ORIGINAL CIVIL COVER SHEET I(a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANl b..-/' UNITED STATES OF AMER~ MOGENS AMDI PEDERSEN (b) COUNTY OF RESIDENC E OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF_ _ _ __ ( EXCEPT IN U S PLAINTIFF CASES) (c) ATTORNEYS (F IRM NAME. ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NU MBER) MATTHEW E. SWAN, AU SA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 312 NORTH SPRING STREET - 11TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (PLACE AN, IN ONE BOX ONL Y) COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FI RST LISTED DEFEND ..\ NT ZIMBABWE, [ryes. li~case numbe«s): CV71 (8/99) FOR OFFICE USE ONL Y: No BANKRllPTCY 0422 Appeal 28 USC 158 o 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 157 PROPERTY RIQHTS o 820 COPYrights 0830 Patent o 840 Trademark :2Q!:;IAL :2E!;;l.lRITY 086 1 HIA (1395m o 862 Black Lung (923) o 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g») o 864 SSID Title XV I o 865 RSI (40S(g» FEDERt,L TAX Sl.lIT:2 0870 Taxes (US Plainti ff or Defendant) o 871 IRS-Th ird Party 26 USC 7609 x Yes ~_C_R_M_I_S_CE_L_~ __O~U~S_N_O_._0_2-_0_3_1_5M _______________________~ CIVIL COVER SHEET - Continued on Reverse o Pro Hac r,ce fee : 0 PQld 0 not paId ApplYing IFP _ _ _ __ __ Judge _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Mag. Judge _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Paee I of2 VI n J tj,a1tJO AFTER COMPLETING THE FRONT SIDE OF CIVlLCQVERSHE[T (Reverse Side ) FOR~-44C. CmlPLETE THE I~FORI\tA TlO~ REOl·ES1)......AiElOW VIIl(b). RELATED CASES: Have any cases been prevl o usl\" tiled that are related to the pre sent case') _ _ No ~ Yes NO. 02-0315M If yes. list case number(s ) CIVIL CASES A RE DEEMED RELATED IF A PREVIOUSL Y FILED C \SE AND THE PRESENT CASE (CHECK ALL BOXES !J A. Appear to arise from the same or substantially identical transactions. happenings. or events : THAT APPLY) KI B. [nvolve the same or substantially the same parties or property; o C. [nvolve the same patent. trademark or copyright: o D. Call for determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law. or ~ E. Likely for other reasons may entail unnecessary duplication of labor if heard by different judges. IX. VENUE: List the California County, or State if other than California. in which EACH named plaintiff resides ( Use an additIOnal sheet If neccssan) IX] CHECK HERE [F THE US GOVERNMENT. [TS AGENCIES OR EMPLOYEES IS A NAMED PLA[NTIFF. List the California County, or State if other than California. in which EACH named defendant resides . o (Use an additional sheetlfnecessary) CHECK HERE IF THE US GOVERNMENT. ITS AGENCIES OR EMPLOYEES IS A NAMED DEFENDANT. SHABA, ZIMBABWE List the California County, or State if other than California. in which EACH claim arose . NOTE: [n land condemnation cases, use the location of the tract ofland involved. (Use an addilional sheet If necessary ) KINGDOM OF DENMARK. X. SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY (OR PRO PER): X Date .3 • ~"t.. NOTICE TO COUNSELfPARTlES: The CV-71 (1S-44) Civil Cover Sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law . This form, approved by the Judicia[ Conference of the United States in September 1974. is required pursuant to Loca[ Rule 3.3 is not filed but is used by the Clerk of the Court for the purpose of statistics. venue and initiating the civil docket sheet. (For more detailed instructions. see separate instructions sheet.) Key to Statistical codes relating to Social Security Cases: SUBSTANTIVE STATEMENT OF CAUSE OF ACTION ABBREVIA TION NATU RE OF SUIT CODE 86[ HIA All claims for health insurance benefits (Medicare) under Title 18. Part A, of the Social Security Act. as amended. Also, include claims by hospitals. skilled nursing facilities. etc .. for certification as providers of services under the program. (42 U .S.c. 1935FF(b» 862 BL All claims for " B[ack Lung" benefits under Title 4, Part B, of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969. (3 0 U.S.c. 923) 863 DIWC All claims filed by insured workers for disability insurance benefits under Title 2 of the Social Security Act. as amended; plus all claims filed for child's insurance benefits based on disability. (42 U.s.c. 405(g» 863 DIWW All claims filed for widows or widowers insurance benefits based on disability under Title :2 of the Social Security Act, as amended. (42 U.S.c. 405(g» 864 SSID All claims for supplemental security income payments based upon disability filed under Title 16 of the Social Security Act. as amended . 865 RSI All claims for retirement (old age) and survivors benefits under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended. (42 U.S.c. (g» CV718/99) CIVIL COVER SHEET Page 2 of2 n~ ---,--",,--=----==-=--e ___ ~. _ __- _ _ _ _ ~~ ~~~ 02- -L L Lc) Certificate to be Attached to Documentary Evidence Accompanying Requisitions in the United States for Extradition J AMERICAN FOREIGN SERVICE / I, ._.~_'tua_~1;J..••. ..aex:ns.t.e..in. __ •••••.. _______ .•. _., ....--~.~.~.~~99.~.....___ . __ . ____ ._._ ......._. of _ the Un1 ted States of Amerioa at _. __ .___ ...• ~~~=~~~~~~~ !?_:~~.~ _______ .__ .___ ... _.. _............... hereby oerti 1)r that the annexed pa.pers, being . ______ §~Pl?$?XJ;.~%).9___~2.~.Ym.~.t\1;.'? ......... _ proposed to be used upon an application for t ,M extradition from the United Amdi Peder5en States of __ ... __Moqens ..... _______ .... __ . ___ . __._ ........ -.--_____ .. _...•. _________ .._._-_. charged with the orime or .. _~_~~.~.h~~~!: ?:!l_c;. _~~--~!~!'!~~m...______ ._. ___ .__ ._ ........... ________________ . _____ .. __ .. _ . . alleged to have been oomllli t ted in .....__ DQ~k.. __. ____. ___ . __ ........ _ ...... _______ ._, are and legally a.uthenticated so as to entitle them to be received in . Denmark tor similar purposes by the tnbunals of ....._________ ._. __ ....... _ ...... _........ __._ --- -_....-----_.... ----------_ .. , as required by the Act or Congress ot August 3, 1882. In witness whereot I hereunto si&n my name and cause my seal of orfice ., .. _. day ot .__ .___!_~EE.~~::t. ! _._~gg3________ ........ _._ (Mcm.Lb UI4 ~ s~ J. ---~----.-.-----..--Ambassador •_ _ •• a~ pnM:IItiDg the defendant from being acquainted with the entry in the .Roc101'd. and the same reasons favour the Court's ordering the counsel for the ~ tID refrain from informing the defundant of the proceedings at the hearing, ·cr. Slection 748(6) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act. The Court then ordered that the defendant should be prevented from being ~ with the entry in the Record, and the Court also ordered the counsel to rdrain from informing the defendant of the proceedings at the hearing, cf. section 743(6) Qfthe Danish Administration of Justice Act. A letter dated 28/l.2oo1 from the Public Prosecutor for Serious Economic Crime, the Case S1.UlVl1aIy as per 1.11.2001 and a ring binder with exhibits were then produced. The counsel for the defence also produced a legal opinion on the concept of public utility in tax law by professor, dr. jut. Erik WerlaufI. The Prosecutor then requested that pursuant to section 762(1)(1) and (3) of the Danish Administration of Iustice Act the Court should direct that the· defendant Mogens Amdi Pedersen, who is not present in this country, may be imprisoned in absentia, so that within 24 hours after being taken into custody in this country he may be an-aigned in court, cf. section 764(1) . Furthermore it is requested that pursuant to section 796(2), cf. section 794(1) and section 795(1) the Court should order that with the assistance of the competent judicial authorities in the United States searches may be made at the residence and business addresses and a number of other addresses in Miami, Florida as stated in the letter produced. The Prosecutor stated that in the period after the search on 25 April 2001 the investigation bas led to probable cause to suspect that money from Tvind's Humanitarian Foundation has been transferred to a number of companies and individuals so that in reality the money has been transferred to the defi=ndant Amdi Pedersen's free disposal. On this background the chief constable in Holstebro decided on 28 N~mber 2001 to modifY the charge against Mogens Amdi Pedersen so that henceforth a clwge is made with the following CO\Ults in the way these charges have been expressed in the letter of 28/11.200 1, viz.: Count 1: Mogens Amdi Pedersen is charged with embezzlement of a particularly aggravated. nature. cf section 278(1)(3), d . section 286(2) of the Danish Criminal Code, or of complicity to this, d . section 23 of the Danish Criminal Code, ~ jointly and by previous agreement with Poul ]iJrgensen, Bodi1 Ross Scronsen, and Eva Vestergaard,. among others. for the purpose of obtaining fur F 3 of 15 -..J ,,,.....m' CIt fcIf' och.crs an unlawful ga.in, in the period between January 1987 and which amount was paid to ''The ~ 2/M111 umbwNll>y !pent approx.. DKK 75 In, ~ fiat tile: Support of Humanitarian Purposes, the ~ (lfthe Natural Environment", Skorkrervej W dbc Promotion of Researoh, 8, UIfborg, ~ tlbc dc:fcnclants via allocations from the Foundation, in which the ·cW~ ltad a oontrolling interest, and in contravention of the statutes of the FlClUln~ effected disbursements of entrusted money to an amount of totally 4lbon1G DKK 75 ~ of which they took possession in this manner, thereby taking ~ of the access created for themselves to legally bind the Foundation, iIIClUng contrary to the interests of the Foundation in financial matters which they \~~ bound to watch over, all under the following. specific circumst3llces: Ie) tlh~ period between 1987 and 2001 a total ofapprox. 