Court Register from Ostre Landsret
(High Court for the Eastern part of DK)
Passed on 11 August 2011 by Ostre Landsret, Department 15 (High Court Judges B. Vollmond, Henrik Bitsch and Tine Vuust with lay assessors).
Dept. 15 hereof no. S-2468-09:
(CPR 271264 -…)
(Lawyer Ole Sigetty, duty council)
2) Henrik Madsen (formerly Henrik Haugberg Madsen)
(CPR 230670 -…)
(Lawyer Anders Németh, duty council)
3) Søren Henrik Salbol
(CPR 290647 -…)
(Lawyer Niels Ulrik Heine duty council)
4) Hanne Dahl Riisbjerg
(CPR 191272 -…)
(Lawyer Michael Harms, duty council)
5) Bo Madsen (formerly Bo Lavstsen)
(CPR 090270 -…)
(Attorney Jan Erik Kornerup Jensen, duty council)
6) Stig Nielsen
(CPR 140768 -…)
(Attorney Kristian Mølgaard, duty council)
7) Mikkel Guldager Nielsen
(CPR 300877 -…)
(Lawyer Allan Falk, duty council)
The appeal and the proceedings in the High Court
Kobenhavns Byret’s [Copenhagen District Court’s] sentence of 25 August 2009 (SS 1-2982/2009) was appealed by the defendants with a principal claim of annulment of the sentence and remittance, in the alternative acquittal, further in the alternative mitigation.
On 20 January 2010 The High Court decided against the claim of annulment of the sentence and remittance.
Accused Stig Nielsen failed to show up during the main negotiation in the high court and consequently his conviction appeal by order dated 25 November 2010 was rejected. The case is then for this accused person advanced as sentencing appeal.
Accused Henrik Madsen has not appeared at the main negotiation after 11 November 2010 and is per the prosecutor disappeared. The counsel for the defense has per mandate by Henrik Madsen consented that the matter be advanced without Henrik Madsen’s presence. A request from the prosecutors to reject the accused’s appeal of proof is by order of 28 January 2011 dismissed.
The prosecution has pleaded conviction in accordance with the district court’s resulting evidence, although the prosecution has dropped the charges in count 23 and made some corrections in the indictment.
After the prosecution’s corrections the indictment counts 3, 3A, 4-9, 11-13, 17, 22, 27, 31, 34 and 50 are worded as follows:
Defendant //Vetted//, defendant Henrik Haugberg Madsen, defendant Soren Henrik Salbol and defendant Hanne Dahl Riisbierg for VAT [called MOMS in Danish, trans. note] evasion constituting gross violation of the Penal Code Section 289, pursuant to the VAT Act Section 81, subsection 3, cf. subsection 1, no 1 and 2, cf. Section 57, subsection 1-1.
during the following periods in concert and by prior arrangement, as responsible in Dansk Mandskabs Service ApS., at the addresses Knud Bro Allé 5E, Stenlose from 16 October to mid March 2001 and thereafter until 11 December 2001 at Sct. Annae Plads 9-11, Copenhagen, in order to achieve unfounded gain for self or others with intent of tax evasion from the tax office:
from 16 October 2000 to 31 December 2000 having reported false information to the taxation control since the defendant reported at tax liability of 2,950 DKK whereas the correct figure was 454,899 DKK
during the period 1 January 2001 to 11 December 2001 having failed to report the company’s tax liability of 1,063,156 DKK.
Whereby in total the Treasury was deprived of 1,515,105 DKK in VAT.
Defendant //Vetted//, defendant Henrik Haugberg Madsen, defendant Soren Henrik Salbol and defendant Hanne Dahl Riisbierg for VAT evasion constituting serious breach of the of the Penal Code Section 289, pursuant to the VAT Act Section 81, subsection 3, cf. subsection 1, no 2, cf. Section 47, subsection 1-1 and subsection 5-1 an dSection 52, subsection 6
by during the period 12 December 2001 to 31 March 2002 in concert and by prior arrangement at the address, Sct. Annae Plads 9-11, Copenhagen, in order to obtain unfounded gain for self and others through intentional tax evasion after Dansk Mandskabs Service ApS on 11 December 2001 was declared bankrupt, having conducted business requiring registration without reporting the company to the tax authorities, and despite hereof having issued invoices with VAT, whereby in total the Treasury was deprived of 82,551 DKK in VAT.
