Court of Appeal, The Hague

joint bench for criminal proceedings

Judgment

rendered in the appeal against the decision of the District Court of The Hague of 20 February 2020 in the criminal case against the accused:

[accused],

born in [place of birth] (Syria) on

[date of birth] 1977,

address: [accused's address].

Examination of the case

This judgment was rendered as a result of the examination at the hearings in the first instance and the examination at the hearing in the appeal proceedings of this Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal has taken cognisance of the request of the Advocate General and of that which has been put forward by and on behalf of the accused.

Procedure

In the first instance, the accused was acquitted of the charges under Count 2 in the case bearing Public Prosecutor's Office number 09-827550-17 and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 36 months, of which 12 months suspended with special conditions in connection with the charges under Counts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in the case bearing Public Prosecutor's Office number 09-767275-17 and in connection with the charges under Counts 1 and 2 in the case bearing Public Prosecutor's Office number 09-765005-19 as described in the decision appealed against. Furthermore, a decision was made regarding the seized goods, and the suspended order for the accused's pre-trial detention was lifted.

On behalf of the accused, an appeal has been lodged against the decision.

Admissibility of the Public Prosecution Service with regard to the charges under Count 1 in the case bearing Public Prosecutor's Office number 09-765005-19

During the appeal hearing, the counsel took the position that the Public Prosecution Service should be declared inadmissible in the criminal prosecution of insult charged under Count 1 in the case bearing Public Prosecutor's Office number 09-765005-19. In this respect, the defence pleaded - in essence - that the WhatsApp messages stated in the reporting person's statement were, according to her, sent before May 2018 and that the reporting person did not complain about this insult until February 2019. According to the counsel, this means that the reporting person did not complain in time, namely within a period of three months, as prescribed in Article 66, Paragraph 1, of the Dutch Criminal Code (hereinafter: CC).

The Court of Appeal considers the following.

The charge is that, in the period from 1 December 2018 up to and including 15 January 2019, the accused insulted reporting person [reporting person] (hereinafter: [reporting person]) several times. It follows from the case file that, on 18 December 2018, [reporting person] forwarded (recorded) WhatsApp messages to the police, which she had received from the accused. On 15 January 2019, she then reported insult during the past month and filed a complaint with the Assistant Public Prosecutor on 18 January 2019. In her statement, [reporting person] reported, inter alia, that she had been receiving WhatsApp messages from the accused continuously since July/August 2018 and that she had not been able to save all of those messages, because the accused had partially deleted them, but that she had saved nine messages from the last month, which she has handed over to the police. Since this shows that the reporting person received the latter messages in the period of 15 December 2018 up to and including 15 January 2019, she did file a complaint within a period of 3 months from the day she became aware of the insult. The investigation conducted at the request of the defence on appeal into the sending date of the audio fragments has not led to a different outcome.

The defence is dismissed.

Admissibility of the accused in the appeal with regard to the charges under Count 2 in the case bearing Public Prosecutor's Office number 09-827550-17

In the first instance, the accused was acquitted of the charges under Count 2 in the case bearing Public Prosecutor's Office number 09-827550-17. The appeal has been lodged on behalf of the accused without limitation and therefore also directed against the decision of acquittal made in the first instance. In view of the provisions of Article 404, Paragraph 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused cannot appeal against this decision. The Court of Appeal will therefore declare the accused's appeal inadmissible, insofar as it is directed against the acquittal given in the decision appealed against.

Charges

The accused - after adjustment of the charges at the hearing in the first instance and insofar as still subject to the judgment of the Court of Appeal - has been charged with the following:

Case with Public Prosecutor's Office number 09-767275-17:

1.

At one (or more) point(s) in time in or around the period from 9 November 2016 up to and including 15 May 2018 in Alphen aan den Rijn and/or Rijswijk, or at least somewhere (else) in the Netherlands, either alone or jointly and in conjunction with another person or persons, without a licence from the Nederlandsche Bank, he intentionally conducted business as a payment service provider with its registered office in the Netherlands, within the meaning of Article 2:3a Paragraph 1 of the Financial Supervision Act, indeed, the accused, either alone or jointly and in conjunction with his co-perpetrator(s), intentionally

1- on or around 9 November 2016, a sum of money of 80 (originating from [person 1]), and/or

A- on or around 24 June 2017, or at least in or around June 2017, a sum of money of 5,000 American dollars [see AMB 167] and/or

B- on or around 1 July 1 2017, or at least in or around July 2017, a sum of money of 5,000 American dollars [see AMB 167] and/or

