ECLI:NL:RBARN:2012:BY6901
ECLI:NL:RBARN:2012:BY6901
AI generated
Court dismisses prosecution for practicing unregistered health care causing harm under the BIG Act.
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe court dismissed the public prosecutor's charges against the defendant for practicing unregistered health care. The prosecution alleged the defendant performed alternative therapies that diverted patients from regular medical care, potentially causing harm. The court found insufficient evidence to prove the defendant acted with the required intent or knowledge of causing harm.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedWet BIG; Wetboek van Strafrecht: The prosecution must prove the accused knew or had serious reason to suspect that their unregistered health care practice would cause harm to a patient's health.
Keywords
AI generated
Wet BIG
unregistered health care
intent to cause harm
alternative medicine
criminal prosecution
medical negligence
prosecution burden
Cited Legislation
AI generatedWet BIG
Wetboek van Strafrecht
Artikel 302 lid 1 Wetboek van Strafrecht
Artikel 45 lid 1 Wetboek van Strafrecht
artikel 261 van het Wetboek van Strafvordering
artikel 284 Wetboek van Strafrecht
artikel 36f van het Wetboek van Strafrecht
artikel 9a van het Wetboek van Strafrecht
artikel 6:106 van het Burgerlijk Wetboek
artikel 27 van het Wetboek van Strafrecht
Related Decisions
AI generatedECLI:NL:RBNNE:2026:2243
Court orders criminal defendant to pay civil damages to victims and state for property damage and assault.
ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2015:980
Defendant convicted of leading organized cocaine trafficking organization and selling drugs in Gelderland, sentenced to 30 months prison.
ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2013:BZ9297
Court convicted defendant of attempted grievous bodily harm but acquitted of attempted murder due to lack of intent evidence.
ECLI:NL:RBUTR:2011:BR4678
Dutch court convicts defendant of attempted severe assault and life threat, suspends prison term due to hospitalization.
ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2014:3082
Court dismisses attempted robbery charge due to insufficient evidence of the specific threat of violence used. The defendant is acquitted of the crime of attempted robbery. The court found the prosecution failed to prove the specific threat of violence required for the charge. The defendant was acquitted because the evidence did not meet the legal threshold for attempted robbery. The court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the specific threat of violence required for the charge. The defendant was acquitted because the evidence did not meet the legal threshold for attempted robbery.