My point really has nothing to do with the ruling being correct or incorrect, though. My point is that highly unethical behavior is almost always corrupt by the

My point really has nothing to do with the ruling being correct or incorrect, though. My point is that highly unethical behavior is almost always corrupt by the definition of corruption you gave because there is almost never a reason other than "vested interest" for a public servant to engage in highly unethical behavior. Even if the vested interest is something relatively innocuous like convenience, it is still a vested, personal, interest. It is also worth pointing out that corrupt behavior isn't always illegal under that same definition (at least the portion you quoted, which seems to be a pretty "common sense" way of looking at the issue). Additionally, even where the behavior is illegal, it is easy to imagine situations in which there would be no way to prove to a court (given that, in the US at least, the standard of proof is quite high in criminal trials) that the corrupt behavior violated the law. This last point is one reason we have elections. Even when the courts can't establish that a leader is corrupt (quite a tricky thing to do), the public can convict the individual at the ballot box. Of course this doesn't always work, and sometimes it works backward (and it doesn't work at all for appointed judges, though in the US they can be impeached and removed by the legislature). No system is perfect, but based on the article I am comfortable concluding, at least provisionally, that this particular judge is corrupt. Of course my opinion means exactly nothing to the Dutch people and government, but since when has an issue like that stopped us from having a rousing discussion on HN? :-)