C- on or around 4 July 2017, or at least in or around July 2017, a sum of money of 525 euros [see AMB 167] and/or

D- on or around 3 August 2017, or at least in or around August 2017, a sum of money of 21,290 euros [see AMB 167] and/or

E- on or around 13 August 2017, or at least in or around August 2017, a sum of money of 200 American dollars [see AMB 167] and/or);

F- on or around 17 August 2017, or at least in or around August 2017, a sum of money of 2,842 euros [see AMB 167] and/or

G- on or around 22 August 2017, or at least in or around August 2017, a sum of money of 10,000 euros [see AMB 167] and/or

H- on or around June 17, 2017, or at least in or around June 2017, a sum of money of 2,000 American dollars [see AMB 193] and/or

I- on or around 18 June 2017, or at least in or around June 2017, a sum of money of 500 dollars [see AMB 167] and/or

J - on or around 18 June 2017, or at least in or around August 2017, a sum of money of 5,000 American dollars [see AMB 193] and/or

K- on or around 27 August 2017, or at least in or around August 2017, a sum of money of 200 American dollars [see AMB 194] and/or

L- on or around 21 August 2017, or at least in or around August 2017, a sum of money of 57,000 Syrian pounds [see AMB 180] and/or

M- on or around 23 August 2017, or at least in or around August 2017, a sum of money of € 411 (for the benefit of [person 2]),

and/or other money transactions and/or money transfers, which the accused carried out and/or had carried out and/or received via his telephone (brand: Samsung A3) [see AMB 167, 180, 193, 194]

and/or other money transactions and/or money transfers as stated in a white folder seized from [co-accused 1] [see AMB 398])

which crime the accused has made a habit of committing;

2.

at one or more point(s) in time in or around the period from 1 April 2015 up to and including 9 September 2017, in Alphen aan den Rijn and/or Rijswijk, or at least somewhere (else) in the Netherlands and/or in Turkey and/or Syria and/or Iraq, either alone or jointly and in conjunction with another person or persons, on at least one if not several occasions(on each occasion) he intentionally provided himself or another person with means or information or intentionally collected, acquired, possessed or transferred items to another person, which served wholly or partly, immediately or indirectly, to provide financial support for the commission of a terrorist offence or an offence preparing or facilitating the commission of a terrorist offence, the accused and/or co-accused person(s) having, indeed, (by means of (so-called hawala) money transfers/money transactions and/or one or more orders to pay out and/or hand over money), sent and/or made available one or more sums of money,

(namely and/or including:

to [brother of the accused] and/or (an)other (intermediary) person(s) (namely (inter alia) [person 3]) in Syria and/or Turkey, for the benefit of [brother of the accused], this [brother of the accused] being a brother of the accused and a fighter of the armed jihad struggle and/or of (the terrorist organisation) IS and/or Jabhat al-Nusra and/or Jabhat Fatah al-Sham, or at least an armed combat group,

while this/these (sums of) money was/were intended (in part) (in each case) to provide (financial) support to the armed (jihad) struggle and/or to (a) fighter(s) of that armed (jihad) struggle in Syria, in which terrorist offences were/are being committed, or (at least) to provide, in each case, financial support for the commission of a terrorist offence or an offence preparing or facilitating a terrorist offence;

3.

at one (or more) point(s) in time in or around the period from 9 November 2016 up to and including 15 May 2018, in Alphen aan den Rijn and/or Rijswijk, or at least somewhere (else) in the Netherlands, he obtained and/or had in his possession and/or handed over one or more items/sums of money (i.e. commission (money) for money transactions/money transfers, which he, the accused, carried out, either alone or jointly and in conjunction with another person or persons) and/or has made use of those objects/sums of money, while he, the accused, knew, or at least should reasonably have suspected, that those objects/sums of money - directly or indirectly - originated from one or more offences (his own or otherwise), which offence (namely money laundering) the accused has or has not habitually committed;

4.

in or around the period from 1 September 2015 up to and including 30 November 2015, in Alphen aan den Rijn and/or Leiden, or at least somewhere in the Netherlands, either alone or jointly and in conjunction with another person or persons, he assisted (a) person(s), namely [person 4] and/or [person 5], in gaining entry to and/or in transiting through the Netherlands and/or another member state of the European Union, Iceland, Norway, or at least a state that has acceded to the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the Convention against Transnational Organised Crime, done at New York on 15 November 2000,

and/or provided [person 4] and/or [person 5] with the opportunity, means or information to do so,

indeed, he, the accused, jointly and in conjunction with his co-perpetrator(s), if not alone

