Certificate to ~e Attached to Documentary Evidence Accompanying Requisitions in the United States for Extradition AMERICAN FOREIGN SERVICE ..~~J2!:~~~~!:~.,...!?!:~~!st._.K!:!?E~~Ei: .. ~~.~ ...~~Q.~ .. (P~ I &Ild dau) Stuart A. Bernstein Ambassador •......... -............ -................ --------..--.......--.......... ............................................................ ot the United Sta tes of America at ........................~~?~~~!:~~!:.~ .. ~~!:~!:::~.......................... hereby certify that the annexed papers, being ...... ~::J2J2~E..t:_~E5!._E~;:~!:E.t:~ ............. . proposed to be used upon an applicat10n for the extrad1tion from the Un1ted States of ........~?.9.~.~~...~~~ ..~~~~.;:~~!! ........................................................ , charged ,,1 th the er ime o f ..~~~~~.~~~!!~ .. ~!!~ .. ~~~ .. ~y.~?J,~m .......................••_••.•.•••..•..•.........•....••.....•..... _ alleged to have been committed in ......~=~~~~....................................................... are and legally authenticated so as to entitle them to be received in for similar purposes by the tribunals of ......~=~~~~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. as required by the Aet ot Congress ot August 3, 1882. In witness whereof I hereunto sign my name and cause my se al of ott10e th1s __ t~nty_-:fj.l:~t.._....... day o t ._EebJ:uaJ:~ •.. 2QD2 ....................... _..... _. (!>lODIII &IId,..r) ~~ =t-= ---- _._-- ....... _-- ............. ::---_ ..-_ ......... _--.- ............ _-- ..... ----_ ....... - .... _- ......---- ., _...._Aml?~.~~E_unt in Barclays Bank, Miami, belonging to Sten Byrner (in his capacity of chairman of LSV). On a document of 23 January 1992 Bodil Ross Sørensen has stated the purpose ofthe payment to be "support to a project".The balance ofSten Bymer's account was raised by the transfer to approx. USD 510,000, and the folIowing day - 28 Januar.' 1992 - Bymer transferred USD 440,0 I to the estate agents Kline, Moore & Klein, Miami. The amount roughly matches the down payment on flats in The Sterling, Miami, which were bought by Chilton Intervest Corp., cf. tab 43 . For one ofthese purchases Svend Sørensen (at the same time manager in South Cluna Sea Farming) signed surety for a loan for the purchase. The flats in Miami have since been inhabited by members ofthe Tvind management. It appears from the Group diagram p. 17 that Chilton Intervest Corp. is a company owned by Fairbank, Cooper and Lyle. ° 71 19 Additionally, an arnount ofUSD 25,020 was on 6 Februar\" 1992 transferred from B\'rner"s account in Barclays Bank to Kirsten Larsen's American Express account ID Sun B~, Miarni. Conclusion On this background there is probable cause to suspect that funds for the Malaysia project have ' been paid to purposes which cannot legally receive money from the Foundation, and that deductions have also been unlawfully made in the tax retums ofthe Foundation for pa~ments and provisions for the project. 5.3.2. Count B.1.9: Biogas plant French Polvnesia 5.3.2.1. Application and grants By an application of I October 1990 the LSV applied the Foundation for financial support to an arnount of DKK 2,500,000 for establishing a biogas plant in French Polynesia. The application is worded in English in Paris and signed by Sten Byrner. , ~ r It appears from the application arnong other things that a local farmer has applied for financial and technical support from LSV for solving a pollution problem. It also appears that Mr. Stein operates a large fann in Tahiti, with a livestock of approx. 1000 pigs and about 20,000 pcs . poultry. According to the information the local authorities have orde red Mr. Stein to do something about the resulting pollution. It also appears from the application that LSV has not applied to other foundations because LSV is ofthe opinion that only Tvind"s Humanitarian Foundation will treat LSV seriously. According to the application LSV has "decided" to carry the costs ofbuilding a biogas plant on Mr. Stein's premises and to employ Mr. Stein during the construction period. The purpose is to protect the environment from the pollution from the large number of animals and to convert the manure into energy, thereby being a model for the other fanners . It appears from the minutes ofa board meeting in the Foundation on the sarne day, I October 1990, that the board - after thorough discussion and having especiaIly made a point of the primary benefit to the natural environment - decided to grant DKK 2,547,000 to the project. cf. Exhibit 56-3-3-1. According to an undated application, LSV represented by Sten Byrner applied for further funds, so that the total grant arnounts to DKK 4,518,000, cf. Exhibit 56-3-3-2. By letter dated 20 March 1991 the Foundation represented by the chairperson Bodil Ross Sørensen replied that the application could·be granted. The board meeting was held on.)O March 1991 . By agreement of9 December 1992 LSV represented by LaTs Jensen borrowed DKK 309,000 from Fælleseje represented by Poul Jørgensen for the use ofthe project. The arnount was to be repaid at the latest on 1 February 1993, cf. Exhibit 56-3-3-2. By letter of 21 December 1992 LSV applied for a further arnount of DKK 309,000 from the Foundation. It appears from the minutes of 31 December 1992 that the Foundation has received an application - in the first instance verbally - from LSV represented by Lars Jensen to a further arnount ofDKK 309,000 for the "project", arnong other things as a consequence of extra expenses for consulting, traveis, etc. According to the minutes the grant has been decided by the board ofthe Foundation on the basis of some memorandum. By letter of 31 December 1992 the Foundation represented by the chairperson Bodil Ross Sørensen announced that the application for DKK 309,000 had been granted. On 7 Januarv 72 1993 LSV asked the Foundation to pay the granted amount ofDKK 309,000 to Fælleseje. On 26 Januarv 1993 Poul Jørgensen confinned on behalfofthe Foundation that the amount had been paid to Fæl1eseje . . By letter of25 Januarv 1993 LSV represented by Lars Jensen applied to the Foundation for further support, so that the total support amounted to DKK 5,178,795. By letter of21 Februar.' 1993 the Foundation represented by the chainnan Poul Jørgensen stated that the application for DKK 945,000 had been granted. It appears from the minutes ofthe board meeting that the decision was made on 20 FebruaQ' 1993. By letter of 25 Februarv 1993 LS V. represented by Lars Jensen. requested the Foundation to pay the amount to LSV's account 2102586551 in Citibank Miami and account 72890500101 in Barclays Bank in Paris. By letter of 13 May 1994 LSV represented by Lars Jensen asked the Foundation for a ftmher payment ofDKK 170,000 for the project. By letter of22 May 1994 the Foundation represented by the chainnan Poul Jørgensen replied that the application had been granted. 5.3.2.2. The police investigation of the project T I ri The investigation has shown that the final recipient ofthe funds from the Foundation, Mr. Stem, is a personal friend ofthe defendant Amdi Pedersen and others. By the decisions in the Foundation described, support has been given to an indiYidual. who carries on commercia/ actiYity. Therefore the payments are unlawful (not "public utility"). Proteetion o( nature Hans la Cour has explained to the police (Exhibit 54-5 p. 35) that he had no first-hand knowledge ofthe project, but that in 1993 he had visited Stein on Tahiti, where he met Lars Jensen, who was Tvind's "Mr. Fix It". He has later spoken to Stein's son, who had said that the plant never became operational. It appears from Hans la Cour's written statement to the police that Amdi Pedersen and Kirsten Larsen originated the idea ofthe project and convinced Stein that the biogas plant was the solution to the problems he had with pollution. It appears from an e-mail from Hans la Cour to Stig Jørgensen (Exhibit 54-2-14) that originaIly Amdi Pedersen met Stein at a round-the-world trip, and that Amdi Pedersen and his fellow travelIers stayed for six months at his estate. Amdi later returned and visited Stein, who has also visited Denmark. Walther Juul Hansen has similarly stated to the police that together with Amdi Pedersen and seven others he participated in a round-the-world trip in 68/69. In August 1968 the group arrived in Tahiti. Here they met Stein and his family. Stein made a site available to the group where they built a hut, and Stein supplied them with food. They stayed there for about a month until they were asked by the French authorities to l~ve Tahiti (Exhibit 54-9 p.4). It appears from the reports prepared by LSV (Lars Jensen) that establishing the biogas plant wiIl prevent Mr. Stein's closing his enterprise and provide an opportunity for him to expand the operation ofthe farm, cf. Exhibit 56-3-3-4 p. 16 ff. The actual application o( the funds A biogas plant has been constructed at Mr. Stein's estate. However, there is no docwnentation that all the funds granted to the project have actually been spent on the purpose. The accounting material for the project is deficient, and - judging by the dates - all the accounts have been made subsequently, in 1995 (Exhibit 56-3-3-6, see tab IO, letter dated 12 June 1995 to Poul Jørgensen with attached draft for 1991 accounts for