Defendant //Vetted//, defendant Henrik Haugberg Madsen, defendant Soren Henrik Salbol and defendant Hanne Dahl Riisbierg for violation of the Penal Codes Section 289, cf. the Taxation Act’s Section 74, subsection 2, cf. subsection 1, no 2, cf. the Penal Code’s Section 3
during the period from 16 October 2000 to 11 December 2001 in Dansk Mandskabs Service ApS, and after bankruptcy of the company on 11 December 2001 in connection with the unregistered company given in count 3A, from the three previous addresses until 31 March 2002, in concert and by prior arrangement with Dennis Flemming Jensen Shield, whose case is concluded, in order to thereby obtain unfounded gain for self and others by intentionally evading government taxes as responsible failing to report withheld A-taxes to the tax office whereby in total the Treasury was deprived of 1,805,422 DKK in A-taxes.
Defendant //Vetted//, defendant Henrik Haugberg Madsen, defendant Soren Henrik Salbol and defendant Hanne Dahl Riisbierg for violation of Penal Code Section 289, cf. Section 17, subsection 2, cf. subsection 1, no 1, cf. Section 2, subsection 1 and 2,-2 in the Collection Act, cf. Section 3 in the Penal Code
by during the period from 16 October 2000 to 11 December 2001 in Dansk Mandskabs Service ApS, and after the bankruptcy of the company on 11 December 2001 in connection with unregistered company given in count 3A, from the addresses given under count 3 until 31 March 2002 in concert and by prior arrangement with Dennis Flemming Skjold Jensen, whose case is concluded, as responsible with the intent of evading public contribution, having failed to report withheld AM contribution to the tax office totaling 507,708 DKK, whereby in total the Treasury was deprived of 507,708 DKK in the AM contributions.
Defendant //Vetted//, defendant Henrik Haugberg Madsen, defendant Soren Henrik Salbol and defendant Hanne Dahl Riisbierg for violation of Section 17, subsection 2, cf. subsection 1-1, cf. Section, subsection 1 and 2-2 in the Collection Act.
by during the period from 16 October 2000 to 11 December 2001 in Dansk Mandskabs Service ApS and after the bankruptcy of the company on 11 December 2001 in connection with the unregistered firm given in count 3A, from the addresses given in count 3 until 31 March 2002 in concert and by prior arrangement with Dennis Flemming Skjold Jensen, whose case is concluded, as responsible with the intent of evading public contribution, failing to report the withheld SP contributions to the tax office totaling 81,281 DKK, whereby in total the Treasury was deprived of 81,281 DKK in SP contributions.
Defendant //Vetted//, defendant Henrik Haugberg Madsen, defendant Soren Henrik Salbol and defendant Hanne Dahl Riisbierg for violation of Section 289 in the Penal Code, cf. Section 74, subsection 2, cf. subsection 1, no 2 in the Taxation Act, cf. Section 3 in the Penal Code
by during the period from 24 October 2000 to 30 October 2001 in Dansk Mandskabs Service ApS, and after bankruptcy of the company on 30 October 2001 in connection with continued service until 18 February 2002 at the addresses Knud Bro Allé 5F, Stenlose and Scrt. Annae Plads 1-11, Copenhagen, in concert and by prior arrangement with Dennis Flemming Skjold Jensen, whose case is concluded, as responsible in order to obtain unfounded gain for self or others with the intent of evading government taxes, failing to submit statements of withheld A-Tax to the tax office, whereby in total the Treasury was deprived of 95,080 DKK in A-tax.