5.

in or around the period from 1 October 2015 up to and including 15 November 2015 in Alphen aan den Rijn and/or Leiden, or at least somewhere in the Netherlands, either alone or jointly and in conjunction with another person or persons,

assisted (an)other person(s), namely [sister of the accused] and/or [person 6] in gaining access to the Netherlands, another member state of the European Union, Iceland, Norway, or at least a state that has acceded to the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the Convention against Transnational Organised Crime, done at New York on 15 November 2000,

and/or gave [sister of the accused] and/or [person 6] the opportunity, means or information to do so.

Indeed, he, the accused, jointly and in conjunction with his co-perpetrator(s), if not alone,

Case with Public Prosecutor's Office number 09-827550-17:

1.

on or around 9 September 2017 in Rijswijk, he assaulted [reporting person] by punching/striking her with force (with his fist) on/against the head;

3.

on or around 9 September 2017 in Rijswijk,

he unlawfully forced another person, namely [reporting person], by violence or any other factual act and/or by threatening that other person with violence or some other factual act, to do something, to omit doing something and/or to tolerate something, namely to eat sambal, by saying to said [reporting person] that he would hit her if she would not do this;

Case with Public Prosecutor's Office number 09-765005-19:

1.

at some point(s) in time in or around the period from 1 December 2018 up to and including 15 January 2019 in Rijswijk, or at least somewhere in the Netherlands, he intentionally insulted [reporting person] (each time) in her presence orally and/or by means of a factual act by sending [reporting person] several recorded WhatsApp messages with, inter alia, the following content: 'you are a whore, a slut' and/or 'you remain a whore and a slut, everyone knows you are a whore, everyone knows you are a slut', or at least words of a similar insulting nature and/or purport;

2.

in or around the period of 11 November 2017 up to and including 25 November 2017 in Alphen aan den Rijn, or at least somewhere in the Netherlands, he tried to get [father of witness 1] (the father of [witness 1]) to verbally express himself intentionally towards [witness 1], apparently to influence her freedom to make (a) statement(s) truthfully or in good conscience before a judge or an official, while he and/or [father of witness 1] knew or had serious reason to suspect that this/these statement(s) would be made, by giving the following information to [father of witness 1] in one or more telephone conversations - in essence - namely, that [father of witness 1] would do him, the accused, a service by letting [witness 1] go to court in order to have her testimony changed and/or that [witness 1] only had to say that he, the accused, had not hit her ([reporting person]) and/or that he, the accused, would send a car to pick up [witness 1] and/or bring her to court, or at least words of similar nature and/or purport.

Request of the Advocate General

The Advocate General requested that the decision appealed against be confirmed, except for the sentence imposed, and that instead the accused be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 40 months, with credit for the time spent in pre-trial detention. Furthermore, the Advocate General requested that a measure restricting personal freedom pursuant to article 38v of the Criminal Code be imposed on the accused for a period of 3 years, including a restraint order prohibiting contact with reporting person [reporting person].

The judgment appealed against

The judgment appealed against cannot be upheld, because the Court of Appeal has come to a somewhat different declaration of charges proven. The Court of Appeal will also adjust the evidence-based argumentation and make other decisions with regard to sentencing.

Defences and considerations of the Court of Appeal

The counsel has - inter alia - disputed the reliability of the statements made by the ex-wife of the accused, [reporting person], and the reliability of the statements made by their daughter [daughter of the accused]. As the statements made by [reporting person] and [daughter of the accused] relate to several charges, this defence will be discussed first.

Reliability of [reporting person's] statements

During the appeal hearing, the counsel took the position - in accordance with his memorandum of oral arguments submitted - that the statements of [reporting person] are unreliable. [reporting person] would like to cast the accused in an unfavourable light by making incriminating statements about him. The motive for these incriminating statements lies in the suspicion that the accused was having an affair, according to the counsel.

The Court of Appeal finds that [reporting person] has made several statements that are invariably consistent, key components of which are supported by other evidence. It is true that in a later statement in 2019 she no longer wanted to answer certain questions, but this can be seen against the background of a threat that her brother would be abducted in Syria, which was to be taken very seriously.