LSV). In several cases the accounts seem to be incorrect. For example, the Tvind management (Kirsten Fuglsbjerg) 73 21 instructs Lars Jensen and Poul Jørgensen how reports from LSV etc. are to "explain" the application ofthe money for the project, cf. tab 2l. As in a number of the previous projects an agreement has also been made in this one on -"consulting assistance" etc. with the company John F. Parsons Ine., cf. in more detail above in section 4.3 .2.2. A sum ofFF 620,000 has thus been paid to this company without any further explanation ofhow the company has contributed to the project, cf. Exhibit 56-3-3-6 P 5. Via the project, substantialloans from the funds ofthe Foundation have been made to the Jersey company Kirehheiner Bros. Ltd. In 1991 a sum ofFF 676,000 has thus been transferred from the Tahiti project as a loan to Kirchheiner Bros. Ltd. (cf. Exhibit 56-3-3-6 p. 15). In 1992 a loan of FF l.244 m has been granted to the same company. It seems that both loans have been settled in 1995, cf. Exhibit 56-3-3-6 p. 45A. It appears from Sten Bymer's papers (tab 2, picked from Evidence Exhibit G-2-3) that Kirehheiner Bros. Ltd. is centraIly placed in the Tvind group, and that the company is controlled direct by KLAP. In the Group diagram on page 18, Kirchheiner Bros. Ltd. appears as one offour Tvind companies under the heading: "LG Bank Accounts". In the same place It appears that the company is managed by Kirsten Larsen, Else Jensen, Birgitte Krohn, and Anne Hansen, and that the company is owned by Fairbank, Cooper and Lyle. Administration of the project There is no evidence that LSV has managed the project. As for applications, etc. it is noted that these have allegedly been prepared in English in Paris, among other places, but that they contain the Danish letters æ, ø, and å. The indications oftime in the initial application also point in the direction that all applications have been prepared by Tvind in Grindsted under direct instructions from LG's Economy. , Thus it appears from a number of documents from 1998 (tab 34) that in 1998 Marlene Gunst and Ruth Sejerøe-Olsen as agreed with Amdi Pedersen and Kirsten Larsen instructed Poul Jørgensen and Lars Jensen to ensure that LSV was closed do\\n and that the ownership ofthe biogas plant was transferred to Stein against payment of IO $. There are detailed instruetions to Poul Jørgensen and Lars Jensen to prepare a fictitious correspondence about this topic. It appears that the topic has been put before Amdi PedersenlKirsten Larsen. On 19 November 1998, after the decision had been made, Lars Jensen wrote on behalf of LSV to the Foundation that LSV wished to liquidate and in this connection to transfer the ownership ofthe biogas plant to Stein. In this conneetion the Foundation's consent to this is requested. By letter dated 6 December 1998, the Foundation represented by the chairman/Poul Jørgensen that the board has held a meeting and can accept that the ownership is transferred to Stein. All according to the instructions given by Marlene GunstIRuth Sejeroe-Olsen and KLAP. There are minutes available of a board meeting (telephone meeting) aUegedly held on Q December 1998, at 4.00 p.m. - subsequently signed by Poul Jørgensen, according to which the board decides that the ownership may be transferred to Stein, ef. Exhibit 13-1-2 p. 63. Therefore the decision has not been made by the Foundation board but by the defendants Amdi Pedersen and Kirsten Larsen on 26 Oetober 1998. Conclusion 74 On this background there is probable cause to suspect that the funds for the Tahiti proJect have been paid unlawfully, and that the deductions for allocations and provisIOns for the proJect have been made unla\\ifully. 75 5.3.3. eount 1.11: FIoryl, Bruil 5.3.3.1. Application and grant , J I I an II December 1992 LSV applied for support to an amount ofUSD 2,575,000 to a "umque nature protection project" in Brazil. In the application, whieh is signed by Lars Jensen, it IS mentioned that a very large plantation in Brazil (totally 104,000 ha) has been owned by Shell, but tltat LSV has now entered into an agreement on cooperation with "the new owner" (Exhibit 56-3-4-2 p. 17). It does not appeal' from this Ol' the folIowing documents who 'lhe new owner" is. It appears from later correspondence that FIoresta Atlantica Ltda owns the plantation. For this company Tove Birkøe signs as "manager". Tove Birkøe was one ofthe two founders of the Foundation. From aecounts, ete. it appears tltat the funds paid by the Foundation to LSVILEE, whieh these associations pay to the owner, are spent by a number of subsidiaries (Exhibit 56-3-4-8 p. 21) At a meeting on 14 December 1992, the Foundation deeided to grant the amount applied for (chairperson Bodil Ross Sørensen). TIlis amount ofUSD 2.6 m was paid in the period 19921996, so tltat in 1992 the Foundation paid the first instalment of USD 750,000 to LSV. In 1993 LSV applied for a transfer to another Freneh association, LEE. The folIowing pa}ments were made to that association. In addition, the Foundation decided in 1994, on the background of an application from LEE dated 2 Oetober 1994, to grant USD 411,000 to the building ofa power station at Fazenda Jatoba. This application and the subsequent reports from LEE are signed by Lars Jensen. In addition to these two prima!)' grants the Foundation has also supported the project with USD 200,000 for completion and e:\.1ension ofthe power station at the plantation and for payment of legal expenses, etc. 5.3.3.2. The police investigation of the project 'f The investigation has shown tltat Floryl Florestadora YPE S.A. is a commercial enterprise. controlled by the dejendants. where the profits accroe to LG 's treasury. The payments are therefore unlawful (not for a "public utility " purpose). The investigation has a1so shown tltat part ofthe funds allegedly paid to Floryl Florestadora YPE S.A. have been spent on other purposes. The purpose of purchasing the plantation The purpose of purchasing Fazenda Jatoba is described in a letter from Amdi Pedersen to Kim Bonde Andersen of 8 Janual'\' 1993 (tab 8). It is not mentioned in this letter tltat the purpose of the purehase should be nature proteetion Ol' research. It was clear to the Tvind management tltat there was no basis for producing electricity by means of biomass fuel for subsequent sale ofthis electrieity. because the plantation is too far removed from urban areas to make this profitable. The purpose of the purehase seems to be that Amdi Pedersen wanted to establish a commereial plantation ",ith a self-sustaining Tvind community on the estate. Therefore, Jatoba is intended to: Pay for its own operation, to eontribute to LG's treasury, and to supply wood for sale through ane World Entreprise, ef. more about this eompany in the folIowing. The purehase of Floryl Florestadora YPE The projeet in Brazil is part ofthe total activities executed and rnanaged by USS. an the list of LG activities (tab 42) Flo!)'1 appears as No. 232 and 233 . 76 24 In June 1992, the company Tropical Farming Ltd. (Kim Bonde Andersen) initiated negotiations with Royal Dutch Shell about purchasing the 140,000 ha plantauon Fazenda Jatoba, which is situated in the Bahia region in Brazil. Tropical Farming Ltd. is registered on Grand Cayman and owned by DSI Estate in Denmark. The company does not appear on the Group diagram for 1995. During the negotiations with Shell, Kim Bonde Andersen has currently received instruetions from "KLAP" and from the rest ofthe management ofLG's economy. For instance. Amdi Pedersen (KLAP) decided the size ofTvind's offer. The dea1 was concluded on 3 December 1992, when the seller accepted an offer ofUSD 12 m (the actual sales contract is not included in the case). On Il December 1992 a protocol ofintent ofthe purehase was signed. On the same day the coming manager ofthe owner company, Lars Jensen, prepared an application to LSV for USD 2.5 million. On the same day LSV - a1so represented by Lars Jensen - applied to the Foundation for support to that amount, cf. the foregoing. Ownership of the receiving company The plantation in Brazil is owned by the company Floryl Florestadora YPE S.A. Until 1991 Royal Dutch Shell owned all the shares in this company. In 1992 LG's treasury purchased the company on direct instruction from the defendants Amdi Pedersen and Kirsten Larsen. This appears for one thing from Sten Bymer's letter of 3 December 1992, tab 6. The deal was completed by Sten Byrner and Kim Bonde Andersen, who in connection with the acquisition used a number of companies controlled by the defendants (ef. group diagram below). The faet that via a number of front men and companies the defendants Amdi Pedersen, Kirsten Larsen, Ruth Sejerøe-Olsen and Marlene Gunst were in reality be~ind the purehase is confirmed by Amdi Pedersen's letter about replacement ofthe management (tab 28). After the purehase, the ownerships were as fo11ows, cf. also the group diagram on page 6: Farmers Trust I Hobbhouse Investment Co. Ltd Jersey Fairbank Cooper Lyle Ltd. 3 Jersey Companies Bahia Farming Ltd .. Guemsey Floresta Atlantiea Ltda, Brazil New name: Floresta Jatoba (Brasi!) Ltda. Floryl Florestadora YPE - owns the plantation Fazdenda Jatoba - 25 77 At all times the defendants have attempted to conceal the ownerships ofthe plantation from the Danish authorities. It