On the 3rd of March 2009, Clemens K., the head of finances of a national arts fund based in Amsterdam, disappeared with 15.8 million euros of public money. Also gone are his three children and two women he's been dating with. The people in his former environment are in shock: bewildered, angry, surprised, some are concerned. 

For those left behind, it's not so much the massive amount embezzled– it's the treachery which affects them most. Apparently out of nowhere, he’s broken all conventions on a professional, but also on a personal level: what went on in his 'second' life?

The point of departure of the film is the almost mythical idea that he, the meticulous man of numbers, the man who has sent us, the artists, innumerable warnings and corrections, did what most artists want to do– but manage only in a symbolic manner: crossing boundaries, taking great risks and putting his own desires first, without any justification to the outside world.

I'm fascinated by the thought that freedom is essentially an illusion.  Whether you’re an artist, an accountant or a criminal.  The 'freedom' of the artist only works if they're willing to play the game of preset conventions and unspoken rules. Some artists show this more than others. We've interviewed Marc Bijl, who has a huge tattoo on his torso showing the text: “This belly was made possible by the Fonds voor Beeldende Kunst, Vormgeving en Bouwkunst”(Bkvb Fund).
Is that the ultimate freedom, to be able to put a rather useless revelation just above the belt? Why wouldn't an accountant, or anyone else for that matter, long for this kind of freedom?

The cliché of the 'dull' world of the accountant versus the 'exciting' life of the artist is being turned upside down in the film. Why is it, that someone suddenly does something so extreme, so out of character? Where, when and how did it start with Clemens K., the good-looking, kind and helpful family man from the descriptions? Was he the nice guy they saw in him, or was he wearing a mask all along? What made Sammy run? 

The time leading up to the fraud, and the imagined life thereafter are being narrated by an actor speaking from the bookkeepers point of view, alternating with people being interviewed: the ones left behind. Next to this, the filmmakers' point of view represents my own interpretation, introducing another form of speculation. The man, Clemens is thus seen through a kaleidoscope, speculating on possible motives.

Clemens K.'s narration is based on hundreds of emails found in his digital trash, where his engagement with criminals became apparent. It seems he was happily lured into something he could or did not want to undo or turn around.