Therefore, the Court of Appeal sees no reason to doubt the reliability of the statements of [reporting person]. The premeditated plan outlined by the counsel, in which she was to cast the accused in an unfavourable light has not become sufficiently plausible in the opinion of the Court of Appeal. The alleged motive is not plausible either in the opinion of the Court of Appeal, since the accused and [reporting person] were already separated at the time that she made her statements about him.

The defence is dismissed and the statements of [reporting person] may be used as evidence.

Reliability of the statements of [daughter of the accused]

As the Court of Appeal will not use the statements of [daughter of the accused] as evidence, the defence concerning the reliability thereof does not require further discussion.

Hawala banking (Public Prosecutor's Office number 09-767275-17, Count 1)

The accused has confessed that he engaged in 'hawala banking'. In the first instance and in appeal, the defence has only raised a defence with regard to the transaction mentioned under D of the transactions included in the charges under Count 1.

The accused stated that he could not remember this transaction and that he did not know [person 7], for whom the money was supposedly intended.

The Court of Appeal considers the following.

In the chat group 'Nederland, [name accused] and [name person involved]', the following message was sent by number [telephone number 1] at 12:24 on 3 August 2017: 'Please hand over an amount of 21290 euros. NETHERLANDS, [PERSON 7], [telephone number of person 7]. Back to our 360.'

At 12.25 hours, [telephone number 2] replied to this message: 'done'.

On 4 August 2017, at 16:04 hours, number [telephone number 1] sent in the chatgroup: 'Send me a copy/photo of the ID card.'

Telephone number [telephone number 2] belongs to the Samsung A3 found in the accused's home during his arrest, and which the accused claims to use for hawala transactions.

A photo of a Dutch identity card in the name of [person 7, spelled differently] (born on 2 May 1956) was found on this telephone. Research in the Personal Records Database (BRP) showed that this was [person 7], born on [date of birth of person 7] in [place of birth of person 7] (Syria). The date and time of that photo are 4 August 2017 at 18:37 hours.

At the appeal hearing on 13 October 2021, the accused stated that the remark translated as 'done' does not mean that the order has already been carried out, but rather that it should be seen as 'we are going to work on it'.

The Court of Appeal is of the opinion that from the remark 'done' it can be deduced in any case that the order to hand over € 21,290,- to [person 7] was accepted. In the opinion of the Court of Appeal, the photo of the ID card of [person 7] from one day later found in the accused's telephone, means that the order was actually carried out, since - as can also be concluded from the file - it is customary in hawala transactions to send a photo of an ID card when the money has been received. As this photo was found on the accused's telephone as well as the remark 'done', the Court of Appeal considers it proven that it is the accused who saw to the order's execution.

On that basis, the Court of Appeal also considers the transaction charged under D legally and convincingly proven.

Terrorist financing (Public Prosecutor's Office number 09-767275-17, Count 2)

The accused is furthermore accused of having transferred sums of money by means of hawala transactions to his brother [brother of the accused], who was a fighter in Syria affiliated with IS and/or Jabhat al Nusra.

At the appeal hearing, the counsel took the position, in accordance with his memorandum of oral arguments submitted, that - in essence - the accused had no intention, not even in a conditional sense, of financing terrorism. At the appeal hearing, the accused stated that he had transferred money to his brother, but that he did not know that his brother was affiliated with a terrorist organisation. The accused should therefore be acquitted of the charges, according to the counsel.

The Court of Appeal considers the following in this respect.

These charged transactions date from April 2015 up to and including August 2017. The question that the Court of Appeal must answer is whether [brother of the accused] was affiliated with a terrorist organisation during that period and whether the accused knew this at the time that he transferred the sums of money to him.

In September 2017, [reporting person] stated that the accused's brother had joined IS, that he later switched to Jabhat Al-Nusra and that the accused, while knowing this, transferred money to his brother.

In this respect, [reporting person] has stated that when she was still in Syria (around June 2013), in a telephone conversation between [brother of the accused] and his wife (with [reporting person] present), she heard [brother of the accused] say that, after he had fled from Idlib, he had joined an armed group. At the time, she did not know which group that was, but when she came to the Netherlands she heard during an audio-visual conversation between [brother of the accused] and the accused that he had joined IS. During that conversation, [reporting person] saw via the webcam that [brother of the accused] was wearing a black bandanna around his head with the IS logo on it. [reporting person] stated that she has been in the Netherlands since 2014. In later conversations, [reporting person] also heard the accused and [brother of the accused] talk about weapons and ammunition, money that had to be divided among comrades/fighters and that, by fighting, [brother of the accused] was waging jihad in Idlib.