300 persons paid a total of approx. DKK 70 m to the Foundation pursuant to obligations that the payers had usumcd according to deeds of gift issued. In the period when the crime was committ.ed, after applications to the Foundation prepared by the defendants themselves, these funds with accrued interest were paid to various recipients, under the pretence that thereby the Foundation supported purposes of public utility within the objects clause of the Foundation. None of these recipients could rightfully receive payments from the Foundation, since the funds were not spent on purposes of public utility. On the contrary, the pwpose of the payments was for their personal gain to transfer the funds of the Foundation to the defendants' own assets, to grant financial aid to ventures controlled by the defendant Mogens Amdi Pedersen, or to favour individuals, institutions or corporations which were either controlled by the defendant Pedersen, or which by virtue of agreement, economic association, organisational association, or in other, similar manner w~re closely related to or had close community of interests with the defendants, and which in reality did not spend the funds on purposes of public interest, which at the same time were in the nature of hu.manitarian purposes, purposes of promotion of research or protection of the natural environment. • Hereby the defendants caused the Foundation a loss of approx. DKK 75 m, while the defendants for themselves or others obtained an unlawful gain to the same amount. Count 2: For tax fraud of a.,pMticuJarly aggravated nature, cf. section 289 of the Danish Criminal Code, cf. section 13 of the Danish Tax Control Act, or contl'licity hereto, cf. section 23 ofthc Danish Criminal Code, ill!.Ymg in the tax returns for the Foundation in the period 1987-2000 made tax deductions for allocations and provisions amounting to approx. DKK 85 In, and by subsequently furnishing the tax authorities with incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information on these allocations and provisions, whereas under the circwnstances mentioned in COWlt I, fo(, the purpose of tax evasion, the defendants have incorrectly stated that the deductions mentioned were Par 1 of 15 ~ Iha=dI om aJllocatioos or provisions for purposes of public utility or similar, so that IIbe ~ II1CIlboned were deductible, cf. section 4(1) and section 4(4) of the DaIntsh T~ioolJ of Foundations Act, whereby the public purse was deprived of qtpII\lIX. DKK 23 m. Count 3: F~rt g,' fraud of a particularly aggravated pature, cf. section 289 of the Danish Cnm.inal Code, cf. section 13(1) of the Danish Tax Control Act, or complicity hscruo, cr. sectioo 23 of the Danish Criminal Code, ~ in the tax returns for the contributors of capital to the Foundation in the 19S7~2000 furnished incorrect, incomplete, or misleading infonnation ~ me deductions of the contributors fur the current payments to the roondatioo UDder the following specific circumstances: plCriold ftI the period when the crime was committed the defendants caused approx. 300 QOmtributof's to sign gift certificates to the foundation, which had been approved as rrc<:.ipiCllt of tax privileged contributions, cf. section SA and section 12(3) of the Danish Tax Assessment Act, inducing these con.tributors to transfer 15% of their sabries, but not less than DKK 15,000. annually to the Foundation, to a total ~ of about DKK 70 m. Subsequently, for the purpose of tax evasion, the defendants effected the preparation of tax returns for the contributors, in which deductions were made for abe payments to the Foundation to the amount mentioned of approx. OKK 70 m. The defendants knew that these deductions were unwarranted and the individual !a.'\( returns consequently incorrect, because the defendanrs did not intend -to spend the funds of the Foundation on public utility purposes, which in fact did not happen, cf. for details under Count 1 in the foregoing, and because the approval of the Foundation pursuant to section 12(3) of the Danish Tax Assessment Act by the tax authorities bad been obtained fraudulently. Hereby a Joss of not less than DKK 35 m was inflicted on the public purse. Regarding the basis of the charges the Prosecutor referred. to the letter, stating that the background of the modifications to the charges is that the Prosecutor now finds that many seized materials give probable cause to suspect that not only have the funds been spent inconsistently with the public utility purposes, but that at the same time the funds have been transferred back to the defendants' own assets or to institutions controlled by the defendants in a manner whereby they obtained a gain for themselves at the expense of the Foundation. In addition to this the charges concerning tax fraud have been extended to involve two fonus of tax fraud, because it has been established that not only do the defendants appear to have had a decisive influence on the deduction in connection w ith the allocations of the Foundation, but also on the deductions made by the contributors in their tax returns. It is true that the defendant Mogens Amdi Pedersen did not make these deductions in his own tax retums, but the Tvind community as such appears to have prepared the deeds of gift, and possibly the individuals who , Pa' • of 15 '-..J IIftIlde the deductions did not know themselves that the deductions were I'I!1IIdc Wlla.wN1ly, but probably only followed instructions from the ' ~, which must therefore be principally responsible for the ~c. As soon as possible the Prosecutor will now inform all the dlelfell1dant:s of the modifications of the charges, and via the seized material ,ltIe Proseg,rtor has now learned who the persons are who appear to have had tIh~ decisive influence on the events, which now leads to charges against ~ill'S&etI Larsen. Marlene Gunst, Ruth Sejeree Olsen and possibly Sten BY'fMI'. On the other hand, the Prosecutor considers withdrawing the charge apimst Eva: Vestergaard. 1rhle Prosecutor has explained the basis of suspicion against the defendant Mcegens Amdi Pedersen in the Case Summary produced. In the Prosecutor's O1pwon it may be stated briefly that it is believed that the basic structure 1:1Oaceming the treasury of the Teacher Group, designated LG, is now I!.oown, and that information obtained shows that the final control of it lay with! what is known as "our office", which appears to be equivalent to Kir'slen Larsen and Mogens Amdi Pedersen, in some connections called KLAP, as the top level and with some further specified persons as the next [·C\t'cl. It is believed that all the specific projects are known which received wppon in the period from 1987 to 1993-94, whereas the newest projects are ~iU being investigated. Further, there are still some interrogations to be made, but in general the investigation is now close to a conclusion. Under tab 42 there is a review of all the so-called LG projects, which are the projects that are conducted for the funds of the Teacher Group. It is dated 16 August 1994, and it was found on a computer that was seized at the search at Plagborgvej . It is assumed that the value of these possessions exceeds DKK one thousand m, and it is unknown how much the operation of these projects yield, but it is known that large amounts are received on various accow1ts every month. The projects are divided into a number of projects in Africa, called the Federation in Africa, and which involve partly building, production of various commodities, and the sale of clothes. The same applies to a number of projects in Europe, called the Federation in Europe, where especially the collection of clothes and the operation of second-hand shops predominate. In addition to this there is a group called Handelshuset, and a group called Skolesamvirket, which mainly concerns various schools in this country. Then there is a group called TWFE and lWT, which stands for Trans World Forest Enterprise and Trans World Trading. Furthermore there is a group called USS, which concerns a large number of projects on farms in various countries, and in the Prosecutor's opinion these farms are operated on a purely commercial basis. Then there is a group called "Forskelligt andet" (Miscellaneous), including a biogas plant on Tahiti and the wind turbine at Tvind. Finally, the tab covers a survey of the various real estate companies and their possessions, including D.S.!, F~Ueseje, D .SJ. Estate, D .S.I. Thomas Brocklebank, and others, and as they are all designated as LG's companies, it must be clear that both the funds of the Teacher Group and the companies belonging to the Teacher Group are • ....; ,' .1...../ ~ • ooncepts for Tvind. In the Prosecutor' s opinion the activities lIM!IIlIioned are pr-oductive, and this is supported by Exhibit G-2-3, which is p!NJduced under tab 33, which was found at the search at Sten Bymer, who III a period had a central position in the Tvind organisation. It is unknown, tnawe\ler, at what time this exhibit was prepared, but it must be noted that ~·th IF AS and La Societe Verte are mentioned as profitable projects. while l1li$0- companies in USS, which exactly involve projects in farms in various IroUIlCries, are listed as sources of income. Under tab 7 there is a letter as Exh.l~t G-2-3 , and judging by the context of the tetter it is the Prosecutor's IOpinion that it has been drawn up by the defendant Mogens Amdi Pedersen at SIOIIle time in 1992. The letter concerns the basic structure of the total coonomy. and it describes how the individual managers are under the direction of Marlene Gunst and Ruth Sejeree Olsen. In the Prosecutor's opinion this is the level which in some places is described as "LS' s IEmncmy", and which is placed immediately under the top level, which in ~lbe letter is called "our office", which is described as the supreme management, "which itself decides its relations to managers, principal formations, the divisions of the total economy, and to Marlene and Ruth". Later the letter mentions "four lines of responsibility, where the fourth line is "our office"" . At the same time it appears from the letter that a position is taken on the distribution of usn 16 m, and in the Prosecutor's opinion this shows that the defendant Mogens Amdi Pedersen controls the treasury of the Teacher Group, heading some specified depaitment managers and an organisational structure, and it is done in such a manner that there is no doubt that he has the definitive influence on the proceedings. Under tab 3 there is an Exhibit G-2-3, which was also found in Sten Bymer' s papers. The document establishes that the funds "are at any time at our disposal", and it mentions 36 companies which must be domiciled in places where they are neither liable to pay tax. to keep books, or to be registered, and they are all established as nonnal limited liability companies with three Shareholders, who are to be a combination of some of 13 specified persons, with indication of the combination to be chosen. Of the 36 companies 24 have a bank account placed in 24 different West European banks. The 36 companies are effectively being controUed jointly through Hobbhouse Investment Co. Ltd.lFarmers Trust, because all the shareholders have signed share transfers concerning their shareholdings to the benefit of these, and in order to strengthen this control further number of documents was to be prepared. If Mogens Amdi Pedersen has not prepared the document it must be assumed that a person placed just under him in the hierarchy has done it. Under tab 43 there is a number of organisation surveys showing that this plan was actually realised. The organisation survey was found at the search at Odinsvej in Grindsted, and it shows that the three organisations The Hobbhouse Trust, The Hobbhouse Investment Company Ltd. and The Fanners Trust exist as two foundations and Ii company, respectively, and all have Kirsten Larsen as their chairperson, while exactly persons from the group of persons stated have been appointed chairpersons and protectors, respectively. The so-called "trustees" are, among others, Fairbank Limited, Cooper Investments Limited. and Lyle Enterprise Limited, and again Par of I S '-'" JPC=I1ICI1S are found from the specified group