is demonstrated for exarnple by the Department ofPrivate Law's decision of26 June 2001 that Poul Jørgensen had surrendered a document from which it appeared that "we", i.e. LG, bought Jatoba in 1992. It seems that this document was _surrendered to the Directorate by a mistake. In any case the defendant Jørgensen attempted to remove it from the file of the authorities during a meeting l ... r- , The defendants have also attempted to conceal that in a number of cases the te).,"! in the applications has been prepared in cooperation between the "applicant" and the chairrnan ofthe Foundation and the persons responsibie for LG's economy. It also appears from a "list of assignments" prepared by Ruth Sejerøe-Olsen and Marlene Gunst that in connection with later applications - an application of 15 November 1998 - it lies with Poul Jørgensen to write the cover letters to be forwarded with the application to the Foundation. It appears from the exarnples in tab 19, tab 20, tab 22 and tab 23 that Poul Jørgensen also de facto has formulated both applications and letters to the Foundation, that is to Poul Jørgensen himself, conceming the project. The actual application of the funds of the F oundation: The funds for the purehase ofFloryl Florestadora came from two sources: (I) From Bahia Farming Ltd., which was a company newly established for the purpose under Fairbank, Cooper and Lyle. In connection with the purehase Bahia Farming received a number of transfers from a number ofTvind's companies and associations, including UFFlHumana, and from LG's treasury. (2) From La Societe Verte, which in turn was financed by Tvind's Humanitarian Foundation. Regarding the application ofthe funds from the Foundation, it appears from the application of II December 1992 that the funds from the Foundation shall primarily appear (be entered) as a loan, whereafter the amount is to be converted into a donation to the compan)'. Therefore it appears from the application (Exhibit 56-3-4-2 p. 18) that the first part ofthe grant - USD 750,000 - is to be spent on the purchase ofthe plantation, while the money for the following years is to be spent on support ofthe project, i.e. the protection ofnature. The Foundation has also informed the authorities that the grant had the nature of a loan. This was observed by the chartered accountant ofthe Foundation, Erik Romer Jensen, in 1998. In a letter of 6 April 1998 the accountant informed Poul Jørgensen that a loan could not result in tax deductions. At the same time the accountant suggested " renanling" ofthe payments to Floryl to a "subvenflon with obligation ofrepaymem In the form ofroyalty", cf. tab 18. Preliminary investigation of the cash flows shows that a large part of the funds from the Foundation has been spent on down payment and current payments of options to the seller, alld that the bulk ofthe amount paid - USD 1.4 m - has been spent on covering costs without any connection with a possibie protection of nature at the estate. All transfers from LSV/LEE have been entered at the recipient - Floryl Florestadore - as "Ioans" or as "funds for future, additional capitaJ". The reason behind these entries was that Tvind did not wish to pay ta" of the money in Brazil, cf. tab 32. The investigation has also shown tha~ part of the funds paid to the Floryl project has been spent on quite different purposes. Thus it appears from the documents under tab 27 that there is a discrepancy of USD 496,000 between the arnount paid by the Foundation and the amount received in Brazil according to the books. The discrepancy is stated to be for exarnple "management fee" and "travel expenses" in LEE totaJling USD 325,000. Since LEE - as stated above - is a "brass plate company" without any form of operations, this is proof that these funds have been spent on other purposes. It appears from the same exhibit also that answers to questions from 26 78 authorities are in rea1ity preparedlconstructed by others than the foundation management. casu Kirsten Fuglsbjerg (KF), and that the deficit in the books for 1995 is explained by expenditures allegedly effected subsequently . In • It also appears from a draft for auditor's records for LEE of l July 1995 (tab IO) that in 1993 in connection with the project,loans have been granted to an amount ofUSD 176,000 to Eastover Properties Ltd. and Furtherland Farming Ltd. These two companies are registered on Cayman Islands. It appears from the Group Survey, tab 43 p. 8 that Furtherland Farming is owned by Kirsten Larsen personal l)' with 40% and by Cay Properties Ltd. by 60% - As per l September 1995 Kirsten Larsen 0\ws Cay Properties with 96%. Correspondingly, Kirsten Larsen personally owns 98% ofthe parent company of Agricorp Ltd., which in tum o\ws Eastover Properties Ltd. In a letter of 6 May 1995 from Kirsten Fuglsbjerg to Poul Jørgensen (tab IO) it is stated that "the section about Cayman [shallJ be deleted" from the auditor's records. Finally it can be mentioned that it appears from the documents under tab 23 that an application from December 1998 for payment of USD 100,000 to the power plant at Jatoba is a fabrication. In reality the money was to be used as "buffer in a mortgage payment to be made Wednesday" . Operation of the enterprise Until 2000 the plantation in Brazil was managed by Lars Jensen, who at the same time was chairman of LSV and LEE. This does not appear from the documents to which the authorities have had access. It appears from the dossier, tab 28, that on 19 September 2000 the defendants Pedersen and Larsen decided that due to unsatisfactory earnings on the estate, Lars Jensen was replaced as senior executive by Søren Sørensen (up to then head of LG's production enterprises in Belize). In connection with a lawsuit concerning the construction ofthe power plant on the estate, Poul Jørgensen has acted as legal advisor for the o\\ners ofthe plantations, cf. the dossier, tab ll. In this work Poul Jørgensenhas also acted under instructions from LG's Economy (in casu Anne Hansen). , In 1999 the Danish ta..... authorities in cooperation \..ith the local authorities carried out an investigation of the Floryl project. The Brazilian authorities concluded that the operation of the plantation was commercial, and that there had been no (or very little) planting offorest, citrus plantations, or other crops to replace the intense forest cutting at the plantation. Even though the enterprise might have developed and implemented a system for electricity production by exploiting feUed wood (such as it is stated a.o. in the applications to the Foundation), everything indicates that the management on site has only maintained forest planting and felled trees that were ripe for this. Instructions concerning the operation: It appears from a number of exhibits discovered in secured computers at Tvind that grants to the plantation are managed by Ruth Sejerøe-Olsen and Marlene Gunst, but under instructions from Amdi Pedersen and Kirsten Larsen (KLAP). As mentioned, Amdi Pedersen has stated in a letter of 19 September 2000 that the purpose of LG' s o\\nership is maintenance of the value of the estate and maintenance of the thinning out of the forest and controUing production profitability - and to cut and seU the trees when they are ready. Amdi Pedersen sets the goal that productivity must be increased by 200%, the wages must be cut by 62% of the present wages, the debt must be liquidated, and the accountancy must be revised so that "one can see that there is a profit '!. The sale of wood from Fazenda Jatoba is partly effected 79 under Amdi Pedersen 's personal control through a company "One World Emerprise". whlch responsibie for wood export for fumiture production in China. IS Condusion On the background ofthe foregoing there is probable cause to suspect that payments to the - Floryl project have not actually been used for public utility purposes. let alone to "protection ofthe natural environment". Thereby the payrnents are unlawful, and deductions for allocations and provisions in the accounts ofthe Foundation have been made unlawfully t", tr ! 80 6. Allocations to humanitarian purposes 6.1. Applications and grants: . 