[reporting person] also stated that, at the end of 2016, she heard and saw that the accused was making audio-visual calls with [brother of the accused]. [brother of the accused] said that he had killed someone because this person was alleged to have had links with the Shabeeha's (paramilitaries of the regime).

[brother of the accused] also said that IS had been driven out of Idlib by Al Nusra and other groups and that he had joined Al Nusra, because it was they who were becoming more and more powerful.

The statements of [reporting person] are supported by other evidence.

For example, recorded conversations at the correctional facility and at the accused's home show that, on 6 December 2017, he spoke to [person 8] about his brother being an armed fighter and that the police have the photo of [brother of the accused] on which he is wearing IS clothing and weapons. In addition, a photo given to the police by [reporting person] on 9 September 2017 of two brothers of the accused, including [brother of the accused], shows [brother of the accused] wearing black clothing. The police further observed that on the (zoomed in) photo [brother of the accused] can be seen wearing a bullet belt and carrying weapons. A report made by expert [expert] implies that the clothes worn by [brother of the accused] in this photo resemble clothes worn by members/fighters of jihadi/terrorist combat groups.

This photo was also found on the suspect's telephone and is likely to have been received by him via WhatsApp on 14 November 2016.

The witness [witness 2] has declared before the examining magistrate that he sometimes overheard telephone conversations at the accused's home between the accused and his brothers, including [brother of the accused], whereby the telephone was used in speaker mode. [witness 2] heard from the accused that his brothers belong to the armed group. The witness has seen [brother of the accused] during a video conversation between the accused and [brother of the accused], in which he was wearing black clothing, a kind of djellaba up to the knees and underneath that a pair of trousers. In connection with the previously discussed photo of [brother of the accused], which was also shown to the witness, he stated that these clothes are not worn by ordinary Syrians, but by a group of people who give themselves a certain name and fight against the central authority. In Idlib, this, according to the witness, applies to the Al Nusra group.

From all of the above, the Court of Appeal concludes that, in the period charged, in Syria, [brother of the accused] was affiliated with IS and later Jabhat al-Nusra and that the accused was aware of this at the time of the transactions.

Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra are internationally designated terrorist organisations, and this has also been established in Dutch case law on several occasions.

By transferring money to his brother [brother of the accused], who was a member of the aforementioned organisation(s), the accused has at least had conditional intent to finance terrorism, because he has consciously accepted the reasonable chance that all or part of the money transferred by him, directly or indirectly, would end up with terrorist organisation IS/Jabhat al-Nusra.

The Court of Appeal therefore rejects the defence put forward by the counsel and deems it legally and convincingly proven that the accused is guilty of repeatedly and intentionally financing terrorism.

Assault on [reporting person]

The counsel argued that the photo of reporting person [reporting person's] injury could not be used in evidence because the defence disputes that [reporting person] is in the photo and that the photo was taken on September 9, 2017.

In the opinion of the Court of Appeal, the argument of the counsel is insufficiently substantiated. The defence is dismissed.

Influencing the witness

During the appeal hearing, the accused declared that he only told the father of [witness 1] that she had to speak the truth and that he was therefore not guilty of trying to influence her statement/restrict her freedom of testimony, as he has been accused of doing.

The Court of Appeal considers the following in this respect.

It is established case law of the Supreme Court that in order to 'influence' within the meaning of Article 285a, Paragraph 1 CC, it is not necessary to establish that the statements made by the accused were intended to induce a person to make a statement that is not truthful. Indeed, Section 285a, Paragraph 1 CC is intended to guarantee the freedom of persons to make a statement truthfully or in good conscience before a judge or official, whereby it is up to such a person to determine the content of his statement to be made in accordance with his own possibly faulty memory of certain events, without interference with that content from another person.

As appears from the evidence, the accused said to the father of witness [witness 1] (inter alia) that she should tell the judge that the accused had not hit reporting person [reporting person]. From this remark it can be deduced by definition that the accused wanted to influence the contents of the witness's statement. The fact that what he wants the witness to state is true, according to the accused, does not alter this, in view of the jurisprudence mentioned above.

The defence is dismissed.

Declaration of charges proven

The Court of Appeal considers it legally and convincingly proven that the accused has committed the offences under Counts 1, 2, 3 (A and B), 4 and 5 in the case bearing Public Prosecutor's Office number 09-767275-17 and under Counts 1 and 3 in the case bearing Public Prosecutor's Office number 09-827550-17, and under Counts 1 and 2 in the case bearing Public Prosecutor's Office number 09-765005-19, on the understanding that:

Case bearing Public Prosecutor's Office number 09-767275-17:

1.

