Former employer files a complaint against Khalid Kasem and asks for a disciplinary hearing

The dean of the Amsterdam Bar Association started an investigation into Khalid Kasem in January, after A.D published in January about sound recordings made by Peter R. de Vries. In it, Kasem speaks with De Vries and his son Royce. In it, Kasem acknowledges that he bribed a civil servant in his role as a lawyer. This would be a so-called selection officer.

In those recordings, made in 2019, Kasem admits that he accepted money with the aim of getting a detained client released earlier. Then it A.D asked questions about this, Khalid Kasem strongly denied this. In a written response he wrote: ‘It concerned a client with a high outstanding bill. I tried inappropriately to get some of that paid. It’s nothing more than that.’

In the conversation he defended himself by saying that he had learned such ‘bribery practices’ from a previous employer. “These kinds of practices, not to justify it… At Van Oosten we didn’t do anything other than these kinds of tricks to get these kinds of people out sooner, or to help them. It’s just been too easy,” Kasem says.

Not based on anything

According to the dean, there are no indications that an official was actually bribed. She does conclude that Kasem acted in a disciplinary culpable manner by offering to pay ‘a third party’. About Van Oosten, the dean wrote: ‘The investigation made it almost immediately clear that the suggestion that “tricks” were used in Mr. Van Oosten’s office is not based on anything.’ Kasem has not publicly apologized for the statements about his ex-employer Van Oosten.

Lawyer Van Oosten requested the dean to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Kasem in January, but this did not happen. He considers the settlement, a warning and probing conversation, to be insufficient. He therefore submits a formal complaint about Kasem’s statements and requests the dean to refer the matter to the disciplinary board.

When asked, he says that Kasem apparently does not realize the seriousness of his behavior now that he considers himself ‘exonerated’. “I’m surprised you know about it, but I won’t deny that I filed a complaint. Because the dean’s method of settlement is not correct in my opinion. Especially since there doesn’t seem to have been a single word that he has put my office in a very bad light.”