MDNDR010 of police Zeist is investigating the report of N. Achikzei

caret-down caret-up caret-left caret-right
Narges Achikzei, who was set on fire, and her boyfriend had a heated conflict with the woman's 32-year-old former employer in Utrecht. The family is associated with fraudulent practices. In any case, they were accused by an aggrieved man. He himself was summoned to a court one week after the fire murder in connection with the slander. For a long time he is said to have sent e-mails to the woman - an ex-worker - and damaged her honour and good name.

It is very likely that this conflict played a role in the cruel death. The public prosecutor's office never wants to answer questions about the content of the legal conflict. It is clear that the conflict exerted great pressure on Achikzei and other participants.
Utrecht Police
District Binnensticht
File No: PL0920/09-001375


police officer of police, Utrecht, district Binnensticht
the following is stated:


Declarant N. ACHIKZEI had reported libel, defamation and insult. The declarant is engaged to Mr Z. Mehraban.
(remark verbalizer: it appeared from the investigation that the defendant assumed that both were married and that N. ACHIKZEI today is called N. MEHRABAN).

The defendant was the employer of the declarant from 1 June 2007 until 7 May 2008. On 6 May 2008 the notifier would have received an email from the defendant stating that she could take the entire month of May off. On 7 May 2008 the declarant was told by telephone by the defendant that her contract with Advios would not be renewed.

Subsequently, the next day the notifier received an email from the defendant stating that the declaring party’s fiancée had sent him a death threat.
The defendant then wanted the declarant to withdraw her death threat. The person reporting the incident stated that she had not sent a death threat.
(remark verbalizer: no evidence was found of the threat)

Subsequently, she has received a total of about two to three hundred emails of her former employer since her resignation. These mails stated that her husband was a stupid Afghan man and that he was Salafist and/or a fundamentalist. The accused also wrote that the person making the declaration fought a jihad against him in the name of islam.

Defamation via internet:
The suspect has expressed himself in a very undesirable way
towards the declarant, on the following Internet sites:

On the site of, individuals warn each other about alleged scammers, the name N. MEHRABAN came up for scams. This also included a bank account of N. Mehraban.

The defendant stated that this surname and initials corresponded to that of the declarant. The defendant has started to supplement the site with remarks towards the injured party.

However, an investigation carried out by the reporting agent at the bank has shown that the person making the declaration has nothing to do with the N. Mehraban on the scam site. The bank account number doesn’t match.

The attached copies of the Internet sites show:

PL0920/09-001375- 1


File No: PL0920/09-001375

– He says that the declarant has gone down the criminal path
– he says that the declarant is a scammer.
– He says that the person making the report is lying and that she has made a false report.

The suspect was interrogated on 21 January 2009. The defendant could in no way prove that he had actually been threatened by the declarant. He referred to his own website of his work: in which he told his own story.

After the suspect had been interrogated by the police, he posted another message the next day on This page is attached to the file.

The defendant seems to be convinced that the declarant is under the influence of a certain Abdul Jabbar van der Ven whom he does not know personally and of whom he is not sure whether the declarant knows him personally. According to the defendant, the declarer is conducting a hate campaign against him via this Abdul Jabbar and the defendant feels is the victim in this conflict.

Remark verbalizer: Explaining the state of mind of the suspect:
During the interrogation, we found that the defendant, despite his
co-director of a financial consultancy firm, could possibly have tunnel vision with regard to the declarant. It is possible that the suspect could have confused reality and fiction with regard to the person making the statement. For example, he acknowledged that it was a blunder that he had associated her name with the name N. MEHRABAN on the site, while one day after the interrogation he again linked her name to the declarant on this site.

From statements of the defendant and announcements of the notifier, the motive for the defendant’s conduct could be that the defendant would have liked to have married the declarant himself.

From information from the injured party it appeared that on 3 February 2009 both were parties in a civil law case. It dealt with the resignation of the injured party. In that case as well, the defamation was cited via the Here, too, the accused demonstrated a tunnel vision.

Of which by me,
PETRA BERNADINA FRIENS, on oath of office
has been drawn up, this record, which I closed and signed
at ZEIST on 6 February 2009.


PL0920/09-001375- 2*

Posted in Dutch authorities, Innovation, Investigation, Murder Narges Achikzei, Timeline, Whistleblower and tagged , , , , , , .