At one (or more) point(s) in time in or around the period from 9 November 2016 up to and including 15 May 2018 in Alphen aan den Rijn and/or Rijswijk, or at least somewhere (else) in the Netherlands, either alone or jointly and in conjunction with another person or persons, without a licence from the Nederlandsche Bank, he intentionally conducted business as a payment service provider with its registered office in the Netherlands, within the meaning of Article 2:3a Paragraph 1 of the Financial Supervision Act,

indeed, the accused, either alone or jointly and in conjunction with his co-perpetrator(s), intentionally

(indeed, he, the accused, jointly and in conjunction with his co-perpetrator(s), intentionally carried out and/or commissioned the following money transactions/money transfers and/or received and/or made available sums of money, inter alia:

1- on or around 9 November 2016, a sum of money of 80 (originating from [person 1]), and/or

A- on or around 24 June 2017, or at least in or around June 2017, a sum of money of 5,000 American dollars [see AMB 167] and/or

B- on or around 1 July 1 2017, or at least in or around July 2017, a sum of money of 5,000 American dollars [see AMB 167] and/or

C- on or around 4 July 2017, or at least in or around July 2017, a sum of money of 525 euros [see AMB 167] and/or

D- on or around 3 August 2017, or at least in or around August 2017, a sum of money of 21,290 euros [see AMB 167] and/or

E- on or around 13 August 2017, or at least in or around August 2017, a sum of money of 200 American dollars [see AMB 167] and/or);

F- on or around 17 August 2017, or at least in or around August 2017, a sum of money of 2,842 euros [see AMB 167] and/or

G- on or around 22 August 2017, or at least in or around August 2017, a sum of money of 10,000 euros [see AMB 167] and/or

H- on or around June 17, 2017, or at least in or around June 2017, a sum of money of 2,000 American dollars [see AMB 193] and/or

I- on or around 18 June 2017, or at least in or around June 2017, a sum of money of 500 dollars [see AMB 167] and/or

J - on or around 18 June 2017, or at least in or around August 2017, a sum of money of 5,000 American dollars [see AMB 193] and/or

K- on or around 27 August 2017, or at least in or around August 2017, a sum of money of 200 American dollars [see AMB 194] and/or

L- on or around 21 August 2017, or at least in or around August 2017, a sum of money of 57,000 Syrian pounds [see AMB 180] and/or

M- on or around 23 August 2017, or at least in or around August 2017, a sum of money of € 411 (for the benefit of [person 2]),

and/or other money transactions and/or money transfers, which the accused carried out and/or had carried out and/or received via his telephone (brand: Samsung A3) [see AMB 167, 180, 193, 194]

and/or other money transactions and/or money transfers as stated in a white folder seized from [co-accused 1] [see AMB 398])

which crime the accused has made a habit of committing;

2.

at one or more point(s) in time in or around the period from 1 April 2015 up to and including 9 September 2017, in Alphen aan den Rijn and/or Rijswijk, or at least somewhere (else) in the Netherlands and/or in Turkey and/or Syria and/or Iraq, either alone or jointly and in conjunction with another person or persons, on at least one if not several occasions(on each occasion) he intentionally provided himself or another person with means or information or intentionally collected, acquired, possessed or transferred items to another person, which served wholly or partly, immediately or indirectly, to provide financial support for the commission of a terrorist offence or an offence preparing or facilitating the commission of a terrorist offence, the accused and/or co-accused person(s) having, indeed, (by means of (so-called hawala) money transfers/money transactions and/or one or more orders to pay out and/or hand over money), sent and/or made available one or more sums of money,

(namely and/or including:

to [brother of the accused] and/or (an)other (intermediary) person(s) (namely (inter alia) [person 3]) in Syria and/or Turkey, for the benefit of [brother of the accused], this [brother of the accused] being a brother of the accused and a fighter of the armed jihad struggle, namely and/or of (the terrorist organisation) IS and/or Jabhat al-Nusra and/or Jabhat Fatah al-Sham, or at least an armed combat group,

while this/these (sums of) money was/were intended (in part) (in each case) to provide (financial) support to the armed (jihad) struggle and/or to (a) fighter(s) of that armed (jihad) struggle in Syria, in which terrorist offences were/are being committed, or (at least) to provide, in each case, financial support for the commission of a terrorist offence or an offence preparing or facilitating a terrorist offence;