of persons as shareholders. On De foU()wWg t pages the individual organisations are found which operate the sillllgie projects in various places. It may be seen from this that Fairbank limited. Cooper Investments Limited, and Lyle Enterprise Limited are If)haoed as over-all holding companies for the various networks of companies ,opentirlg the projects. On page 6 the organisation is shown that concerns ~esta and Floryl, which has relation to one of the essential projects of the Qse. Previously the Prosecutor knew only that these were owned by Bahia /fllmling Ltd., but now the ownership can be traced back direct to the Tvind mana,gement. This is a general conclusion, which can be made for all the "",""npanies after the review. From March 2001 , however, the change has llaJcen place that Fairbank Limited, Cooper Investments Limited and Lyle &terprise Limited have been combined into one. It is a recurrent feature in am the documents that all decisions .are put before Mogens Amdi Pedersen .and that nothing is decided if he is against it. In the Prosecutor' s opinion this applies also to decisions made in "The Foundation for the Support of Humanitarian Purposes, the Promotion of Research and the Protection of the Nlatw'ai Environment" . Under tab 17 there is a description of the fields of responsibility of the Foundation, and the included letter is signed by Ane HMsen. It has been written on the computer that belongs to the defendant Poul J0rgensen' s partner Dorthe Svendsen, and in the Prosecutor's opinion AIle Hansen was at that time a kind of assistant for the entity called HLG' s Oekonorni" in the description. It appears from this that everything is agreed with " LG's Oekonomi"& fortnight before every board meeting, and that also minutes, applications and reports are sent to it. Draft. accounts are also reviewed with "LG's OekononU", and it seems that the board of the Foundation has had no proper decision-making power. It is true thai under the tab there is a letter of 21 December 1997, which retracts the letter about the fields of responsibility, but this does not seem have any connection with this question or otherwise change the picture. This letter is assumed to originate from Kirsten Fuglsbjerg, who is a law graduate and who has advised Tvind on a large number of issues. Under tab 22 there is also an email from December 1998, according to which Paul J"rgensen should follow a list of assignments, which "R&M have written" . It is assumed that this reference means Ruth Sejeree Olsen and Marlene Gunst. In the Prosecutor' s opinion this is a typical example of the procedure for making applications to the Foundation. One gets the same impression by reading the letter of 5 December 1999, which is found foremost under tab 25, and in which the defendant Poul J0rgensen addresses himself direct to these two persons concerning questions of allocation of funds . The same applies to letter dated 28 May 2000, which is produced under tab 26. It is evident from the documents that these two persons have a controlling position in relation to the Foundation, and that these persons were the ones to whom the defendant Poul lergensen addressed himself in writing when a police investigation was commenced, cf the letter dated 9 December 2000, which is produced under tab 30. I~U . ::;'':1b Pagr fiS "'-../ Ibprding the individual projects the Prosecutor stated that the first eight have been reGeived by IFAS . It appears from the interrogation of ' '.111M Sofie Pedersen found under tab 41 that she has been deputy ~lIirperson in this private institution, and that none of the board members Iacd any qualifications for entering into an institution whose purpose was SlUpport of research projects. It appears from the statement how board IMetings were conducted with ready printed application forms, the filling in "'''' wInch the defendant Mogens Amdi Ped~en had instructed in, and it "PWcus from the statement that the board had no real influence on the cjecisions made, and likewise it must be deducted from the statement that in 11ft')' case she has no knowledge of any specific research conducted under the iIlSltitution. whereas it is possible that there has been talk that already exIisling research results should be made available to people from the Third World. On page 10 in the Case Summary produced there is an explanation t:)f the statements made concerning IFAS. At no point in time has there been II1\y activity in IF AS that can be characterised as research, and the working eq>enses are partly expenses to the ship "Return of Marco Polo". which is owned by the Tvind G1'OUp via the shipowners B&B Shipping, Cayman. However, the institution was closed down and liquidated in 1993, and it appears from statements that the defendant Mogens Amdi Pedersen made the relevant decision. Added to this, the defendant Poul Jergensen has in¢)rrectIy stated to the Department of Private Law that documents fConceming the project "Voice of the Third World;' had been burned, and that he had no access to IF AS's voucher material for the years 1988-1992, but that at the search the police found such vouchers in a safe at his place. It is known that Poul J0l'gensen himself formulated the applications .of the. institution, and nothing has been found in the exhibits of the case reminding only remotely of research. On page 11 ff in the Case Summary there is a review of the grants to Voice of the Third W Olid, under which a number of TV programmes were produced, some of which from the ship "Return of Marco Polo", and according to the Foundation itself the amounts have been spent on lease of the ship, operation of the ship and material, equipment and supplies, administration and communication, and wages. Both the satellite company and the owner of the ship were LG companies, and during the project the company of John F. Parsons Ioc. was employed as consultants. This company was owned by Caribbean Farming Ltd., which in turn was owned by Fairbank, Cooper and Lyle Ltd., and these were exactly the companies which as previously explained were the registered owners of all the companies controlled by the Tvind Group. This appears from a plan of the organisation found as page 11 under tab 43 . It is thus a matter of money that was funnelled back into Tvind companies, and for which no research was made. but transmissions of opinionative TV. On page 13 in the Case Summary there is the statement made by 0yvind Wistr0m about Tvind's TV station and about the production of programmes from the ship, and according to tms statement all the crewmembers were members of the Teacher Group in Tvind. None of these had any qualifications for research or for producing TV. Preliminary investigations show that the money paid as wages has not been paid to anyone that could be called researchers, and a ptrQljeat3 • I 1V • P 90£15 ~ lIw~e amount is the lease of the ship, which as previously stated was paid to " TWld company. In addition there are payments of about DK!< 800,000 to .' ohn F. Parsons Inc. relating to wages and consultant fees, and this company appears as a Tvind company. It must remain completely uncertain what IlJncse amounts have been paid fOT. A nunlber of payments have been made ,t() U Societe Verte and L'Energie Etemelle. and in these companies there IhlBve been no other activities than those financed in connection with the SlJIpport from the Foundation. Under tab 43 on page 29 these companies 1Iva'I'C been described, contrary to the LG companies proper, as private irusuiturions, which are not owned by anyone. However. it appears from a tenter dated 16 October 1998, which is produced under tab 34, that Ruth Sejeree Olsen and Marlene Gunst also took a position on the decisive issues i~ these companies. It appears from a letter of 5 December 1998, which is produced under the same tab, that Kirsten Fuglsbjerg described in detail what action Poul J~gensen and the Foundation board member Lars Jensen were to take, and it appears that they should make a payment of a mortgage debt. Thus it is reasonably well documented that these companies were only transition companies, which have lent their names to some transactions, and tbW they have been inserted as intermediate links only, because as foreign companies they were outside the control of the Danish authorities. which ClCplains that the defendant Paul JliJrgensen has made incorrect statements about them. Tab 10 includes a further series of letters sho\\ing that il'1StfUctions about these companies were merely given to Poul Jargensen and Lars Jensen, and it appears from a letter of 6 May 1995 that Kirsten Fuglsbjerg even ordered that a section about Cayman was to be deleted from an auditor's report. Kirsten Larsen managed this company. The .object . of these companies should be the safeguarding of nature protection interests, and on page 16 if. in the Case Summary there is a description of the so· called Malaysia Project. It appears that the plantation in Malaysia is referred to as one of the sources of income to LG's treasury. Under tab 4 there is a letter from '1'::'b Pa lof15 '-....J Us also a loan to Eastover Properties Ltd., and exactly this has a connection \With the previously mentioned letter of 6 May 1995 from Kirsten fl;lg,lsbjerg, according to which the section about Cayman should be deleted tfilom the auditor's report. It has also been mentioned previously that it iJPIPe8fS ftom a letter produced under tab 23 that an amount was to be used ;as a mortgage payment. Under tab 28 there is a letter that is assumed to originate from the defendant Mogens Amdi Pedersen on the occasion that a !!leW management was appointed in connection with the project. It is described that LG has bought Iabota, and that the production is carried on by ""certain companions", and the letter mentions some purely commercial objects of the operation. Nothing is stated about nature preservation, and the object is clearly a surplus of a commercial operation. 