relevant test on the same map.

Fictional example: payment by a parent and use by a child

In a fictional example, a parent pays for a car that is used primarily by an adult child. The license plate is in the child's name. After the seizure, the parent says that it has always remained his car. A bank transfer supports that he financed the purchase, but does not independently show whether it was a loan, donation or own purchase. The lawyer therefore collects the original purchase agreement and communication about use. The intention must be examined as it existed before the attachment.

A second fictitious variant contains a written loan agreement and consistent data about payment, ownership and temporary use. That provides a different evidentiary context, without guaranteeing an outcome. The example makes it clear why giving money and remaining an owner are not synonyms. An accurate file can make a real right visible, but cannot subsequently change another agreement. Therefore, also leave unfavorable information and discuss how it fits into the actual ownership history.

From purchase to current claim in one folder

Create a chronological folder with a brief explanation of each document. Indicate who drafted a piece and when. Do not use a recently drafted contract as if it existed at the time of purchase. Include practical consequences of the attachment, but keep them separate from the proof of ownership. An entrepreneur who cannot work without a car may have a relevant interest; that interest does not prove who is the owner. The file must make both questions understandable without mixing them.

• Attachment: date, attachment, item identification and current basis.
• Purchase: agreement, invoice, seller and delivery details.
• Money: payment, financing and actual agreement about loan or donation.
• Usage: key management, regular user, location and existing loan agreement.
• Registration: license plate, insurance and other data with their own meaning.
• Claim: invoked right, possible legal exception and substantiation.
• Procedure: requests, decisions, complaint period and expected next step.

A decision on return must also be implemented practically

If the car is returned, ask who can pick up the car, what documents are needed and whether there are other valid grounds for seizure. An answer about one legal seizure of goods or assets does not have to take away every other interest. Also discuss questions about the condition of the car or how the car has been stored separately when they arise. A favorable decision on paper is important, but it must be linked to the actual possibility of getting the vehicle again. Avoid the expectation that a telephone conversation with one employee replaces every further administrative step.

Our conclusion: a third-party owner mainly benefits from a verifiable ownership history and a clear distinction between seizure grounds. Use the main attachment and return guide for the broader context and have the specific third position assessed in a timely manner. A license plate, payment or family statement can provide information, but none of them answer every question apart from the rest. The correct procedure must make the real law visible, without presenting the claim as automatic as soon as someone says that they are not a suspect. (main guide to seizure and return)