'Ibis summary ofthe case does not comprise the grants from the Foundation in the period 19972000 for humanitarian purposes. These counts are - like the main part of the other counts - still being investigated, and therefore it cannot be excluded that in these more recent projects, humanitarian purposes have actually been subsidised. Until further it is noted about these counts that in the period after 1997 the Foundation has preferably subsidised the "Federation" (UFFlHumana), and that the defendant Mogens Amdi pedersen and the management ofLG's Economy seemingly dictate the Foundation board these grants, which to a certain, as yet unclarified e:\.1ent, are triggered by fictitious applications) 6.2. police investigation of the projects: Until further it is noted that also regarding payments to the Federation (UFFlHumana) there is a number of irregularities in the administration ofthe Foundation. For one thing it appears from Eva Vestergaard's letter of 3 January 1997 (tab 15) that Rikke (Viholm) is the person who applies to the Foundation on behalf ofthe Federation. and that her letters are to be written by others, because she is co-founder ofthe Foundation. It appears from a number of other documents found by searching that the Federation makes substantial contributions to LG's treasury, and that trade in second-hand clothes is not in the nature of a humanitarian effort, but that the trade takes place "on a commercia/ basis direct to LG 's treasury ". cf. tab 29. The investigation has also shown that at least USD 270,000 has been paid from the Foundation to the defendants Amdi Pedersen' s and Kirsten Larsen' s entire disposal under the prete:\.1 that it mvolved support to the fight against AIDS etc.in Africa. It appears from the dossier, tab 31, that there is an e-mail message of27 Februar 2001 from the defendants Ruth Sejerøe-Olsen and Marlene Gunst to the defendant Poul Jørgensen stating arnong other things: • "We have talked to KLAP and agree wlth them. The Foundation grants USD 100.000. Today the Foundation has a total 0/160.000 USD In cash. We make an application o/USD 100.000 from TCElthe Federation/or expense:i in connection with publications and small experiments in connection with TCE. The money wi/l be avai/ab/e on 1 March. We have wr1lten to Maria Darsbo: You must make an application to the FOlmdation now/or the 100.000 USD. ( ..) YOll mllst agree with pJ how this must be Jormu/ated. And we would Iike you to make the appbcatlOn at once and send it to the Foundation by e-mai!. so that they ean have a meeting without de/ay. Preferably tomorrow even ing. so that KLAP actua/ly have the money made availab/e ". 'TCE" IS an abbreviation for 'Total Control ofthe Epidemic", Tvind's anti-AIDS programme in Africa. Maria Darsbo is the senior executive ofthe Federation (UFFlHumana). It also appears from an e-mail of 14 May 2000 from the defendants Ruth Sejerøe-Olsen and Marlene Gunst to the defendant Poul Jørgensen, that: 81 "We are preparmg a grant ofUSD l70.000from the FOllndatlOn ro the Federation. ( .). When we have decided the contents o/the app/ication. the HQ or el e.advlce wIIl wrlte If. and then the Foundation wi/l have a board meeting. andthe money will then be paid. Th,s means that in about a week the Foundatlon will pay USD 170.000 ro the FederatIOn (the management af UFFlHumana (the author's note)) Now YOII are warned. (USD 110.000 is for the federation. and USD 60,000 is/or GAJA 's containers. but we take it via thefederation ro spare the Foundation. and then il is between the Federation/Planet Aid and GAIA we create a relation we take il that that is how you prefer il ". The defendant Poul Jørgensen (and Dorthe Svendsen) replied to this message on 28 May. 2000, that "we" had received an application from the Federation, which was no good, but now another, much better had been received.The money was transferred to the Federation's account in BG Bank, Copenhagen, on 28 May, 2000. The circurnstances conceming 1997-200 l are still being investigated. r 82 7. Conclusion ~ In all the counts described above the prosecutor finds that there is proof that the fonnal management ofTvind's Humanitarian Foundation acting on instructions from Mogens Amdi pedersen (and Kirsten Larsen, who cannot be separated from Amdi Pedersen) has paid funds to purposes which are not ofpublic utility, or which at the same time have the nature of support to humanitarian purposes, promotion of research or protection of the natural environment. Thus it is a common feature for all projects from 1987 to now that no major decisions on the situation ofthe Foundation are made without "KLAP" being involved, and that Amdi pedersen exercises his authority on the Foundation through "LG's Economy", i.e. in the period 1987-1992 via Sten Byrner and then Ruth Sejeroe-Olsen and Marlene Gunst. The purpose of the payments has been to obtain an unwarranted gain for the defendants themselves or others - in the last resort a gain for the common economy in Tvind, "LG's treasury". Pavments to "promotion of research:" The payments in 1987-1991 have been effected via IFAS, which is not - as represented by the defendants - really a research organisation. Thereby it can be assumed that the funds have been unlawfully paid, and the actual going over of the projects that have received subventions also demonstrates that no funds have been specifically spent on ·'research". On the contrary, all funds are going back into the LG treasury. Pavments to "support of the natural environmenf': The payments 1992-1998 for nature purposes were effected via LSV and LEE, which are not in real ity - as represented by the defendants - associations engaged in nature preservation. Thereby it can be assumed that the funds have actually been paid unlawfully, and the actual going over of the three projects described in this preliminary statement does not disprove the assumption. r • Count B.1.10: The funds have been spent parti y as capital for the USS-owned plantation in Malaysia, which is a commercial enterprise, partly on irrelevant purposes, including the purchase of flats in Miami and payment to Kirsten Larsen personally, Count B.1.9: The funds have been spent on support of a single individual, Mr. Stein, who operates a commercial enterprise, and they have been transferred to the free disposal of the defendants, Count B.1.11: The funds have been spent partlyas a capital payment into the USS-owned plantation Fazenda Jatoba, which is a commercial enterprise, and parti y on irrelevant purposes. The funds in these counts have consequently not been spent on support ofthe natural environment, as stated to the autborities. Pavments to humanitarian purposes : 83 (Under investigation). In all instances trus case summary cites numerous pieces of evidence that in a large number of cases the defendarlts have prepared fictitious applications in order to conceal from both the Department of Private Law and the Custorns and Tax Authorities that the funds of the Foundation are not spent within the legal area. and that the formal board of management of the Foundation does not make decisions conceming the application of the funds of the Foundation. On the contral)', the Foundation is rnanaged by the defendant Amdi Pedersen. , Consequently the prosecutor also finds that there is probable cause to suspect that the defendants are guilty of embezzlement ofthe Foundation, and that the deductions in both the contributors' income (which are triggered by the approval ofthe Foundation pursuant to section 12(3) ofthe Danish Ta", Assessment Aet) and the deductions in the tax retums ofthe Foundation are incorrect, and that the whole operation is an expression of a ta", constructlon built on incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information on the tax circumstances of both the contributors and the Foundation. Tbe Public Prosecutor for Seriou, Ijonomr Crime Tbe Chl fC~~J_ _ _ _ _- - - Date: 29 November 20Gi J.nr. SA0K 278/00 - PG r • 84 The Administration of Justice Aet SectiOQ 29. The Court MaY order that a coun session is held behind closed doors (private hearing) [ 1l, i) • ir called for out of consideratioDS for order and discipline in the coun room [2], ii) if callcd for out of considerations for the governmcnt' s relations to fareign powers or if otherwise c:aJled for out of spocial considcrations for these (3], or in) ifthe hcaring ofthe case at a public session ofthe Coun will inflict unnecessary indignity of anyonc [4], inc1uding the case that evidence shall be made on trade secrets. 2. [5] In criminal cases the Co urt may decide that the doars shaH be closed i) ifthe accused (the person eharged) is belaw 18 years ofage [6], ii) ifpublic hearing must be assumcd to endanger anyone's safety [7], or iii) if public healing must be assumed decisivcly to prevent the evidence of the case [8]. 3. Ai court sessions the doors can be closed pursuant to subsection 2 (iii) only in a court of flrst appeal, and only if il must be assumed that also other persons than the person or persons cbarged in the case can Iater be charged, and that very special considerations require the closing of the doors. The proceedings of the trial shaH be entered into the records afthe Court in such detail that at the passing of sentence the public can be given a rendering of the trial to the extent that the purpose of the closing af the doors is not farfeitcd. 4. It cannot be decided to eIose the doors if it is sufficient to apply the rules on probibition of reporting or publication of names, c;f. sections 30 and 31, or on exc1uding individual persons from attending, ef section 28b[9]. t- • ANTAL 5.02 85 ., B!LAG \..lu - ~ S!DE I~ Translation of section 13 of the Danish Tax Control Act 13.-(1) Any person who with intent to evade payment of tax to the public authorities gives wrongful or misleading information to be used when deciding whether such person shall be liable to pay tax or when deciding on assessment or computation of tax shall be punished with a fine, simple detention or imprisonment in up to 2 years. Participation in tax fraud, cf. section 23 of the Danish Criminal Code, shall be punished in the same way. (2) If the offence is due to gross negligence, the punishment shaH be a fine or, under aggravated circumstances, simple detention. r • 86 • Chuplcr ,28: i\c'lui.