11'11 general it is the s~own that there is Prosecutor's impression that the preceding review has probable cause to suspect that the defendant Mogens Amdi Pedersen has been guilty of the charges described in the foregoing, and that the conditions of a custodial sentence aTe present. The Prosecutor &las also estimated that the right moment has now come for taking the defendant into custody. The Prosecutor claims that there is cause for custody pursuant to section 762(1)(1) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act. As it appears from the report produced WIder tab 42, the defendant has not resided at Skorkrervej 6, Ulfborg, which was the address registered with the national registration office as residence up to may this yeu. It must be assumed that for a long time the defendant has resided preferably in Florida in the United States, and by a change of address in the national registration office on 25 May 2001 it was stated that · he hat! departed for Great Britain at an unknown address with a view to emigration. He did not reside in Denmark. and it is not believed that he has taken up residence in Great Britain. The only explanation of the change of national register address is that he evaluated that it would be more difficult to obtain extradition with this national register address, and this in itself creates a basis for custody pursuant to section 762(1)(1) of the Danish Administration of 1ustice Act. Under tab 42 there is a letter of 14 August 1999 probably from Poul J0Tgensen to "KLAP", and it contains instructions on how to avoid the obligation to give evidence. After that letter there is another letter headed uLG heading forwards" dealing with plans of leaving Denmark. At the same time it must be considered that it is a question of an organisation with considerable funds abroad. On this background there are certain ltetUOns fur assuming that the defendant will avoid criminal prosecution. It ~ be assumed that it is only realistically possible to a.pprehend the Wile is not infonned of decision to issue a warrant for arrest and a ardu . Tbe defendant has access to taking up residence in Tvind' s _1hII; iMd ships all over the globe, and Tvind owns property in a Off' clOunmes with which Denmark as no extradition agreements, ._~• .amwng others. It is also submitted that the conditions in section :1ll lite fulfilled . It follows from the Case Summary that Tvind is as a hierarchic organisation, which is managed by the defendant Nri(/i Pexiersen. The persons also charged or under suspicion are a t-'. 1.:::/ rlQJmber of the defendant Mogens Arndi Pedersen's close subordinates who receive instructions from him and who must be assumed to be umconditionaUy loyal to him. The ·police have learned that in the time after the search meetings were held abroad where a number of the defendants induding the defendant Mogens Amdi Pedersen have been present, pcrobably to coordinate the reaction to the police search on 25 April 2001 . FlUrthermore the police have learned that the defendants have subsequently altempted systematically to influence witnesses in the case as it is described in the report produced under tab 42. It appears from this that a number probably all - members of the Teacher Group who have contributed to the F-oundation were in the time after the search contacted and asked to sign a swement according to which they should declare themselves in agreement l!:tat the funds of the Foundation had been distributed the way they were. The defendant Poul J0rgensen. among others, via a solicitor in New Zealand. has contacted Hans la Cour Andersen, who is a central witness, and whom the police have earlier wanted to interrogate in court. The scticitor in question has warned him that an action for slander would be MOUght against the witness, claiming damages etc. as a consequence of the statements about the activity in the Foundation which the witness has made on TV and to the police. Reference is also made to the infonnation in this report from which it appears also that the Tvind management consistently decides how the members of the Teacher Group are to make statements to the authorities in other situations. It is difficult to tell whether the attempt to i~t1uence the witness Hans la Cour Andersen is a punishable offence, because the relevant rules of law in New Zealand are not known, but it is known now that the defendant Poul lergensen is very much a minor character, and there is no doubt that the defendant Mogens Amdi Pedersen is the major power factor in the organisation. On the background stated there are certain grounds for assuming that the defendant Mogens Amdi Pedersen will obstruct the course of justice by influencing others. The Prosecutor also stated that in continuation of the orders made by the Court on 5 April 2001 on search at among others the defendant Mogens Amdi Pedersen at his assumed acwal address, registered residence and business address in Denmark. the police have now learned that the defendant Mogens Amdi Pedersen must be assumed to have address, regularly recurrent residence or business address at a number of addresses in the United States. Reference is made in general to the infonnation in the Prosecutor's request. The Prosecutor consequently requests the Court, pursuant to section 796(2), cf section 794(1) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act, to order that the Chief Constable in Hoistebro, assisted by the Commissioner of Police, the Section for Serious Economic Crime, and assisted by the competent judicial authorities in Florida, USA. to effect search of dwellings, computer equipment, other premises, safe~deposit boxes, objects, or vehicles, which the defendant Mogens Amdi Pedersen disposes of; at the addresses mentioned in the request, with the reservation that until further the Prosecutor waives the request for a search warrant in 1::' NO.::''::jb Pa;p 13 -....J 5 the flats at La Gorce Palace, because it will be reasonable that these searches await the new charges expected to be raised against other persons. • The counsel for the defence protested against pre-trial custody, alleging that many exhibits have been reviewed. but that this review shows that the suspicion the Prosecutor relies on in support of the now modified charges is not sufficiently supported. At least there should be a suspicion that it is more probable that the defendant will be convicted than that he will be acquitted, and in the present case it is most likely that the defendant will be acquitted . One or the charges concern complicity, in the Prosecutor's opinion, to tax fraud on the part of the individual contributors, and in any case this is a very thin charge. A Foundation actually existed, and contributions into the Foundation were approved as contributions entitling to tax deduction. Under these circumstances it is not tax fraud to use the rules and the approved Foundation actually in existence, and regardless of the outcome of the case otherwise the contributors must be entitled to the tax deductions in their tax returns. It is quite unlikely to assume that it should be possible to find the defendant guilty on the grounds that the defendant may have assisted in drawing up some documents for this purpose. A charge has now been brought for embezzlement, and this involves that the Prosecutor must establish that the defendant has obtained a personal gain of funds from the Foundation, and a charge on such a basis will not hold. Firstly it has not at all been made plausible that the funds of the Foundation have been misused. It is a case of very broad purposes, and it is not decisive that research in a narrow sense has been carried out in IFAS . It appears from clause 2 in the IFAS articles, which have heen produced under tab 35, that it is not a matter of research in the everyday sense, and in the hearing of the case it has actually been brought out that the funds stated have actually been spent on a nwnber of projects. On the existing foundation it is impossible with self-assurance to maintain tha.t this is not research in the required sense, because research may also be the activity of finding new methods, creating new jobs, etc., in the New World by exploiting new principles in a new way. The object of the Foundation is also an object in the nature of a general, public utility, and this does not necessarily have to involve research in the old-fashioned sense, nor is there certainly any basis for assuming that in a criminal case the Prosecutor will be able to set aside the objects foUowed as objects that do not fulfil the articles of the Foundation. In the last resort the name is not the deciding factor, nor is it deciding who the persons are who have influenced the implementation of the projects. It is decisive, however, that the projects have been kept within the objects in the articles, and it cannot be disproved that this has been the case. The possibility of a profit in the long term does not make allocation unlawful, because the aim is that hopefully the projects should become self-sustaining. In the long term earnings are not contrary to the objects of the Foundation, nor is it contrary to the objects of the Foundation tbat a community of interests exists between the Tvind organisation and the organisations that have received the amounts, nor is it contrary to the objects that a number of persons act within both frameworks P .1 3 / 1S L~lr ~UU L ~~N 44484206 NO . 596 P ~ . L4 of 15 Nor is there anything wrong in the possibility that money from the funds may have been loaned. The fact to be established is that ultimately the money has not been spent on objects outside the articles of the Foundation. This is also quite clearly expressed in the legal opinion on the concept of public utility in tax law produced by the counsel for the defence. In that respect there is no proof that some amounts have been spent on a flat or a personal account for some individuals, when at the same time it is known that this involves an organisation which according to the Prosecutor himself has assets amounting to thousands of millions. These free assets may be placed in objects outside the articles of the Foundation, if it is just done in a responsible manner, and therefore the decisive factor is the general application of the amounts granted. 'When it has been established that the objects pursued are within the framework of the articles, it is not a matter of tax fraud. either, and thereby there is no probable cause to suspect that the defendant is guilty of any of the counts he is charged with. Even if the Court should find that the suspicion should provide cause for custody, there are no such specific causes for assuming that the defendant will evade prosecution that this can constitute the required basis for custody. It is an established fact that for 10 - 20 years the defendant has had no permanent residence in Derunark, and it must therefore remain a puzzle why suddenly the defendant must be considered to be a person who will evade prosecution just because he has changed his national register address, which presumably would be easiest to do to an EU country. Nor are there specific reasons to assume that the defendant intends to obstruct prosecution. The defendant has hardly been part of the plans of legal action in New Zealand. and there is nothing unreasonable in relying on legal remedies in connection with accusations from other persons, and likewise to correspond about this. Incidentally, a long time has passed where all the defendants have been able to communicate freely with each other, and if at any time there might have been any cause for assuming that the defendant would decisively influence others, it is certainly not today. Furthermore, the other defendants will still be at large, and as for preventing the defendants from communication in the case, it will not be greatly important to take the defendant into custody. The Prosecutor stated that the Prosecutor agrees that the legal