Second Disciplinary Probe Hits Belgian Judge in Shocking Exam Fraud Scandal.. Uncovered

Second Disciplinary Probe Hits Belgian Judge in Exam Fraud Scandal

The magistratenexamen fraud scandal erupted last year, revealing how Carl B. allegedly leaked exam questions to friends, sparking a high-profile investigation.
Marie Dupont1 July 2025Last Update :
Tweede tuchtonderzoek tegen magistraat in zaak van examenfraude: “Dat is niet onwettelijk, hoogstens lui”
www.gva.be

The magistratenexamen fraud scandal continues to grip Belgium, revealing unsettling breaches within the judicial system. Since the case erupted last year, allegations have surfaced that Carl B., a senior prosecutor in Ghent, leaked exam questions to colleagues in West Flanders. These magistrates, with children taking the exam, allegedly received this unfair advantage to secure better results and promising careers in the judiciary.

6 Key Takeaways
  • Fraud involving magistratenexamen questions exposed
  • Carl B. and colleagues suspended pending trial
  • Second magistrate shared secret directive (COL)
  • Investigation probes police chiefs as suspects
  • Accused claim good faith and no wrongdoing
  • Prosecution to announce charges within two months

More developments unfolded by 2025-07-01 16:43:00, as another high-ranking female magistrate from the Ghent prosecutor’s office became implicated. She reportedly passed a confidential document—a COL guideline on organised crime—to a police chief, who then forwarded it to a colleague whose son was also an exam candidate. Though not exam questions, this information may have provided useful insights, raising questions about the fairness of the exam process.

What does this mean for the integrity of Belgium’s magistratenexamen? And how will authorities ensure transparency moving forward? Below is a summary of the latest updates and implications.

Fast Answer: The ongoing magistratenexamen fraud investigation in Belgium involves senior Ghent prosecutors and police chiefs leaking exam-related information, prompting disciplinary actions and highlighting challenges in safeguarding judicial exam integrity.

Does sharing a COL document equate to exam fraud? The case blurs lines between permissible information sharing and improper conduct. Key points include:

  • Carl B. and three magistrates are suspended or dismissed pending disciplinary hearings.
  • The female magistrate denies wrongdoing, claiming she acted in good faith by sharing a non-exam secret guideline.
  • Police chiefs involved argue the exam candidate could have accessed the document through official channels.
  • Investigators remain cautious, especially after suspicious phone calls and concerns about truthfulness arose.
This case exposes vulnerabilities in Belgium’s judicial exam system, prompting calls for stricter oversight to preserve public trust in magistrate appointments.

As the investigation concludes and court proceedings approach, will Belgium strengthen safeguards against exam fraud? Citizens and legal professionals alike await clear outcomes that reinforce fairness and accountability within the judiciary.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


We use cookies to personalize content and ads , to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic...Learn More

Accept
Follow us on Telegram Follow us on Twitter