~ilh·c et Offcllccs § 276. Any person \Vho. wilhout Ihe eonsenl of the possessor. carries away allY langibie objeel for Ihe purpose of ublainillC for hirnself or for olhers nn unlawful gaill by il, apflroprialion shall be guilty of IIIl~rl. For Ihe purpose oC lhis and the folIowing sections, any quanti.y of energy that is produced, consen'ed or ulilil.ed for lhe production of light. heat. power or molion Dr rur :lIIr olhcr econOJlIic purpose shall he recognized as equh'alenl IO 1\ tangibie object. § 177. AllY person who, for Ihe PUrpOSe or obcnining for hil\lulf or for olhen au unlowful gain. apprllpriales :InY tangibie objeel whiclt is nOl in Ihe custod}' of an)' person or whieh has come into Ihe hauds of the perpelralor through earelessness on the part of Ihe owner or in an}' similar accidemal \\':J~' 5hall be guiit)' of misapproprialion of llbjeclS found. § 17/1, (I) Any peuon \\'ho, for ehe purpose of oblaining ror himself or for olhen an unlawCul gain, I) approprialcs any langibie object belonging IO any other person and whieh is in his cuslddr. in eircumstances other Ihan those eo\'ered by Seclion 277 of lilis Ael; ar 2) refuses IO acknowledge reccipt of a pee\lniar~' or any olhcr 10:111, Dr of a service for whieh a remuller:Jlion shall be paid: 3) unla\\'full)' spc:nds mone)' Ihat has hec.-n enlrusled IO him. even iC he was nol under an ohligalioll In heJl il sl'par:"c: frnlll his own funds; shall be guilly ol" ernbenlecnenl. (2) The provision in para. 1 of subseelion (I) above thall nOl include dispositions or anicJes Ihal have been bought and willl respeel \0 whieh lhe \'endor has resen'ed propc:ny umil Ihe purehase Jlriee has been raid. 00 .....:t § 279. Any person who, for Ihe purpose of oblaining for himself or for others an unjuslified !ain. br unl:I\\,"\llIy hringing ahout, corroboraling or CJIpioiiilIg a mislakc. induces an)' person IO do or omil IO do an aet which in\'oh'u the loss of propc:ny for the deec.-i\'cd llersoJl or ror olhers :IITeeled by Ihe aet or omissioll. shall be guilt}' of fraud. § 179 o. An~' per!ion who. ror Ihe purJlOse of obl3ining for himseJr ~r for olllers lIII ullju,slilied guin. ulllawrully ehanges, :Idl!s ur er:lscs inf,mnnlioll or progranunes for (he use of elceeronic dal a pråcessing, or who in any olher 1\13nner atlempts Io arreet lili: results of sueh data processing. shall be -- J!i . • ~ ~. guihy of comruler fraud. § 280. Any person \Vho, for Ihe purpose of obeaining for himself or for olhers an unlawful gain. involves some olher person in li loss of propcrty, I) by abusing an auUlOrity conferred on him to aet wilh legal efrecl Oll behalf of Ule laner 2) by aCling againsr Ihe interests of the person concerned in respect of properly held in trusl by hirn on behalf of thaI person shaII, provided Ule ease is not eovered by Scelions 276-279 aof Ihis Aet, be guihy or breaeh of trus\. § 281. Any penon who l) for the purpose of obtaining for himself or for olhen an unlawful gain, threatens same olher person with violence, subslantial damage Io goods or depri\'alion of liberI}', wilh making a false aecusation ar ha\'ing eommiued a punishable IICt or dishonourable eondticl or wilh revealing mateers apper(øining to his private lifei or who 2) for Ihc purpose of obcaining for himself or for olhers an unlawful gain. (hreaeens some olber person wilh vio)ence, subslanei:al d:antage to goDd! or deprivalion of Iibert}', \vilh making araise aceusalion of h:l\'ing eommiUed a punishable let or dlshonourable eonduc[ ror Ule purpose of oblaining for hlmself or for Olhers a gain \Vhieh \vas not justified by Ihe aClion which \Vas Ihe reason for the threat; shaII, provided the case is not co\'ered by Seelion 2BB of Ihis Ael, be guilty nf eJl(orcion. § 282. Any person who takes ldvamage or anolher person' s serious eeonomie or personal difficulties, lack of knowledge, Irresponsibilhy or exisling slate oC dependencc in order IO obtain or stipulale in a eOOlract ~n)' pa)'ment which is out or all proportion to the relurn, or for whieh 110 payment is due, shall be guiilY or usury. \.. . );: G> § 283. (I) Any person who, ror the purpose Dr oblaining for hiOlself Dr for olhers an unlaw(ul gain, I) sells, pawns, mortgages or in any olber way disposes or propert y belonging to him, but on whieh a !hird party has acquired a rigiII wieh which !he 3el is incompatible; or 2) subsequcnt IO tlle instilulion of bankrupIe}' procecdings against him or IO lhe eommencemenl Dr negDlialions IO agree on a composilion. underlakcs aelS aimed al withdrawlng from en:ditors thc propert}' Bnd interests in Ihe eSlale; or 79 .c- O ~ en O m 1:3 • ~ ~) by 'alu~ rrC:I~I1("C: .~, COlIl'c:llrllrlll, pro funna clIlllraeeS, suhslanci:1I gins, neclSi\'c eonsumplion, soles al cUI poees, paYIIlt:IlIs o,. or dcposh of guaranlcc for debil nol due Dr in any olher similar møMer wilhdrows his propcrt)' or illlcrcs\.S from his en:dilors or from any onc of Ihem; shalJ be guill}' af misapproprialion of funds. (2) If leIS of Ihe nalllre im.licated in pora, 3 of SUbscclion (l) above have becn undcrloken for Ihe benelil of a eredilor, Ihc laller shall be Hablc IO puni~hmcnl only if, al the lime when he roresaw the imminence of bankrUpIC}' Dr Ihe suspension of payments by the debtor, he indueed the deblor IO ~r.allt hilll sueh f!ldlilies. § 184. Any person wbo 3ecepts or oblains ror himsrlf or (or others a .sharc ill profilS aequired b)' Iltcfl, misappropriatilln of objccls found, embnz.lemeRI, fraud, compuler fraud. bruclt of IrUSI, e.\lonlon, misappropri:uion of funds. robber~' Clr dolalion of SeclioJl 289, second sC'nlence. and any per.son who, b)' hiding IlIe artieles Ihus IlclJuired, b)' assi.lllng in selling Ihem or in :III)' olher similor manner helps Io emure for lhe b:nefil uf anolher person Ihe profilS of an)' of Ihese offenen, sh.all be !uilty of recei\'ing slolen goods. § 285. (I) The olfenees referred IO in Seclions 176, 278-1R I or 28) ol' Iltis Ael as well 85 reeeiving slolen goods in eonneclioR with sudl ofrenceJ or wilh robber)' Dr \'iololion of Seclion 289, neond Senll!OCC or usur)' sh311 be punished with imprisorunent ror all)' lerm nOl exeeedlng one year and 6 lIlanIh,. In lhe circlllmllaneu deah \\'ilh in Seelion 283(2) 'of Ihis Åct, the Ilrnahy in respl.'Cl or Ihe dcblor :IS well as Df Ihe credilor \\'ho h;,s bellefilcd ma)' be rc:duccd to simple delcmian. (2) Misappropri:uioll of nbjeel5 found and receiving slolen goods in eanneclion wilh such offenec:s shall bl! puni~hed wilh a line or sltllplc deten· Iion or iOlprisoIHnelll fur all)' lcem not excceding ane }'car and 6 11I0nlh~. ~ 186. (I) If Ihe Ihdl is ol' a 113rticularl)' aggravlned nature. for e!(ample beo causc of Ihe manne r in wllich il waS committed, or bt-cauJe il \Vas commItled by several persons in association, or becausc: wC'apons or any olher dallgerous inslrumenls were hroughl aloog, or because or Ihe high value of Ihe objcclJ stoltn, or Ibe condilions under which lbe}' were kepI. or where a large number of Ihefts have lIeelI eommiucd, Ihe pellahy may he increllsed Io imprisonmenl lor up IO 4 }'ean•. (2) The penahy for embczzlement, fraud, computer fraud, breach or Inl~1. Clr mi5arproprialiCln Df f'lnds Illa)'. ",here Ihe offenee is of a particur;1I rr ,,~~ra\'al~" U:11l1f~ lir \Vhn.: a "Hg~ 1lI11l1llCr of ,"ch Ilrft!IICI:~ h;1\'1: l~clI --- ~ ~o ... " ~ eOnlmiued, be illereased Io imrrisonment for Bil)' lerm up IO 8 yc:.r5. (J) The penolty of elllorlion, usur)' ur reecivillg may, under similar eircunuwnccs, be increased Io imprisonmenl for any lerln up IO 6 )'urs. § 287. (I) If any ohhe offenees dealt with in Seelions 216-284 o( Ihis Aet is of minor importance because of Ihe circumslances under which lhe punishable aet was eommiued, because of the small yalue of Ille objeets approprialed Dr of Ihe lass of proper«y suslained or for any oeber reason, fhe penahy shall be a fine. In hJrlhcr miligating circumslanees, lhe penalty may be remiued. (1) Anempt al a crime eo\'ered by suh~eClion (I) above shall be punishable. co CO § 288. (I) Any person ""ho. for Ibe purpose of oblaining for himself or for others an unlawful gain, by violence or Ihreat ol imOledi:lle application of such, J) take.s or ntoru from an}' olller person a langibie ohjeel bclonging IO anolber person; or 2) carries away any slolen objecl: or )) forces .some other pcC50n lO commi\ any ael ar maJee any omission in,'oh'jng Ihal person or any OIhcr person for whom he is leling in a loss ot properI}'; shall bc @uillY o( robber)' and liable lO imprisonmenl for an)' lerm nOl exeeeding 6 yean. (2) If Ibe robbery has bcen earried OUI in p:micularl)' dangerom cireumslances Dr In ocher particularl)' nggravaling circurnstaneel, Ihe renailY may bl: increased to imprisonment fClr any term 001 cxceeding IO years. § 289. Any person who is guilty of lal( nasion laccording IO Seclion 13 (I) of the Tax Control Acl) of a parlicularl}' serious nalure sh!lJl be liable IO imprisonment for any term nOl elteeeding 4 }'ears. A person shall be similarly lioble who is gui Ity ofslDuggling (aceordin~ IO Seclion 7J (2) cf. «I) of the Cusloms Ael) of a particuhsrly serious nature, nr who is sirnilarly guihy of a breacb of Seclion 73 (3) of the Cusloms Aet. § 190. (I) Any misapproprialion or funds Ihal has nOl im'o/ved allY right es~cinll)' proteeted shall be proseculed onl)' al Il,e rcquest of Ihe injurcd party, or ir a .subsequenl elleculion distrai", has failcd IO sal is fy a creditor, if ban1cruplcy proceedings have been inslituled, if negolialionl IO agree an a compo~ilion have been commenec:d, or if a pelilion in bankrupley has been rcf\ned owing IO insufficienC)' of ehe aueu of Ihc c:~I:lle. Rr ro ~ L O J IV C/) O m t0 lP ) t':b.IpI« 67: o.. "), \ ;'ruI.. aflll\'elllptloo Tbe Admlolllratloo uf Ju.tlce Aet FourOl Book. Crlmlnal Procedure KlltulIIhøvn' Unlverrltø Det retsvlu,ulcab,tige ll1sll,u' D 71Js Dønllh Adml"ts"atlon 0/ Ju,';ce Aet PartTwo. PreparatloD of thø eue before Indldment Tr8RSlatlon: Mølø,., Frer. Jellsen Cover: GrlljfØ Himmel PrlDt: Dd løm/untlsvI4."lkøbøllg. Jakulle,., r.proc,nt,r KrlmlnaBltlJk SkrUtlerle nr. 8 ISSN 1397-1107 ISBN 87-89091-60-4 Cbaptor 67 Geoeral mø øf Iovøllaatlon § 742. (I) Rcports about criminal offimces Ble 8ubmitted to the police. (2) Thc police initiale, upon report or by own virtue, investiption, when thora is reasoublo sUqlicioo tbat a criminaJ Ofl'CDCCI indictable by the State has bcen committcd. § 743. Thc purpose of the iilvesligation ia to clarify ifthe condilions for imposing criminaJ liabiJity or other crimiMI logal collSOqUence mUst, and to procure information for tho disposition of tbe case, as wen as Io preparo the case for triol proceediugs. § 744. The poIico preparo, as soon as possible, areport aboot tho undertabn interrogatiooa and about other investigativo mcaøurcs, UnJUS8 8uch information oxisli in anothor fonn. '-:: 1'1 .