opinion given is to be understood in the sense that the tinal application of the funds is the decisive issue in the case, but exactly according to this statement the Prosecutor has demonstrated that this final application of the funds has not been in accordance with the articles of the Founda1ion. The Prosecutor also agrees that a Foundation may well loan money, but that the problem arises when the money is not spent on the purposes for which tax deductions are obtained. According to the condition for pre-trial custody pursuant to section 762(1)(1) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act it must be rklst the defendant has not in any way reacted as a consequence un connection with the case, not even as a consequence of "ICIN!II fi'cm his own counsel. The important issue in connection with J6.lft 1)( 3) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act is that in . .lIUitant !With the events in New Zealand a signal has been sent to all .",."1Si P.14/ 15 , l'tU.:;'';;b Pas of15 '--'" , witnesses that it costs if anyone says too much, and the witness Hans la Cour Andersen has a clear impression that the defendant puts pressure on him. One may imagine that this creates a pressure on other witnesses of importance in the case. The counsel for the defendant declared that the indications concerning the spending of some specific amounts of the large funds is not sufficient probable cause. The defend:ant has not behaved differently in relation to the many years where he has shunned publicity, and this cannot be the basis of an assumption that he intends to evade prosecution. It has in no way been demonstrated that the defendant is the one who is pulling all the strings, and no charge has even been brought against Kirsten Larsen, who in the Prosecutor' s opinion should equally be a leading character, and it might as well be she who is pulling the strings. Therefore the request for pre-trial custody should not be allowed. The counsel for the defence stated that he protests against the requested search, but he has no comments to this issue, and he can accept that this question is decided on the existing basis. The Court reserved the question of custody until an order is made on 18 December 2001 at 10.00 am. The Court reserved the question of search for the order to be made on 8 January 2002 at 10.00 am. The case was suspended. The Court adjourned at 16.00 pm. L0Vbjerg Nielsen. This is certified to be a true copy of the transcript. The COUl1: in Ringksbing, 18 December 2001 On behalf of the Judge [Signature) Grete Mmlskov Head clerk r-' .1 ::'/ 15- -- Anker Heegaardsgade ;, S\b floor 1572 Copenhagen V ~ File No . TRANSCRIPT THE RECORDS OF THE WESTERN HIGH COURT 7TH DIVISION '\".J14 4- J&.4.I...& .....-... •• 4 V V~ (,&~ ." • ...,....., ""' , A1! . \.14'" '.-W "-"~. "~er'-" """....,_, .. _ ~ ____ .......... .. .. ___ ...... &_ courthouse in VLborg with High Court Judge Frilse Hove presiding and Conny Olesen as secretary ~ • Court. ~ The session was not public. The following case was beard: V .L. S-3204-01 The Prosecutor v. Mogeos Arndi Pedersen. The documents previously presented were at hand, The High Coun Judges Fritse Have, Bjame Bjsmskov Jensen and Olav D. Larsen agreed to make the following o rd er (as entered in the Court Records), The High Court has decided that the defend4nt must be prevented from being acquainted with the entry in the Court Records to-day. and the Court has ordered the counsel for the defence to refrain from informing the defendant ofthc proceedings at the Court to-day, cf. section 748(6) of the Danish Administration of Justice Aet . • The case was suspended. C 0 u r tad j 0 urn e d. Fritse Hove IConny Olesen I. ORDER made on 15 January, 2002 by the Seventh Division of the Western HilW Court in 5-3204-01 . The Prosecutor Y. Mogens Arndi Pedersen (Jergen Quade Andersen, solicitor, Heming) The appealed order for custody ofMogens Arndi Pedersen in absentia pursuant to section 762(1)(1) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act was made by the Court in Ringk0bing on 18 December, 2001 . The appeal was argued orally. F or the reasons stated in the order it 15 decided that : the appealed order is upheld. Fritse Hove Bjame Bj0T11SkoY Jensen Without charge. This is certified to be a true copy of the transcript. The Western High Court, Viborg, 15 January, 2002 [Signature] Conny Olesen Head clerk Olav D . Larsen THE CHIEF CONSTAT - IN HOLSTEBRO ~errep0l0 7500 Holst~bro Telephone +459610 1448 Telefax +45 9610 1487 Thursday. 20 December 200 I ~r---------------~ File No .: SA0K 278/00 REPORT Re: THE TVIND CASE Subject: Search for Mogens Amdi Pederst:n In connection with the international search via Interpol and Schengen, which has been executed today and on 19 December 2001 , respectively, the following availahle descripti o" has been given for the case of Mogens Amdi Pedersen Civil Register No. 090139·1645 Domicile unknown Male white skin 198 em tall slender build blue/grey eyes grey hair thin-haired/high forehead wears glasses. Passport: Danish nationality passport No.1 a120259, issued 22 June 2000, expires 22 J un~ 20 10. Photo attached. [signed :] Finn Olsen Deputy det. superintendent The Chie/Constable in Holstebl'o The Public Prosecutor for Serious Economic Crime "--"" ,, Case Summary as on 1 November 2001 in SA0K 278/00 The Court in Ringkebing SS 1.22112001 The Public Prosecutor v. Mogeos Amdi Pedersen et aI. 1. Introduction The charges in this case concern embezzlement and tax fraud to amounts of approx. DKK 75 m and DKK III million, respectively, for a number of transactions in 'The Foundation for the Support ofHumanitarian Purposes, the Promohon of Research, and the Protection of the Natural Environment" (hereinafter called "the Foundation"), A number of contributors have paid approx. DKK 70 m to the Foundation, which - being approved as a humanitarian organisation cf. section 12(3) of the Danish Tax Assessment Act may receive contributions with tax bencl1t for the contributors . The objects clause of the foundation corresponds exactly to the fonnulation of section l2(3) of the Ta." Assessment Act. This means that the Foundation may legally (in relation to the Tax Assessment Act and to the objects of the Foundation itself) allocate funds only to purposes of public utility, which at the same time are in the nature of "humanitarian" purposes, purposes of "promotion of research", or "protection of the natural environment" . The Foundation has not paid tax of the amounts received., as these h.:,we allegedly been allocated for purposes of public utility. For such allocations deductions are made in the tax accounts of the Foundation. cf. section 4 of the Danish Ta."<.ation of Foundations Act. In the period 1987-2000 a total ofapprox. DKK 100 m has been provid~ and allocated, which has given the Foundation tax deductions to the same amount. In September 2000 the Chief Constable in Holstebro decided to commence an investigation of the activities of the Foundation. This was done in cooperation between thc Holstebro police and the Public Prosecutor for Serious Economic Crime, Copenhagen. In March 200 I the Chief Constable decided to charge four persous, Mogens Amdi Pedersen, Poul Jergensen, Bodil Ross Serensen, and Eva Vestergaard. On the background of a number of decisions by the Court in Ringloobing, a coordinated pol ice action 'was carried out on 25 April, 2001 against eight addresses in Denmark, while documents were also obtained from a number of third parties and corporations, including Citibank, Miami, USA. At the police action 70 computers were seized, 16 of which were equipped with the advanced encryption program "Safeguard Easy". A large part of the documents in the computers were encrypted with other programs. None of the defendants or the users of these computers (except one) were willing to state the password for the computers. During the summer and autumn of2001 the police technicians managed to make part of the material. in the secured computers readable, and in October 2001 it became possible to make a systematic search in the material, which is very extensive. 2. Summary The investigation in the period between April 2001 and October 2001 has revealed that all contributors are members of the inner circle of the Tvind organisation, which is a hierarchically built association with clear political aims, headed above all by the defendant Mogens Amdi Pedersen, the defendant, and that the defendants control the private economy of the contributors, which is managed by the defendants or their assistants, that the Foundation is not managed by an independent board of directors, but that de facto the defendants control the funds paid to the Foundation, that - to the extent described below - the Foundation has made no allocations to public utility (humanitarian, etc.) purposes, but to commercial enterprises (enterprises and institutions), which are controlled by the defendants and where the profit of the enterprise accrued to the defendants. In addition., allocations have been made to enterprises or individuals whom the defendants have decided to favour, all in order to procure for thernseJv~ · directly or mdirectl y an unwarranted gain - or to procure unwarranted gains for the chosen third parties, • that it has been attempted to conceal these unwarranted allotments from the foundation authority in Denmark (The Minisuy of Justice, Department of Pnvate Law), the defendants baving prepared or caused to be prepared incorrect applications for support and incorrect reports on the use of the funds of the Foundation., and the defendants have alS 91: . d 009·0N 90ZV8VVV N3 Si nOd ~ I3i 8S:EZ Z00Z·S3j·ZZ 7. Conclusion In all the counts described above the prosecutor finds that there is proof that the formal 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 of public utility, or which at the same time have the nature of support to humanitarian purposes, promotion of research or protection of the natural envirorunent. Thus it is a common feature for all projects from 1987 to now that no major decisions on the siruarion of the Foundation are made without "KLAP" being involved. and that Amdi Pedersen exercises his authority on the Foundation through '1...G's Economy" , i.e. in the period 1987-1992 via Sten Byrner and then Ruth Sejer.0e-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" . Payments to "promotion of research:" The pa)'ments in 1987-1991 have been effected via IFAS, which is not - as represented by the defendants - really a research organisation. Thereby it can be asswned 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. P~yments to "support of the natural environment": The payments 1992-1998 for n.:"lture purposes were effected via LSV and LEE, which are not in reality - 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 asswnption. Count B.1.lO: Thc funds have been spent partly as capital for the USS-o~ned 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 