Three tough questions for Emile Sahhar

A firm handshake, a businesslike appearance, razor-sharp in court. That's the generic picture of a lawyer. In this column, we let the defenses down for a moment and allow you a peek into the soul of our organization. Meet Emile Sahhar (Attorney at Law & Contracts).

Which law are you most affected by?

"Because I am a member of our firm's compliance committee, which, among other things, monitors compliance with the law, my answer may sound somewhat paradoxical, but that is the Wwft. That stands for 'Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Prevention Act.' I absolutely applaud the intent and purpose of the law, but I find it unworkable in practice. Indeed, an important part of the Wwft is the identification of the UBO 'ultimate benificial owner', that is, the ultimate beneficial owner of a company, and its verification. This can be quite a challenge, especially if the client does not have the opportunity to visit the office or if he is part of a larger (international) group of companies with multiple shareholders. That aspect seems to have been overlooked by the legislator. The Wwft is therefore a law with which both lawyer and client are confronted prior to starting work. We attorneys naturally prefer to deal with the substantive law. The case itself, and not the formal issues surrounding it, so to say. Although I am hopeful, because from January 2020 the long-awaited UBO register will come into effect.

When and why was your last "blush" moment?

"In this context, I will confine myself to a professional 'blush' moment... The first thing that comes to mind is a hearing at the 's-Hertogenbosch District Court. In the discussion prior to that hearing, I had made it clear to the client how the burden of proof was shared. That burden was on the other party. To my surprise, the court concluded the hearing by stating that the burden of proof rested with my client. Exactly the opposite of what I had told him beforehand. With my client this resulted in ear clattering, I myself slept badly that night. After all, I was convinced I was right. But fortunately, six weeks later the redeeming words followed in an interlocutory judgment in which the court ruled: 'Different from what was mentioned during the meeting in court (...)'. That restored the client's confidence - and my own ego haha.

What is the biggest surprise in an acquisition that you have encountered?

"Some time ago, our team managed an acquisition in which our clients sold their shares to a Danish party. The core business of our clients' company was the purchase and sale of medical-related products. So the cork on which the company ran was particularly the inventory they held. This was imported and stored in Dutch warehouses. The due diligence carried out revealed that all of our customers' stock had been stored uninsured for years. The consequences could have been disastrous if, for example, a fire had broken out. Fortunately, the stock was insured that same day."