~ ;. Det rehVldCll5kabe1llle IDltim! D _ \, 8aokl Peders Stræde 19 1453 Købenbavn K nr.: 35 II 3111 .• ~ I komm....on hOl: Studenterbollalleø Studlutræde 3 14!S Kllbenhavn K Tlf.: l5 32 13 IO e § 745. (l) The dcfencc couuel bas access to becoma infimned of the material, whicb the police bve procured. To thc oxleDt dlat tho material CaD bo reproducod without difHculty, copleø slaall bo forwarded to !he defcnco counsol. Tho dcfDDCO oouaael must nol witbout police consont turn tho rcceivcd maleria! over Io tbo accuscd or othert. (2) The defencc couo.scl is allowed to attand police interrogation, of tbe accuscd and has the right to pose additional questions. TIle defcnce counsel sbaJl, upon requoøt, bo notiftcd of the timo ol tho intclrogationa. If the BCcusod il dewncd, and il a decisioo of isolation under Seclion 770 a, bas been made, thcI ac«:used must not be interrogated wlthout the presenco of tho dofence col1JlSCll unless the accused 18 well aB the oounsol consen. horelo. (3) When an intorrogation. a conftontation, a showing of pholos or other lnvesligative measuro of similar importance can bo prosumcd Io be used as evidonce during trial, thc police noti1}r the dafenco couosel beforeblUld in order thai tho counsel bas tho opportuWty to be present. niC defence counøcl is allowed to give suggestions føgardillg Ihc " . 0'1 co Tho AAImIuistrlll1ol1 ar llUIIoe Ac1 6 condllction af !hc invesligalivo measwc in questfon. Tho comments af UIC dofenco counscl in tilis regard shall be added Io the police roport. If tho defcnco ooUlUcl ia unabic IO bo presont, ar if il is nol p08sible for tho police Io notify the counscl. only investigUive measurea that cannot bo posIponed may bo catrled oul. If tho dcfonce counsel has 1101 been presenl, the oounsel shaII, without dolay. bo notified af the occurred. (4) tf tbe eonaid«ation to foceign powoD. the safely af tbe Stale ar to !he salving af the ease ar to a thlrd party c:xecptionally Icquiros il, the rulos iD Subsections l and 3 may be dcvialed from, ar the police can arder the deCence couDsel aot to pass an the information be bas rcceivod from tho police. The ordor cao be extonded until the defendant has made bis staloment d\Xinø maL § 1.. 6. (I) The court .cttlOl disputea as to the legaUty af polk:o investigalive measures as weU as to Illa ri(lhts af tbo 8CCIIsed and \ho defence counsol. including request.s ftom tbe COUMCI or tho 8Ccusod for thc undertaking oC additioaal investigadve meaaureø. The decision is, UPOD requesl, issued in the funn af a couri arder. (2) If tho judge becomes aware that a meaSUl'l', wbicb has boen uudertaken by tho police UDdor thia Aet, and which requiIes approval by tbe COIlrt, bas not boen brouøbt befole !he court befare thc expiration of the given timo limit, he dccides. after soliciting a statement from tb" police. whether !he meaSUI'CI &hall bo uphold Ol resclndod. § 747. (1) A court beamg la beld whon reque9l1 aro made for measuros that n:quire tbe assistance of!he court. A court hearing is, opaD n:quest, further held when it is rcqulred to aecon: evidenco whicb otbCIWUO may bo feared lost Dr wblch cannol, without conaidel'9ble IncollvonlCllCe or dolay, be ptaen&cd dircctly befare tbe trial coud, or whon it must bc presumod to bo of importance for tbe Inveatigation Dr oul af considorauon to a public interost. (2) A court boarinl to 8CCUJO evidcnce can fudher bo beld UPOD rcquest of tbe defence couDse~ il a detainee OD rcm,od, pursuant to Section 710 .. bas been completoly iIolsted from Ihe commumty of Otbol . downecs for a OODUnuoWl period of more than three montha. § 741. (l) Tbe accu!ed is. to the ~xtont possible, nodficd of all oouTt hearings and is entitlcd to attand thOlD. Thi! does not apply to oourt bearings held for !he pUl}>Ose of obtalnlng in advance tho arder of tbc eourt for coåducuon af measural pUJ'lIuant to Cbapters 69-74. If the aCGuscd is detained on remand ho oecd nol be broughl in person tf thi! will involve undue difficulty. ." ,;; Cboplø 67, OaIcnI ~ ofmveotlplian 7 (2) The defence couosel is notified of øJl court hearings and is eDIiUed to atltmd them. Ir li is not possiblo to notify tbo defenco counsol, ODly court heariogs, which cannot be postponed, may bo held. As rcgards Io the court hearinp mentioned in SubSOCtiOD I, 2D4. period, !lu: rule may, howevDl', bo doviated liom if tbo conslderadon Io foroign powers, Ihe safoty af tbe Stato ar to !ho aolving of tbo case or Io 8 rhird party elt~ptionaHy rcquircs it. The dcciaioD b made by tho comt upon rcquest from tho police. The defenco counGOl may oo1y willi tbo consent af the oourt forward information, which be has rcceived duriDg Ihc court helrlDg. (3) Tbe dofeoce counseJ is cmtitled to make lemarkø and briofty have theso entered into Ute recoros, but Ihe judgo decides wben during !he courl hearing this can lake pllce. (4) The court CBD order an accused to appear at a court bcaring. If !ha arder 1w not boen lssued during a provious court hearing II ia commumcaled through a written summoDS. A aummons is presented witb at lcut ene avenins'a noti~. Tbo court CIlA, bowcver. dotenninc ditl'ercAt nolice Ol' arder tho . accuaed to appear immediatcly. The ØWJllnOIlS shall contain information aboul abe object af abe ICcusadon. Failare to appear can only rosult in legal consequcmcea il tbe BWDmons is lawfulJy øerved and contain9 infannation on tbo cOllllequencos af abøcru:e. (S) Tbe court CBD, UPOD rcquest, decido that the accused ahaJl not be given nodce af tho bolding of • court hcariDg, or tbat tbe accused shall. bo Oltcluded fi010 attending a court hearlng fWly ar iR part, ir the consfderatlon to tbrcign powers. to tbo safcly af tbe Stale Ol' to the 80Ivlng of tho case elceptiouUy requkeø k. (6) Iftbo accused bas been excluded Iium attending a court bearing, tho coUJt shalI, Jf tho accused is present, BOd othenviøe tbo poUco, as SOOll 81 ponlble make h1m awøre af "hat bas beca entered inlo Ihe records of Ihe procecdinp. If tho øpecial COnølderaliODS, wbich have causcd the oxclusloD, øre still present. tlto accused can, J.owevel, by tho cour! bel prccluded from this, just 88 tbo court can order tlte dclCnce counsel Dot to discloae to tbe accused what haø occuned during tbo court bearini. 1be order can bo exleRdod ootU tbe defendant has made bis atatemont during bial. § 749. (l) The police dlsmlss a submitted rcport !fao grounda for iniliating an investigation are found. (2) If tbero øre DO /ri'ounds for continuing a commOAcod Invostigadon !he decisloD of dføoondnulng tho inveatigadon CBD bo made by !he police if charge& have nol bean made. If charges bIlvc been made, tho rulca of Seclion 721 and SCCtiOD 712 apply. • • o 0'1 . .. 0:.