conunercial enterprise, and they have been transferred to the free disposal of the defendants, Count B.1.11: The funds have been spent partly as a capital pa)'ment into the USS-owncd plantation Fazenda Jacoba, which is a commercial enterprise, and partly on irrelevant purposes. The ftmds in these counts haYe consequently not been spent on support of the natural environment, as stated to the authorities. Payments to humanitarian purposes: 31 009 ' ON 902p8ppp N3SinOd ~I3i 6S : E2 2002'83~' 2 2 (Under investigation). Tn all instances this case swnmaty cites numerous pieces of evidence that in a large number of cases the defendants have prepared fictitious applications in order to conceal from both the Department of Private Law and the Customs and Tax Authorities that the funds of the Foundation are not spent within the legal area. and :tm!! the formal board of management of the Foundation does not make decisions concerning the application of the funds of the FOlll1datiOD. On the contrary, the Foundation is managed by the defendant Amdi Pedersen. Consequently the prosecutor also finds that there is probable cause to suspect that the defendants are guilty of embezzlement of the Foundation, and that the deductions in both the contributors ' income (which are triggered by the approval of the Foundation pursuant to section 12(3) of the Danish Tax Assessment Act) and the deductions in the tax returns of the Foundation are incorrect., and that the whole operation is an expression of a tax construction bUllt on incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information OD the tax circumstances of both the contributors and the Foundation. The Public Prosecutor for Serious The Chi Constable in H Date: 29 November 20 J .nr. SA0K 278/00 - PO • 32 81:/8 1 · d 009 · 0"1 90ZV8VVV "13 S i nOd ~I 3 i 6£ :£Z Z00Z ·83j · ZZ 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 shall be a fine or, under aggravated circumstances, simple detention. • '-...-/ .1.. J.. ..... The Administration of Justice Ac~--.../ Section 29. The Court may order that a COW1 session is held behind closed doors (private hearing)[l ], ifcalled for out ofconsideratioDS for order and discipline in the court room [2], if called for out of considerations fur the govermnent's relations to foreign powers or if otherwise called for out of special consider.rtioIlS for these [3], or iii) if the hearing of the case at a public session oftbe Court will infliot unnecessary indignity ofanyolle [4], including the case that evidence shall be made on trade secrets. 2. [5] In criminal cases the Court may decide that the doors shall be closed i) if the accused (the person charged) is below 18 years of age [6], ii) ifpublie hearing must be assumed to endanger anyone's safety [7]1 or iii) ifpublic hearing must be assumed decisively to prevent the evidence of the case i) ii) [8). 3. 4. At court sessions the doors can be closed pursuant to subsection 2 (ill) only in a court of first appeal, and only if it must be assumed that also other persons thaJ1 the pe~n or persons charged in the case can later- be charged, and that very special considerations require the closing of the doors. The proceedings of the trial shall be entered into the records of the Court in such detail that at the passing ofseutence the public can be given a rendering of the trial to the extent that the purpose of the closing of the doors is not forfeited. . It cannot be decided to close the doors if it is sufficienr to apply tho rules on probibition of reporting or publication of names, cf. sections 30 and 31 ~ or on excluding individual persons from attending, cf section 28b[9}. ANTAL S .02 ( ~ ( ( ( ( C \ t>: "- C c.o Chapter .211: ;\C(lui.~itjve Orfencl's § 276. I\.ny peoon w/1o. without (he consenl of the possessor. carri~s away :my tangible object for Ihe purpo~ of ublaininE for himself or (01 others nn unlawful gain by it' approprialion shall be guilty of Iheft. For Ille pUrpDSI: of thir and the following sectiam, any quanllry of energy 1hat is produced, conserved or ucilized for Ille produclion of light. hear. power or mOlion or for 1111)' oiller economic purposr sh1l11 hI: recognized as equivalenl 10 1l Tangible objecr. ) ~ ]77. Any person who. for Ihe purpo$e of oUlllilling for himself or (or olh· ers all unlawful ~ain. appr(lpri:lIcs nny tangible object which is nOl in the cUllody of any person or IVhich has come into the hands of tlle perpetrator Ihrough carelessness on Ille pan (If the owntr or in :an)' similar accidental '\'3~' shall be guill)' o( misapproprialion of objects found , § 178. (I) Any person who. for the purpo;c of olJlsining for 11imself or for Olhen an unlawrul gaill, I} appropriates an}' rallgible objecl belongIng 10 any olher person lind which is ill Jus cuH~dy, in circumstances olher chan thDse co~'erc~d b)' Section 217 of (his Act; or 2) refuses (0 acknowledge receipt of a (lecuniar)' or any other JOlin, or of a s~C\'ice for whicR 11 remunerlltion sholl be pllid; 3) urua,'fuU)' spends money Iht has been entrusled to him, even iLhe was nt>1 under :10 obligation to kct'p it separare (rom 11i1 own funlls; shnll be gui 11)' of ~ rn b~17.1elOenl. (2} The provision in p:lra_ l $ubseclion (I) above lila" not include disprs or from anyone of (hem; sl18/1 be gu ilt)· 0 ( mis app roprinr ion of (untls. (2) If 3C(S of Ih~ nature indicat~ in p:1rn. 3 subsection (1) above /lal'e been underlllKrn for elle benefit of a creditor, the latter shall be liabk to puni$lullfnl only if, al the lime wben he foresaw lti'e imminence of bank· ruplc), or Ihe suspension of payml:nts by the debtor, he induced Ihe deblOr (0 grant him such fllcilities . or ) ') § 284. Any penon who accep!s or oblains ror himself or (ot others a .share in prolilf acquircd b)' tlld!, misappropriation of objects found, emberne· menl, rraud, compufer fraud, brel'lcn of nusl. utDriion, misappropriation of funds. robllcry or \'iolnlion of Seclioll189, second senlenc~. and :my peuoTl wllo. by hiding the areicles thus acquired, b}' assisllng in selliDg lhem or ill llPY ollin similar manner belp! to emure ror the ~ndil of another person l/ie prolirs of any of these offences , loa1l be !uihy of receiving Slo/en goods. § 285, (I) The off~nces referred 10 in Seclions 176, 278·281 or 18J of tllis Act as we)) .1!S re~ei"ing 510lcn gODM in COMeclion wilh such o(rencel or wirh rob~r}' or violation of Section 289, second semroce or usury shaH be plInisbed willi imprlsonment for lin)' term not ~xcet'dlng one ~'e:ar and 6 l11ol\\hs. In the circ\lm~18nCr-" d~lIh \\'Lrll in Seclion 283(2) 'of (his ACl, IIle .,walry in resp~l of 'he deblor as \Yell a~ of tht creditor who bJS benefiled mBl' b~ reduced ID simple dell~ntion . {2.} MilapproprialiOil of nbjecb" found and receiving stolen ~oods in connectioll wi.h 3ucll offences shall ~ pllnished wi1h ~ fine: or sin)ple deten· tion or inljlrhonmelll (Of all}' lerm nOI exceeding one year anti 6 mOOllls. § 286. {l} )f.h~ 'heft i ~ of.1 p3r1icuIArl), aggravated nature. for example be· C3u~e of the manncr in which je Ivas romrnirttd , or bC'cllu~e LI was commh· led by severll) persons iD associ:llion, or beC2USt weapons or any oth~r da.I~erous instrum~nrs wtre ~roughl along, or because: of .he high value of the objects stolen, or Ih~ conditio05 under \\'l1ich Ihe)' lI'ere kepI. or where a IAr~t numher of thefts IIOfve been rommilled. the ptl1:1h)' may bl! increased to imprisolunent for up to -1 )'ea rs. . (2) The penalty {or embenlelllent, fnud. compUler fraud, breach of emsL or misappropr ialion nf r'lnrh ron}" where lilt offence i,l: of a P3r1lcU' 1:11'1 )" a~ ~ ra\' ~rcll --- ~ 11;l ll1rr or \\'h l' rr a raJ!!!! nmllhcf o( IUd, ~o of/'t:lln:.1 Ir:wc he!:" W ,"" commilted, be increased 10 imrrisonment for all)' term up 10 8 yell~. (J) The penallY of e",tonion. usury or ftcfiviug may, under Jimilaf cin:ulTl3tance.s, be increased 10 imprisonmen( (or any term up lO 6 years. I"l ,to ~ fS § 287. (J) If any Ofthf offences dealt V/ilh in Swicms 276 ·284 of this ACl is of minor imporlance btcause of the clrcumstances under which (he punIshable act WBS committed, becsuse of lhe small value of lite objects appro· prialed or of the loss of property sustained or for any other reason, Ihe penalty sban be II fine. In funher miligaling circum.minces, (he penalty may he Tcmim:d. (2) Attempt a( i) crime co\'ered by lub5tction (I) above .. hall be punjshable. 'T :lIS) IS) A r I"l H " § 188. (11 Any person who, for the purpose of obtaining for bimself or for Oillers an unlawful ga in, by vioh:nce or chrea\ Df immediale appJicalion or LJ o C r such, I) takes or r.n I"l UlOns from any olller person 8 rnnglble objecr belonging to another person; or 2) carries away any stolen objecl; or J) forees ..ome otber person (0 commil allY act or make any omisJion in· voll'ing Iha! person or any oeber person for whom he is acting in 3 Ion of proper! )'; sball be guilty of robbery and liablt 10 impriJOnment for an}' term not exceeding 6 years. (2) rf the rabbery has been carried 0\11 in panjculart}' dangerous cir· cumslance, or In other pllnlcularl}' aggravaling circumstanccs, tlle penalty nlay be iocreased to imprisonment for any tenn nOI exceeding 10 years. § 289. I\ny penon who ,. guihy of 1811 evasion (according to Seclion 13 (1) of the TaJ! ConirDI Acf) of a par(irularly serious mlture shall be liable co im· prlsonment for allY (eon nOI eIlceedin!l 4 yean. A penon SfUltl be ~imiJarly linblr who il guil(y of $muggling (according to Secrion 7) (1) cf. «1) of Ihe CuslOms ACI) of a particularly serioul nature, or who is similarly g\lilcy of a breach of Seclion 73 (3) f}f lbe Custom, Act. § 290. (1) Any misappropriation of furnls .hal bas nOI iO\'o)ved any righl especil\J1y protected shnll be Jlrosetuttd onl)' al the requeSI of !he injured party, or if a subsequtOl execution distraint has failed 10 s:l\isfy a creditor, if bankrupecy (lroceedin~ have been ins(iluted, if negotiations 10 agree on a compo sieion have been commenced, or if a petition io nankrup(cy ba5 been refus crl owilllllO insufficieocy of Ih( aS$W of the e.~ I Rte. RI :z A A A CD A f\) IS) en OJ ~ (j) L 0 ) t'J (f) CJ m r0 (jJ :z 0 en , IS) .... LJ A ...." f " \ j j ) ) ;II , -,, I Ch;qII .. 67: 0.. J,. oftmoeliigBli"" '5 The Admlllistrafion of Judice At! Fourth Book. Criminal Proc.edlU'e HalNnlhnllnJ U"lvlrllltel ».1 mmumkab,Ug. IltsliM D The DD1f#G1t Admlni&Uafioll ofJusllce Act , J I, Part1\~o. Preparation of iIIe cue before lndktment TrlJ1l1atJlHI: Mg, Fr'Ji' Jens'" Cever: G'1fII8k Hlmmd Cbap((lr67 Print: D.'llflmjUntmidurllflabellg, Jakoli.ts repr(1clllt,r Genua! rules of (nlifttiiatlGn ) KrtmlDallitilk Skl10aerie ur. 8 ISSN 1397·1107 ISBN 87·89091-60·4 § 742. (1) Reports abDut oriminal of&ncos a.re submilb:d to the poDoc. (2) Tho pollee InlliaW- ujlon roport or by own virtue, invC3tigadon, whm thenl is llIasoua1do BUspicion th1t a crlmlnll offence lootctablo by !he State has been committed, ~ ..:> § 743. 