Also 5 million for home winner Millionaire when claim granted

Also 5 million for home winner Millionaire when claim granted

View News, Nov. 19, 2013

If the claim of 4,875,000 euros, which Arrold van den Hurk has filed with Endemol through his lawyer Peter Plasman, will be granted, there is a good chance that Endemol will have to pay out a total of 10 million euros.

Home candidate 'Suitcase game'
According to the rules of the game of Miljoenenjacht, the "home candidate" who participates in the suitcase game receives the same amount as the winner in the studio. Now that was 125,000 euros but if van den Hurk still receives a total of 5 million then the home candidate is also entitled to 5 million euros. So that would total 10 million euros for Endemol.

Arrold van den Hurk, who he says accidentally pressed the button during the November 3 TV broadcast and thus received the bank's offer of 125,000.00 euros, is filing a claim with Endemol for 4,875,000.00 euros.

Arrold van den Hurk said immediately after pressing the button that he was plagued by nerves and had actually wanted to play on. The notary was then asked if the game could still go on but he was implacable and said, "I am extremely sorry, but the rules are the rules. Printed is printed. So unfortunately."

Arrold van den Hurk has engaged lawyer Peter Plasman. Who says in Nieuwsuur that the notary had an interest in Van den Hurk going home with a "low" amount. He fills the suitcases with the checks and therefore knew which amount is in which suitcase. So also that van den Hurk had 5 million in his suitcase. 

Notary Jan Piet van Harseler denies to Nieuwsuur any personal interest. "I watched with amazement what this gentleman did. We stopped the shooting because I wanted to make sure he really hadn't accidentally slipped his hand off the glass case." 

'Rules of the game adjusted'
Lawyer Plasman claims that the rules of the game of Million Hunt on the website were changed after Van den Hurk's participation. A sentence has been added: If the finalist wants to accept the bid of the bank.he has to press the 'red button' and thus the game stops. In the game rules that Van den Hurk had received on paper before his participation that sentence was missing.

Endemol responded as follows after Nieuwsuur asked for a reaction: "No changes have been made to the game rules provided to participants of Miljoenenjacht. However, the game rules were published on the website Miljoenenjacht.nl after the recording on October 16 and an addition was made to the game rules to answer any questions from viewers following the November 3 broadcast. The addition serves to underline the rules of the game. The rules as such have not been changed."

team
Kötter L'Homme Plasman Lawyers

  Here the highest
possible level of
  legal assistance
      pursued 

December 4, 2025
Advocaat Micha Jonge Vos van Kötter, L’Homme & Plasman Advocaten staat een van de verdachten bij in een Delftse strafzaak waarin het Openbaar Ministerie spreekt van vermeende ‘maffiose incassopraktijken’. Zijn cliënt, Carlo M., zou betrokken zijn geweest bij een poging tot afpersing, maar Jonge Vos betwist de betrouwbaarheid van het door het OM gebruikte bewijs, waaronder zendmastgegevens. De rechtbank doet uitspraak op 17 december.
December 3, 2025
In HLN verscheen een artikel over de ontuchtzaak tegen Marco Borsato, waarin mr. Peter Plasman namens het minderjarige slachtoffer optreedt. Plasman benadrukt dat de verdediging van Borsato probeert af te leiden van de kern van de beschuldiging door randverhalen. De strafrechtadvocaat stelt dat alle bijzaken irrelevant zijn: het gaat enkel om de vraag of Borsato het meisje ongepast heeft aangeraakt. Zijn cliënte vraagt geen celstraf of geld, maar erkenning.
November 24, 2025
Tijdens zittingsdag 6 in de strafzaak tegen ‘Walid’ hebben mr. Simcha Plas en mr. Jordi L’Homme betoogd dat Nederland geen rechtsmacht heeft over de tenlastegelegde mensensmokkel. Volgens de verdediging zijn de feiten volledig in Afrika gepleegd en ontbreekt een concreet aanknopingspunt met Nederland. Ook zou de identiteit van de verdachte niet vaststaan en schiet het bewijs tekort: getuigenverklaringen verschillen sterk en zouden beïnvloed kunnen zijn door sociale media.
EN