•:.:" "'D 11 :"#'r~5~'-;_ AdmlllbuldoD øf JuØeo Ae! silllilacly applies. Tho accusc:d allall be given Ihe opportunity to state any information be wiøhes obiølned. (S) Any person, apinst wbolll arrest is beins upheld, ahan, if ho is not roleased earlior, apin bo brought beforo a judge. wbo witbin threo times 24 homs atler tha closing of the first court meeting decides wbether the arrcslee øbaJl bo rc:leascd ar deiøined on remand or bo subject Io D1CllSW'09 pursuant to Section 765. § 761. As for approIlenslon of a persoo with tbo purpose of OIlforcing a sentenco or an alternativo penalty in default of paymont of a fioe. tbe rul es of Sections 758. Subsection 1, and 759 apply. Chaptor70 DeteDtJon OD remllDd § 161. (1) An accused can bo detaincd OD remand wboo thero (s a lubstantiated suøpicion that be bas commltted an offence, wbich is indictable by the State, ir, under tbo Iaw, tbe offence can result in impriøoDDlCnt for ODC year and six montbø ar mOre, and l) based on tho Infonaation about the chcuntSlancOa of!bo accused, filere aro spccific rcasona IO prosuma that he wUl abscond ttom !bc proaecution or tbo enforcemOlll. or 2) if. basod on tbe information &boul Ole clrcwnalances of tho accused. Ihc:re aro specific reaøoos to feal' tha, bo at large will commit another otfooc:e of thc above dcscdbed kiRd. or 3) if, based OB thc circumstaRcell of tha caso. thera ara speciftc re8S0DlI to presumo thai the accuscd will Impede Ihe pr08ccutioa of tIle ca80, particu1ørly by removing evidenco Ol' wamiog or influcncing othera. (2) An 800uscd can furtber bo detained on remand whan thera is a particularly substalltiated suspicioo thaI bc bas coøunittod l) an ofJ'once. wbicå is indlctabte by tbo State, aad whlch under dlc law caD result in imprisonmcnt for six yeers er more. BIld duo rogard to enforcemen' of the law talång inlo account Iho scr!OUSJlCSS of the matter is found to reqllue that tho accused Is oot at largo, or 2) a violation of the Crimlnal Code SectiOD 119. Subsectlon ); Section 123; Sections 244-246; Section 250 or Scenon 2S2, if th~ offence, taldng ioto aceount Ihe infonnalion about the seriOUSncliS of the matter. can bo oxpected to resuit In an IØIcondltional sentcnce of imprisooment for at loast 60 daya and due reganl to cnforccment of the law is found to req1tire that tbe accused la not at large. (3) Detention on remand cannol be used if the eft'eDce cao be expccled to result In 8 8entcnce of a fine or simple delentlon, or if tIle ir. ~ ~ ti Il Cblplcr 70: DdCIIIkø OD _IOd deprivation of liberty will bo disproportional Io Ihc hereby causc:d intrusioQ in tbo affaira of tbe accusod, the signit'icBllCO of tbe case, and tbo sanctioo wmcb can bo expccted if tbe ac:cuaed is found guilty. § 763. (1) If thore (s • substantiatod suapic(on lbat II persoo has violated conditioos laid down in a auspended soofcnce pwsuant to the CrimlnaJ Code Cbapter 7 or 8, in a decision of conditional rcprieve or in 8 decisioD of parole, he can be detained 00 rCllIUlOd ir tbo court fiDds that tbo violation ia of IUcb a oaIuro tbal thero iø aR isme of enforcing imprisomncm or commltting to lutitutiOD, IIld l) that, based on tbe Information about tbo CircumstanCCI of tbe indi· vlduel. there øre specific roasoDJ to prcsume that be will abacond from the consoquences ef Ihe violadon of coodltions, Ol' 2} thaI, basod OD thc infbnnatiOll aboul bis circwnøtances, there are øpecffic rellSoas to feer lhat ho at largo wm CDoonuD to violate tho conditions, and, cODlIideriog Iho nature of dae violations, it is dcomed necosøary that Ihese øre prevented by dotaining him 00 n:mand. (2) The aamo appliea IC thero is 8 sllbataDtiatcd suspicion Ibat a person bas violated conditicma Jald down in 8 senSeoce or cDUrt order PW1lWlDt to the CrimillAf Codo Soctionø 68, 69. 70 Dr 72. ri 0'1 I 764. (I) The oourt docldes. \lpon police requost. If the accused aball be detalned Oll rc:maocJ. (2) An accuscd. who is present In this countJy, il qucslioned In court about tbe chargo and sbalf have tho opportunJty to make a statement before the decLtioR is made. unless tbo court linds thaI, due to øpecial resBons, bringing tbo accuaod before tho oourt mu51 bel deomcd usaleas or barmful for hilD. Il a court order of detention OB remaød Is rendered wlthout Ihe accuaod having bad tbo opportuDity to makc a statement in court, ho shall be brougbt bofora tbo court wlthin 24 hours after he is brovght into thi. CO\UlIry or tbo blDdrance fur his attendanco baaceasod. (3) DuriDg Illa court boaring, wbJcb is held Io dccide Iho que.ttion of detontion on remand, Ihe accused shaU have access to the assistance ef a defonce counsol. Ir the accused la presont duriDg the oourt hearing he øhaU havc tbe opportunity to confer witb the deCenco counsel before the questioning. (4) Tbe decision of the court ia møde in !ho form of a oourt order. If tbo accuscd is delainod 00 reJDand tbe eoun order ahall alaia the specific circumatances of Iho caSG upon which II is based. that tbo conditions for detention are fulfiJIed. If tbo accused Is preøont during Ihe court hearing. he shnll Immediately be Informed of which rules of detention OD remnnd .. • ,I • lbo A4JD1nbu'allon of .I1I1tCO At& 14 Ih" court has applied, and of tlle rCBSons for detention slaled in Ibe court arder, as wclI DS af his right to appeal. A trønscrlpt af a caurt arder, by Vlhicb someone is heinS detainod on remand, is, upon requcsl, given Io the individual as sooo as possible. § 765. (1) I( tbe conditioøa (or delaining an remand øre fuUUlcd, but tbe purpose af tha detention CM be attaincd through less intcrferlng meuurca, the court renders, if the accused 0005cnlll huclo, such a decision in Ihe plau af detention. (2) The court can thus dccide that the accusod shall I) submit to supervision as determlned by the court, 2) observe !pcclfic stipulations as to reaidenco, work. use af sparø time, and u.soCiatiOD with certain persolls, 3) reside in a suitablc home or institution, 4) submil to psychiatric treabnent or trcatmenl (or abllse of alcohol, narcotics or similar, ifneceøsary in a hospital Ol' speciaJ inslitutioR, S) report to the police at specific given times, 6) depo.ut passports Ol' other papers of identilicationa with the police, 7) pose a by the court dctcrmiDcd financial collateral for bis presence at court hearings and for thø enfurccmcnt of a senttlllco if any. (3) As for decisions pursuanl Io SubsecliollS l and 2 Ilte IUles of SecllOD 764 aball similarly apply. (4) 11 tlle accused abscondø from appearing in oourt or from the enforcement af the sentoncc, the coun cø. \bose concomed, Io Ilte cxtenl posøible. have been givca the opportullity Io make a statelDent, by court order decIde thai a finØJlCial coJlatcral posed pun uant lo Subsection 2, No. 7. is forfeited. A forfeited coUateral is allocated to the TreasulY, aUowiftg, however. thai the clalm of the victim for compcnsahon cao be covered by Ihc amount. Tbo courl cao, under spedal cucumstaDcts and withiø aix months afltr the coun ordes, decide Ibat a forfeited collalcral, whlcb haø been allocated to the TreaSUJ}', allall bo refunded ontircly or In part. (S) Tho Minister of JusUce can efter deliberation with thc Minister of Social Affairø aød thø Minister of Hcalth issuo ruJes abOUI grantIn, leava of abseace, etc., to persona, ",bo are placcd in an institution or hospital, ·otc., pursuant to Subsection 2, No. 3 or 4, ",hen Ibis is nol othcrwise stipulated. TIto MIDisler of jusliee can in IhIs regard lay dOWD, that dOlfisiol1s pursuant to these mies tannot be appca1ed to a hlgher level af administradve authority. .flt, , ,:t ,,: Io ':I I § 766. The court ean at any time reverse court orders of detenlion an rellland ar ofmClasures in place hereof. ,. r ~ - ., Clulpl.. 70: DcIcIIIlaa OD rcm.uS § 767. (I) Bxcept for situations where the accused is Dol present in the couolIy, a time limit is laid dawn in the court arder as for the length of the detaøtioo OD rcmlHld or the measure. The time limit øhall bo a9 lIbort as possibie and must not excocd four wcela. The time limit CAD ba IIXklnded but at Iha most by four weeles al a time. The extension is issued in tha form of a court arder unlCSB the accused accepts the extensioR. Until judgmenl is fendercd in the lidt illølllncc, the rulcs of Section 764 apply ,imilarly for court meetings and courl orders aboul exlenaion af time limits. An accuaed, who is detainod OD remand ar Bubject Io other custodial mcasure, does, howevor, not have to be broughl in person befare tbø com ifbe waives \his Dr Ihe court flUds thai lhc atlcndancc will involvc unduo difficultles. (2) Upoa appeal of a oourt order, whicb exlcn.ds a time limit for detention an remand or other cuatodial measure bcyond three montha, the appeal shall, OD reqtlC3t, be beard onUy. WheD appeals bove been beard oraUy ORce, the hIgber ooUJt dccides whelher a subsequenl requcst of oral bearing shall ha granted. Tho rule af SUbSectiOD l, last p'enod, similarJy appUes. § 768. Detention on remand, or meaBUlCs in placc hcrcof, shall, if oecessary, be rescinded by court arder WhOD prosecuUon is dismisscd or the conditiollS for initiation Bre RO longer preseol. If tIIo courl finds thal the investigation ls not advanced wilh sufficiont speod and tbat contiDued detention OD remand or other measure is UJltcuonablc, Ihe court sball rescind It. . § 769. (1) A decisioa abeul delcndon on remand or other measuro ooly bas effecl until the cue is decided in court. '!be court cen after Iho decisloD, upoo request, detcrmiDo wbother the defendant durina an appeal jf any, Ol' unlil cnforcemeat can bo initialet!, øbeU bo defained on..J reoumd or remain detained Ol' be aubject Io moasures in placc horeof. A8 for thls decision tbe rutes in SectioDl 762, 764-766, and 768 aimilarly apply, unless tbe defeDdant accepts to remaln detaincd or be IUbject to anothOJ' meBNJe. If tbe individual, Wore the decision of tbo case in cout, bas bun delaincd OD remand or subJect to other measures, but the court does not find grounds for continued use bereof, Ihe court caD, upon request from the prosecution. decide that the detention or the mcasure shall remain in force untiI decisIon Oll the question of detention is issued by the highcr oouri to whlch the case Ol' tho qucsliOll of detention bas heca appcaled. (2) If thø decision, wbicll has boen made in tho case, Is appcalcd to a higher court, and a roting has been made PUJlIuaDt (o Subsecuon I about usa af detention an rcmand ar otber mcasures aftm' thc decision, .... • I • ("il 0'1 t • •, .. . 