'I1le pUIJI0I6 of the iilV\lslia-tion 18 to clarif}r jf th~ conditions fur ilnpootlli crlminaJ liabUIty or olhcr crlminallegel cobSOlJlle.nco cxilt, and tG procure inronnatien fDr !he dlspttahion of thl! caslI:, as well as Co pHpare the caso for trial proceedings. ~ ,.... Q I: I~ I) § 744. The police prepare, as soon ai POSlfwto, a report about tho WIIIer1eke.o. interropllollll and about other invClsligati\'o mca8Uf'OS, UII1ess IIU,t:h informatIon elli.ts In anethor Conn. " .<~ : \\ ., I~ ~ J :l ) ' ~ ~ 'i ~ ~ -( Dlt rdMlkDsluabeUge Iu.!titll! D /iallkt [led Ets Saltde 19 1453 XDbenbavn K 1lf.: 3532.3112 I kommilllon hol: 8IUdentubojllulEG StudleJtrlede 3 l~ Ksbeahlll'D K Til.: 35 32 n SO § 745. (1) Tho defollco counsel has acoon to becOIDII infimncd of thD material, whil:h the (leliDe bvo procured. To the cOOeD! thai the maCorial can be repmillicOti withaut IlIffioulty. copies mall be forwarded to the dafonco collDllll, The dcftocll counsel mila! not without polioo consent tum the reclIlvcd material over Ie tho accmd orilthers. (2) Tho defcllC& coullsel is allowed to attend polico IntlJrtOgationJ of the SCOWled and hu the right to pos. additf0D81 ql1C8tions. The defence colll\$C! ahaD, upon reque&l, ba noti~ or 1M tim& of dle iDterrGgati~JI8, If fhe aCOIncd is dotained, Md If a cleowloa of isolation \Iooer Sootlon 770 a, hal been mado, the accused IIlIIt DOt be ioIcIToptod without the preIIClnco of tho defence colIIIMl WIIess tho IOCUsod 88 well as the oouru;ol COllleot horeto. (3) Whtlo an iotoaogation, a confrontatioD, II showmg of photos or olher investigative mearure of similar importance can bo pt6SlJD\cd to be used as ovldence dlJcing trill, the polioe notifY the defonce counsel beforeblllld in order that tlJe counsel has the opportunity to be preMnl. The defenco coUDllel fs aUowoo to give ruggeslions regarding (he n " ') • ) ") :> The Adtnlulstl'ltlon of JllStico Act ;:) Chlpla ~1: Goocxral ru!u of ;lWa.1 lglf:i the police report, If the defcmee ooumeJ i6 unable to bB pRiseot, or If it is not possible for the police to ootifY tho counseJ, only investigative measures that C9IUlot bo pOBlponed may be oarrfed onl, If th!I dt:fcnce COUIlUI has not been present, the ooonsel shall, wilhollt delay, be nolified of the oOO1Jl1'e!l. (4) If the consIderatioD to foreign ~e~ the safety of the State or ttl the solvin2 of the case or to It IhiId plll'ty CIlI.ceptioPBIly requires it. the rules 1n Subsections 1 and 3 may 1te d'nJated &em. ()r Ihe police can the defence counsel not to pus on Che intblJllation ho has roooived from &e pollee. The order can be extended until !btl defmdrrot has made bis stalonu:nt during trial. .' ~< ) ;: ) '. . ': 0. 1!' .. ~ I :~ ....,. J ~. <. > ....~ > ~ 'd ~ f) ~;' :!) .~ ::l' ? . ';;': ,,: ~ . ..j; . Ifi, . ) § 146. (1) The- court sattles disputes 8S to the legaUty of poU<:e inwsligativc meawm B,S well as to iha rights of the accused ud tbe dofence eounet. including reqllClts from thIl oollllSd.. or tho accusod for UHI uncbfaklDg of additional 1nvelligalive m.eISUI'tJI. The decision ia, . upan requea!, bS1lCd In the farm 'o f, court order. (2) Ir the judF buccme3 BWaro that a meaiillre, which hu been undertaken by tho pnl.ice nndar this Act, atd whlah re!iU 1m approval by the court. bas nnt been brought before the court b~re the expiratioD of tM giYUl time limit. hI:! decid.) after soliciting a !ta~malt from thB police, wJlelher Ibe mearnre .haU bet upheld or rescinded. § 741. (1) A coW1 hearing Is held when requests are made for mcall1JeS that reqllke the ass1&tanoe of Ib court, A court hearing iJI, upon request, further held wbm it is requked to secure evldene" which othenmc tnay be reared loJl or which cannol, without considemble idcoAvcmenca or deJIlY, bl! pretCnled direc.~ before the llial court, or when it must bl: presumed to be of importance far the Inveatigalion or 01Il 0( ooosideraliollkl a public inlerelC, (2) A oourt hearing to eeDlU'l evidence can further bo heJd upon request of Ihe dofilnce counsol, if a dcWnee on remand, pumuant to Seedon 770 a, 11M been oompletely uolllkd from !he community of other . det.aincs for a OODtinuOUS lIeriod of IllOTe !han tIl.reG months. l..~:. ,. ,741. (1) The all".Alsed is; to the extent possible, nodfied of all court hearings and ill entitled to BHend them. This d09 nc1 apply to oourt hearings held Cor tho pulP05tl of oblalning .in advance Ihe order of !he court for co,nduction of measumJ PI1l"!UBJlt to CbaptcES 69-74, If the Aroused is delained on re:m1lllCl hD need not be brought In penon If this wiU involve undue diffiwIly. 'I;. :?). n~: ..... ; xi ..... :.< :'4' :::I: ' .... '. (2) The defence counsel Is DQtifled of all oourt bearings and is entitled to atlmLd them, If it is not possible to notifY the defence counsel, only court hear/nBS, wbicJJ cannot be plXltponed, ~ be b.eld. As regards to the court heflIinga mentioned in StlbtclCtion 1,2 pmod, the rule may, howevar, be dmUed ftom if the cOllsldamtion to foreign powers, the wei)' of the Stafo or to tha solving of the oale or 10 a third party exceptionally requires it. The decision Is m~8 by the court Ujlon request from the pOlice. Tb~ deftllco cOlJnsel may 0tIly wilh thu conaent of the oourt tonvard infotmlltiol!" which be has reooived during Ihc court beaq (3) The defeuce oou.nscl 18 cmtitled to mako remarks and briefly I1!lve these OIItered Into 4he recards. but the judgD decides when during the court hearing thLs can lake plaCit. (4) The court can. order an aOCU5lld to appear at a C6Urt hcarlng. If tho onIcr has not been issued during a previous CQurt hearing It ill communicafed througb s written SUlnmOM. A IUJIlJ'DDIlS is presented wJth at le.!!Jt one evening's notic.e. The court can, hOlVt!Ver, delennine different notice or order the .Accused to appesr ilIlll1ediafely. The SIlllUl1CQ shaD contain infbnnation about tbo object of the aCCUHtioll. Failnft) Eo appear can only mutt in legal ooJlJequlIIlcoB if ilia swmn01l8 1& IawfuUy Itllved wi contains Infonnlltion on the consequeuces of ~8ence. (5) ThD court ClIO, 1IpOO equest, deQide Ihilt th& I\CCUled IhaJI not be given notice af the hnldl.ng of 8 e :> 1110 AdJoUilitrbtiOD otlu.Hco Ad ~ aintilady applies. The ~d shaD be &,ven the opportunity to state any information he wiahe.s obtained. (5) Any person, against whDm arrest Ii being 1Qlheld, ahal1, if he is nO! released wHor. again be brought bQi'ore a judge, who within three times 24 hours aftBr thD clasblg of !he titst court. rru:e1iog deckles wbelhu the att09tee !ball be released or detained on remBJld or be sllbjaClIO Dleasures purmantlO Section 76S, § 76L As for apprehension af a parSOD with tbe purpOiO of enforcing a lenience or all alternatWo penalty in default of paymont (If a fine, the rule. of Sections 75&, Subsection l, and. 759 apply. ) ~ > ...> ~ !l 4 ~ 11 IC>. ~. ;:); ;:); . .. ~ ;. ",, : :"; . :::l ~; M~ : N" I? n ~: ~i· ~. ~ ..... Chlptor 70 D~11 on rlmn" § 767.. (1) An ~cused can-be detained 011 remaruJ when there is II lubslaJltiated slI.plclon that be bas committed an omnu, which ill indiclSble by the Stale, ~ \lnder the law, the offence caD result in . jnprilloJJJDent fm- one year amhlx mDIltbs or more, 1II1d 1) if. based on ~ Infonnalion abo. the clrcunlStance3 of tho iccuslld, thero are Ipeei& rC8lOIlJ to promme that ~ wOl alecond (rom thf; proBoaution or thD eoforoemeBt. or 2) II, based 011 the infonnation tbout the cbcumBtanceR of the accused, therc are speciDO t\lISQnJ to foat that he at large wm oomrnit Brtother .:: n :;) Ch~t... 70: DeluWoo CJIl rClll8D ~ 13 12 ) ofnlllC4cf tho above descdbod 1dRd, or 3) II. ha5cd OIl tho circum stancO! of the a8!C, thDJ'C 8ftlpecific reuons to plUU me that 1M accused wiU bnpede tho prosetlUtion of the ClUB, part!cu1DJiy by mnoving cvldmC' or waming or intlueliciDI others, (2) An. accused can t\1rtb6l' be detained on remand when there is a partiCRlarly subatantiated IIIIIpiclon 6mt he bas coJllJBilted 1) an olfcmce, which is indlctabla by the SlIte, and wh1ch under (he llW co [ellJU in imprisonment fur lixyears or mare, BRd dUI regard to ea£occeDlent of the law taking into aooollllt the seriousness of thD matter is found 10 I~ire tImf the accuW 19 not at large, or 2) 9 violation of the Crlmlnal Cede Secticm 119. SubsectlOlll; S~tio.. 123~ Secthlns 244-246; SectiOD 250 of SoctlQR 252. If me offence, lBldog inta account the infomlat!cm sbout the seriousness of the maller, can be oxpecled to rcm1lt In an unoondltiooal sentenc~ of imptisoJlBleAt for at least 60 days and due regan! to enforcement of thCllaw is found to require thai thCl accused is not at largo. (3) Dele4ltion on remand cannot b~ uw1 If the offence can be ex.pect"d to resull In II llentcnCeI of 8 tIne or simple delimtlon, or if the deprivation of Uberty wiil be disproportional to Ihe hereby caused intrusion in tho affainl of the accUllfJd, the significance of the CaJe, and the sanction which. can be ~ected if the MClIsed is found guilty. § 763. (1) If (!Jere Is 8 5Ubstantiated SUIlllicion that 6 person bas violated conditions Ia{d down in a BUBpended s~ntence pU19Ul1lI to the Crim.Ina1 Code {lisptel' 7 Dr 8, In a decision er cnndiliDDai reprieve or in a ~ision ofparolll, he can be detained lin remo4lftho court finds that the violation is 01' lucb a DaIw'e that (hero hi an ilsue af onforoing iJDprllOllIJWlt or committing to inJlitution, and 1) tha~ ba&ed on thlIlnfonnalioIl Elbout tb~ circu.m81ances of the individUJ1, !here are speci& reuons t.o prosum~ thai be wfJI abscond from tho consequences orllle violation of cDnditions, or 2) that, ksod oJ! (he !ntol'Ulldion about 1tI.s circwnstances, fhere am spccftio fealOU fD &Br that he at largo w.m continue to vlolefe Cha coditIou, and, COllSideriDI Ihe oature of the ."jalatil \ remand. (2.) The lIame app1ie1 If thm is a substantiated JIlspioion that 8 peuon 1189 violaled conditions ]aid down in a sentence or court order ::> " ':', i / ) .~.; ..~:.:.~. y/.~~~:. :\ In ::::> ::::> ~ \J Tho Ado!Iln~n or Il1ImUl At' 14 -0 ~'''' 71>: DetulI!OO 00 , ..nwd Il "- D the oourt bas applied, ond of the rCa50ns for detentloI1 stated in thel court ordel', as wellllll of his right CD appeal. A transcript of B court order, by . which someone il ~ing dtJlailled (In relll8lld, is, upon request, given to the iDdlvidual as soon as pDssible . L .... i) o § 765. (1) If the condttimla Cor detalning 011 renumd are fWfiUcd, but the purpose of tho detention can btl eUlIi.ned through less interf.cring mcaaUfeIl. tho court renders, jf the aCCUBed oonscnts hereto, rnch a decision ill the place of detmltion. (2) 'nle court can lImB decide that the accusod shall 1) submit to supervision as detcnnJned by the court. 2) ()bscrve spcoific stipulations a8 to residence, work. usc of !pate lima, and 8lISOciation with certain pel'&ODB, 3) reside in 8 8I1i1able hoDH: or instilutlon, 4) submit to psyolUatrie tteatment or lnIatment fDr IbUile of alcohol. IlII1cotics or similar if necDlsary iJ1 a hospital or specIal illilitutlon. 5) JQort to the police lit specific given timea, 6) depIWt paSII,POrtB or o1ber papal of ideDtifioallons w!th the ~oJIcc. 1) pose a by the court dMenulrled fiDancial oolla1era1 fur hi9 prelicllllO at court haaringt and for the ,nfomoment of a 5OIItoJlllC if any. (3) Ai for decidoDl p\Il8UBuI. to Subaoctions 1 and 2 the rules of Sectlon 764 Iball similarly apply. . (4) If 61fl aocuse4i 1!b.soonds tom appellring in court or from the enforcement of 1M sentence. !he caurt can. at'U:t Ibose conCflmad, to the ment possjble. have been eivOll the opportunity to oaa!ul a atatemW~ by court "rdeI dcoltte that a financial cDllateta! posed JlijlIIlWlt til Subseelio!1 2., No.1, is furfelJed. A forfeited ~nateral is allocated to the . Treasuty. sUowing. howevor, that the cltdm of the victim for compensation CI1I be covered by !he amounl. The court CIlD, under tpecial olrcu.mstetces and wltldo eiK. mo. aft« the court ordCl', dDC~C that a futfeited cOllate181. "blah has been allocated to 41e 1\'easury, s11all b61'C1i\nlded entirely or In part. (5) Tho M1lliatm of Justice can after deliberation with tho Minister of Social A.ffuIa and the Minister of Health Usue JUlel about 8Jlllltlng leave of absenoo. e~" 1.0 persODll, who are ptsccd in an. institution or bospitaJ. ele'J punlJant to Sub.sectlon 2, No. 3 or 4, when Cbls is not otherwise stipulated. The Mlnistet at Justice can in this regard lay d[JWI1, tII!lt decisions pUrmatl' to these roles CAMot be apil ealed to a higher llVel of admillisttative authority. ~ ) I ~ ~. <. ;:- ~ -< > == '4 '» !n D. -i: ;:) .. ::>' ,.,. "" 1"): 1"), 0 ') ~t ...' 1"): 1") , "'; ....... ~I -fi,. ~: f § 766. The oourt can at any time reverse court orders of detention on remand aT of measures in pla~ hereof. ~: ::J: ....... :::> " :» N , § 767. (I) Except for situations where fh.e accused is not preaent J.n. the C()uotIy, a time limit Is laid down in the court order as for Ihe length of tho dctentinn on ICDllllld or the measure. The lime limit ehatl be liS abort as possible and must not oxceOO fuur wean The time limit C8II be OJItended but at thlJ moot by fuur weekB at a time. The olltenaion is ilsued in OlD form of a court order unless the accused atcepl3 the Cll.tcn&ion, Until judgment is rendo~ In the fim jn'lao~ tba rules of Section 764 apply IimIIarly for court mcetingG and court orders abQut exleruJiOfl of time limits, An aceused, who is detaiW on remand or aubjoot to ok custodI.Bl IDea8llfe, doC8, howaver, not have to be brought in pwson beCor& the court ifhe waives Ibis or tho court finds thai the attendanco will involve undue difficulties. . (2) Upon apJlcal of a court order. whlcb extcrufa a time Umit for detenlion on reoumd rYI othel custodisl mCll3u~ bcyood three montha, IIw appeal 1Iha1~ OD requa~ be hew mUy. When appetls me been bwd maUy once, the higher oourt decldell whether a subiCquelIt J'CIluest of oral bearing shall be gImlted. The rule of SubsllOtion 1J wt periild, timl.Wly SJlpUOB. § 768. Defcnlion on remlUld, or meamos ill plaoe IuJreof, shall, jf oeoossaty, be relCirlded by oourt Older when prosecution Is dismissed or the conditions for initiation aro no longer preSCDt. Iftbe court Itods Ita! tho iDveslQation is Mt advwed with auffioient speed and that contiDlWld detention on remand or other mOliMa is umeasonabfij, the court shall te!oInd It, § '76', (1) A decislOll about dmntInn on reDlltld or other meuure onl,y bas effect untnlha case is decided in court, The court oan after the deoillon, upon rcqueat, delcnnine wbetbu the defendant dllrlng !Ill BPPl'laJ if ~J or until cnforcemfmt CM be initiated, shaH be detained on'"' remand or Mmain detained or be SilbjCllt to mOlJlJres in plaoo hereof, AI fer thtJ deei8ioo the rulea in Sections 762, 764-766, IIIId 768 similarly IIJIPJy, uoloa the defendant aoccplll &0 remain delalned or ~ aubjr:ct to another mcaSW"C. If the individua~ belbte the declaion of the case In court, hall been detaiMd on remand III djeot to othor measures, but the oourt does not futd grounds for contiJ.ued 1HO hereo~ th£ court can. upon reqllest from the prosllCUtiOn. dao/de that flo detentJOIl or Ihtl measllre shan remaia in force until deejsitJII on the qllestlDn of det(l]1tion is issued by the higher court to which the Cll88 (Jt the 'l1l1l8tion of detention hll6 been IlJlpcaled.. (2) If the deciaion, wbich has been made in the flase, ~ appealfd to a highar court. and a rulIng ha8 been made pursuant tQ SubBection 1 about lIJIe of detention on remand or other measures after the decision, , '. ;• ') ) . , . .. (, . ' , :0 :J :J 28 Tb.e Adllwilitn!lonal' 11UIl.. At! §l \.J ,... Chapter 73 Search " L 2 § 7~. (1) PwIWlllI tQ the rule. of lhill Chapter the pollee can condoot saarchell of 1) re&idenoes or other dwellings, doouments, papas'S, aDd similar, 8S wellss efto contents of locImd objectll, and 2} other objecfl as well 8. premises other tbaII dwolUnga, (2) Searcbes of premises or (JbJecfs, whkb are freely acoos&iblt to the pollee, ate nol regulated by the rules of thU Q\apter. (3) A search to locale! a mpec:t, who is to be atrClstcd, or 8 persWl, who II to bo takan into cuslody for tho purpose of cmfoJdng a punishment or the altematie penalty In derwlt of pllyment of 8 ruw. can '\ further take place pUtlWlDt 10 Sections 75~ and 761. ~ for examInallon ) of the body of II person and SC!al'ooiDg the clothes, which th!t individ\Jal J5 WHl'Iug, the mlCl! .of Chapt« 72 apply. As for examinatiC)ll of lelten, telegrams, lUld siadIar mail deliveries. the Mel of Chapter 71tpply. I;l g.... § 794. (1) Searches of dwcllinp, oUter jXcmlscs "r o"jeclt, of whlch a suspect bas pOllKSsion. can (Jniy be conduc&ed if 1) the indlvidulll on reasonable grounds is suspected of an ofi'ence, whfch ill indictable by tho S1Ato, and 2) the Health musl be plftUJDtd to be of IfjlIlffi.Cant importance for the > ;J:I .-= '~ I" inveSption. r> -t ~ .,.,., ~ r? r? 0 ~ ~ :'I :? ... It) ... :t< :..., N ) (2) A8 for aearcbea of the kinds mgioled 10. Seclioo. 793, Subsection I, No, 1, It is furthu required, either IIIat the cuo ooncel'lllan , affCOCIt. which under the Jaw oan result In imprilaame.nt, or O1I.t dlero am specific reasom 10 plesume thaI evidence in Iha cas8 or objeols, which Dati be se~ can be found by the search. (3) If, during Ole semh of tho pOBBeI6iQns of I auspect, written me.vages or similar are found, which orlginaLtl &om a PelsOR, who puJBUant to the rules of Section t 70 is uchtded tram giving teBtimony as • witnCl9 In tluI easo, sOlrehol bmof must nat '5 conducted. The MIlle applies to material. which originates from B person, who is included in . Seotian 172. whOll tho meIaiaJ oontains infomlltion, whkb the Indlmuat puI'IWIDt fO Section. 172 is exempted from j9tifying about as a wllruJ8& In the clille. § 795. (1) Searches of dwcUiJlgl, ather premisea or objects, of which a petlOll, who is not II SIIiJieCt, blls ptJSjCSsion, are not regul!lfed hy fRe rules ofth.ls Chapter. iflhe individulll. gmnta writton col\Sent 10 the lmJth (II if, in connection with ilio ddectioo or repod of an offen00, Q CJu;,ler 1l: Beard! 29 oonsent is granted by the indivJdual. OthJ:lwise. a search of the paamslOll5 of a porsoD, who is nol a suapect. roS)' only ~ place, if 1) !he invcslig8tfon concemr an offen.ca, which under the law can result in impriaonmenf, and 2) there ore speollic reas>ons to p1eStlnle that evldmce in the CIl" or objcotJ, whioh caD be seizod, can be found by the search, (2) AB fbr tho pGllBeBsillD.J of penOOll, who purIIuant to the: rulc. of Seotion 170 am excluded from giYing teatlmony III wilneues in ilie case, wrlten mesaBseB and similar bDlwoDn the SURj)(lct and the person c:.onoetned, as well as nOllla and slrnilar by this pllJlOn concerning the nape!)", IDe J1UBpect and it is not possible to ccme into .... 0 "- (Jl ; C\I , ' ) I , ) ) Chapter 11 : Termination of the Legal Consequences of a Punisnablc: Act 11. kapitei: Opher af den strafbare handlings retsfelger Chapter 11: Termination of the Legal Consequences of a Punishable Act § 92. § 92. En lovovertrcedelse ~u-af[e$ ikke . nir ucr er il'ldmi.dt fora:ldelse c:fter §§ 93-94. An offence shall cease 10 be punishable when the period of limitation Iw; expired, in accordance with Sections 93-94 of this Act. B3. ~ Stk. 1. Forreldelsesfrisren er 11 2 i\r , nar der ikke er hjemlet hsjc:rc Slrclt' end frengsel i 1 itr for overo-a:delscn. (1) The period of limitation shall be : 1) {wo years . where the offence is not punishable wit.p a pc:naity more severe than 'imprisonme:nt for one year, or where the penalty for the offence would not exceed a flne : 2 ) five years. where the offence is nor punishable with a penalty more severe eller nar ~traffen for ville: nverslige bede . 2) ;) aT. ~t raf llckc: der iklce er hjemJet twjere cnd fzngseJ i 4 Ar , 3) 10 • n~1' overtrcedel~n :iT. nar dt:r j)ckc er hjcmllet twjere sa'at' end [ rengsc1 i lO 4) 15 af. ar. than impriliorunent for four years; :5) len years . where the offence is not punishable W\th a penalty more severe lhan imprisonmc:nt for ten years : 4) fifteen years. wh¢t"e the offence is not punishaole with a penally more sc;vere than imprisonmeru for a deu:nninat.e period . nl\r der iJ,:lce er lljemlct hsjc:re mat' end f amg:lel pa bestemt tid . ,,----,,' (2) For brcach of parllS. 2) and 3) of Section 29(,(1) and of Sections 296(2). Stk. 2. For ovenr8!delse af denne lovs § ~96 . o~ slk. , 1. TIr . 2 og 3, og,.st!<. 2 . ~ 297 9 302 er fo rzldcl$esfrist.en i il1tet til- 297. ami 302 of [hi!. Act . the period of limjtation shall in no case be less than five years , Thc same shall apply to eritllinal fi£lde mindre end 5 :1r . Det samme gtelder su-afansvar for overtra;delscr. ,.hvorved -- 93. 77 I ChapU:r 11: TermiDarion of the Lceal Con 'lCeS • .1..1. / of a Punishable: Act ............... IIO&efl undd~ sig betaliD& at told tiller afcifier til del affcntUge, dIu SOlD liability for offenl:eS whereby a person evades payment of cusroms duty or alX to public authoriUca or which lJIIly ~sult in a person being unjustifiably exempt from payment of such sums. er esncde dl at m2dfere, at nogen ubereni2et mtages for beating af sidanDc beleb . Stk.. 3. For overtralde1se at dellDC lovs §§ 223. stk. 1. 02 l89 . 1. pia. , eller §§ U, 15 eller 16 i !icBttekontrolloven ~ forzldelsesfristen 1 intet tilfzlde mindre end ,10 (3) For breach of Section 223(1) and of the first sentence of SecUon 289 of tm6 Act or of Sections 13. 15 or 16 of the Tax Concrol .o\.cl, the period of limitation shall in DO case be less than ten years . air. der emr stk. 1-3 glilider furskellige forfCldclsesfrisu:r. slcal den lleDgscc af disse frister auven.des mcd hensyn til samtligc overtr1l:delser . (4) Wlw't: a person has, by the same act, committed several offences tor which difftmml petiods of limitation are laid down in Subsections (1)-(3) above, [be longest of tb£se periods shall apply to all the offences . §94. § 94. Stk. 4. Har nogen ved samme handling begaet flere Iovovertr&<1elser, for hvilke Stk. 1. Forzldelsesfristen re~ fra den (1) The period of limitation shall be cal- ciag , da