'D :> :> lb. A .... lnlwlllon ol '1IfIi~. Ad 18 ~ Chaptcr73 Sear~b § 793. (I> Pursuant to the rulcs ol lhia Cbaplef the police cari conducI scarcbes of l) residcnocs or other dwcllings, documents, papors, and similar, aø well 3Ø !bo contents of lockcd objects, and 2) o!ber objects as well as prcmises other Ihaa dwolUngs. (2) Searcbea af premises or obje<:(ø, whlch 8J"CI freely accessibIe to thc police, are nol reglllated by tho ruleJ ofthb OJapter. (3) A øearch to IDeale a SlJspecl, wbo is to bc alloatcd, or 8 person, who iø to bo taken into costody for thc putpOlO of enforeing a punishment or Iho alternativo penalty In default of paymenl of a fme, cm finther take placo pursuant to Scctioaa 759 and 761. As for examioatioo of tlle body of a penon and searcbiag the clothe., whicb tbo individ\ua1 is wcariDl, thc ruIo9 of Cbapter 72 apply. As for ell8Dlination of Icltefl, telegrams, and simUar mail deliver:les. the rulcø ofCbaptor 71 apply. ~ n oe: ;» Cl ..... ~ bo:: IS !Il CD .-I o ..,o ......, M o ~ ..,..,"" II'> .... :.; ,. ,. :::> § 794. (1) Searcbes of dwelling., other prcmiscs or objecls, of whicb a suspect has posscssion, cau only bc cooducled if I) Ute indJviduaJ on roasonable srounds Is SlIspcctod of an offenco, which is indictablo by Iho State, and 2) tho scarch must be presumed to bo of &ignificallt importancc for the investigatiOD. (2) Aø for scarchea of tho kinds Ulentioncd in Section 793, Subsection I, No. I, II is further recpked, ebber that the case conccrns BIl . offenco, which under the law can resutt In imprisooment, Dr that thero are spocific re8S0DI Io presumc tbat evldenco In Ihe case or objects, whfch can bc ICized, can bo found by Iho aearcb. (3) If, during the scarch of the poøscssionø ol a auspect, writtoo mC&SBges or similar aro found, wbicb oriplatc ftom a person, wbo PUl'suant to the rules of Section 170 ia axcluded from giving tcstimony .a a witness in the caso, scarehos horeof must not bo conductM. Tbe same applie.s to 818lerial, wbich originales from a perIOD, wbo is included in Section 172, whOD tho matcrial CODtaJns information, whicb the Individual pursuanl to Seclion I is exemptcd from testifying about as a willlClss in the case. n D 795. (1) Searches of dwellings, othor prcmiscs or obJects, of wbich 8 person. who ia not a suijlect, has posse.sølon, are not regulatcd by the rulcs of Ibis Cbaptcr, if the Inc1ividual pants written con.sent to lhe searcb or if, in connectlon willi the detection or report of an offence, -o o .." • CIuIpI ... 73: SeIIdI 29 OOD50nt Is granled by Ihe indivJdual. Othcrwiso, a search of tho possessioDØ of a peraon, who ia nol a øuspect, may oDly tab placCl, il l) tho investigatioD concemø 111 otfenco, wbicb under tho law CM result in impriaoomcnt, and 2) thore aro apecific reasclDs to prcGllDUI !hat cvldence in tho cage or objccts, whicb ean be seized, CaD bo round by thc search. (2) As fur the ponessiollll of persons, wbo purauant to thc Nici of Section 170 øre excblded from giving testimony as witnc8sea in tho case, ",ritten JIlesllages aad similar betwecn tbo auapect and thc person coDcemed, as weU as notcø and slmilar by Ibis pc::non coøemUng tbe suapoct, are not subje<:t to øcarch. As for the POBscøsloDs of persoDs, wbo aro included in Seetion l n, matcriaJ containing infonnation Ibout matters, which tbo incHviduals punuant Io SectioD 172 øre cxempfcd from testlfying about 88 witnessc8 in Ihc case, øre Dot sllbJcct to scarch. j § '96. (l) Decision of øearch conccrning thc objects or prcmiscs mentioncd in Section 793, Subseclion l, No. 2, ofwbicb a suspecl has pOlaeøsion, Is made by .the polic~ (2) Dcciøion ol soan:b in other siruatiOllS iø made by CDurt order, cf., bowCIVcr, Subscclions 5 and 6. Tho court order shaU statc thc 8JlCCltlc cucumøtancea ia 0.0 caso lIJlOD wbich it is based, that tho conditloDa for tbe measure øre fulfllled. Tho court order can at any lime be roversod. (3) If thc pwpose of tbe meBJUro wouJd be forfeited if a court or4er were to be awaitcd. the poUco cm llUlko tbe deciaion to conduct the Bcarda. lf Iho person, who has posllcss{on of tho dwc1Unp, prcmlses or objecls, against which tbo scaroh ia dlrccted, puls forward a roquasl bereof, the police ahoU as 800n as p089ibte, lI1d at tbe ..test withiD 24 hours, bring Ihe case befare tho CDUI''' which In tbe Ibnn of a court order decides if tho moasure C8l1 bc approvcd. (4) Befare tho court mak08 a decl,ioa pufGWUlt to Subsection 3, 1-period, Ihe perso. who has POIIIOIISUm af Ihe dwollinga, prcmiseB or objecta, Blainat which the IICarch Ja cHrected, øbalI be ø1VCD tbo opporbUlfty to make a statmoenl Section 748, Subscctiona S and 6 øimDarly apply. (S) If the aeareb Is direcled againat dwolliogs, premiaos or objecIl, of wbich a suspcct hal posscaåon. end tbia individual gran(a a writt.cn consent to the search heing condllcmd, Ihe decision of search CM abo bo made by tbo poUce. (6) A dcclaiOR to tbe em,ct thaI, In cooneclion with the detecllon Ol' foPOrt of an oft"encc, a search of ahe !leene of tho crlme is Io bo condueted, can, I8gardlcøs of the rule in Subsection 2, 81s0 bo made by tbe policc if Ihe penoa, who bas poase.ssion of ahe dweUlng. premiøo Ol' object concerned, is not a suspcct and il is not possiblo to come into ..• ) • M 0\ Chapter Il : Tennrnatlon af the Legal Consequenees af a Purushable Aet JI~reSeribed for a 11. kapitel: Ophør af den strafbare handlings rets følger Cbapter 11: Termination of the Legal Consequenees of a Punishable Aet § 92. - - § 92. ..; not exeeed sunple ; ,the orfender has prevI!:nlenee af imprisonment. ;"" detention may be En lovoveruædelse straffes ikke. når der An offenee shall eease "ot er mdtrådt forældelse efter §§ 93-94. when the penod af limltauon has explred. '.n50nment In the same IO be punishable in aeeordanee with Seenons 93-94 af thlS Aet. ~a person-who has n o t - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - ..& 21. the penaltles af • tenuon may be used . tYpes of penalty are nOl . pUDlshable aet. § 93 . § 93 . Stk. 1. Forældelsesfristen er \) 2 år. når der ikke er hjemlet højere (1) The period af limltatlon shall be : l) rwo years. where the offenee is not straf end fængsel i l år for overuædelsen. punishable with a penalty more severe eller når straffen for overuædelsen ikke than impnsonment for one year. ar where ville overstige bøde. the penalty for the offenee would nOt 2) 5 år. når der ikke er hjemlet højere exeeed a fine: straf end fængsel i 4 år . 2) five vears. where the offenee is not 3) 10 år. når der ikke er hjemlet højere . Fbi e wlth . a penalty more severe puru41a straf c:nd fængsel i 10 år. than imprisonment for lour years : 4) 15 år. når der ikke er hjemlet højere 3) ten years . where the offenee is not straf end længsel på bestemt tid. pumshable with a penalty more severe than impnsonment for ten years : 4) fifteen years. where the offenee is not punishable wlth a penalty more severe than impnsonment for a detennrnate period. Stk. 2. For ovenrædeise af denne lovs § 296. stk . 1. nr . 2 og 3. og stk. 2. § 297 og § 302 er forældelsesfristen I Intet til- Seetion 296(1) and af Se.:tions 296(2). fælde mindre end 5 år. Det sarnrne gælder !imitation shaH in no case be less than flve strafansvar for overuædelser. hvorved years . The same shaH apply to criminal (2) For breaeh a f paras . 2) and 3) af 297 . and 302 af thlS Aet. the penod af 77 94 Chaprer Il: Tennmallon of the Legal Coru.c:quenees of a Purushable Aet nogen unddrager sig betaling af told eller liability for offenees whereby a person afgifter til det offentlige. eller som er evades payment of eustoms dury ar egnede til at medføre. at nogen uberettiget publie authonues ar whleh mav result m a fritages for betaling af sådanne beløb. person bemg unJusufiably exempt from la'\: to paymem of sue h sums . Stk. 3. For overtrædelse af denne lovs §§ (3) For breaeh of Seeuon :23( l) and of ::!3. stk. the fim semenee of SeetJon 289 af this Log 289. 1. pkt. , eller §§ 13. 15 eller 16 i skattekomrolloven er for- Aet or of SeelJons 13 . 15 or 16 of the Tax ældelsesfnsten i imet tilfælde mmdre end Control Aet. the penod of hmJtauon shall IO år. in no ease be less than ten years . Stk . .t. Har nogen ved samme handling (4) Where a person has. by the same aet. eommined several offenees for whleh dif- begået flere lovovertrædelser. for hvilke der etter stk. 1-3 gælder forskellige foræl- ferem periods of !imltauon are laid down delsesfnster. skal den længste af disse in Subseeuons fnster anvendes med hensyn til samtlige overtrædelser. of these periods shall apply to all the offenees . § 94. § 94. (l )-(3) above. the longest Stk. 1. Forældelsesfristen regnes fra den (l) The penod of limltatJon shalJ be cal · dag. da den strafbare Virksomhed eller eulated from the day when the punishable aet or omisslon eeased.. undladelse er ophørt. Stk. 2. :"lår srratbarheden afhænger af eller påvirkes af en mdtrådt følge eller (2) When liability depends on or is mfluenced by a eonsequenee that has taken anden senere begivenhed. regnes fristen plaee or any other later event. the penod dog tørst fra følgens eller begivenhedens mdtræden. shall be ealeulated from the occurrence of sueh eonsequenee or later evem. Stk. 3. Er forholdet begået på et dansk (3) Where the aet was eommltted on skib uden for riget, regnes fristen fra den dag. da skibet er kommet til dansk havn. board a Danish vessel outslde the temtory of the Danish state, the penod shall be Fristens begyndelsestidspunkt kan dog caleulated from the day when the vessel 78 {71 96