Defendant //Vetted//, defendant Henrik Haugberg Madsen, defendant Soren Henrik Salbol and defendant Hanne Dahl Riisbierg for violation of Section 289 in the Penal Code, cf. Section 17, subsection 2, cf. subsection 1, no 1, cf. Section 2, subsection 1 and 2-2 in the Collection Act , cf. Section 3 in the Penal Code
for during the period from 24 October 2000 to 30 October 2001 in Dansk Mandskabs Service ApS, and after bankruptcy of the company on 30 October 2001 in connection with the continued operation at the under count 7 mentioned addresses until 18 February 2002 in concert and by prior arrangement with Dennis Flemming Skjold Jensen, whose case is concluded, as responsible in order to obtain unfounded gain with the intent of evading public contribution, having failed to report withheld AM contribution to the tax office with a total of 24,277 DKK, whereby in total the Treasury was deprived of 24,277 DKK in AM contributions.
Defendant //Vetted//, defendant Henrik Haugberg Madsen, defendant Soren Henrik Salbol and defendant Hanne Dahl Riisbierg for violation of Section 17, subsection 2, cf. subsection 1, no 1, cf. section 2, subsection 1 qand 2-2 in the Collection Act
for during the period from 24 October 2000 to 30 October 2001 in the Dansk Mandskabs Service ApS, and after bankruptcy of the company on 30 October 2001 in connection with the continued operation at the under count 7 mentioned addresses until 18 February 2002 in concert and by prior arrangement with Dennis Flemming Skjold Jensen, whose case is concluded, as responsible with the intent of evading public contribution, failing to report the contained SP contributions to the tax office by a total of 10,630 DKK, whereby in total the Treasury was deprived of 10,630 DKK in SP contributions.
Defendant //Vetted//, defendant Henrik Haugberg Madsen, defendant Soren Henrik Salbol and defendant Hanne Dahl Riisbierg for violation of Section 289 in the Penal Code, cf. Section 74, subsection 2, cf. subsection 1, no 2, cf. in the Taxation Act, cf. Section 3 in the Penal Code
for during the period from 29 December 2000 to the company’s bankruptcy on 7 June 2002 in concert with and by prior arrangement, as responsible in the company DMS Kontraktservice ApS from 29 December 2000 to mid-March 2001 from Knud Bro AIlé 7C, Stenlose and then from Sct. Annae Plads 9-11, Copenhagen, in order to obtain unfounded gain with intent to evade government taxes, failing to submit reports relating to the A-tax to the tax office, whereby in total the Treasury was deprived of 1,284,811 DKK in A-tax.
Defendant //Vetted//, defendant Henrik Haugberg Madsen, defendant Soren Henrik Salbol and defendant Hanne Dahl Riisbierg and defendant Karina Enegaard Jorgensen for violation of Section 289 in the Penal Code , cf. Section 17, subsection 2, cf. subsection 1, no.1 , cf. Section 2, subsection 2 and 2-2 in the Collection Act, cf. Section 3 in the Penal Code
for during the period from 29 December 2000 until the company’s bankruptcy on 7 June 2002 in concert and by prior agreement as responsible leaders in the company DMS Kontraktservice ApS from 29 December 2000 until mid-March 2001 from Knud Bro Allé 7C, Stenlose and then from Sct. Annae Plads 9-11, Copenhagen, with intent of evading public contribution, having failed to report withheld AM contribution to the tax office by a total of 376,971 DKK, whereby all together the Treasury was deprived of 376,971 DKK in AM contributions.
Defendant //Vetted//, defendant Henrik Haugberg Madsen, defendant Soren Henrik Salbol and defendant Hanne Dahl Riisbierg and defendant Karina Enegaard Jorgensen for violation of Section 17, subsection 2, cf. subsection1, no 1, cf. Section 2, subsection1 and 2-2 in the Collection Act
for during the period from 29 December 2000 until the company’s bankruptcy on 7 June 2002 in concert and by prior agreement as responsible leaders in the company DMS Kontraktservice ApS from 29 December 2000 until mid-2001 from Knud Bro Allé 7C, Stenlose and then from Sct. Annae Plads 9-11, Copenhagen, with intent of evading public contribution, having failed to report withheld SP contributions to the tax office by a total of 47,013 DKK, whereby all together the Treasury was deprived of 47,013 DKK in SP contributions.
Defendant //Vetted// and defendant Henrik Haugberg Madsen for fraud of aggravated nature per Penal Code § 279, see § 286, subsection 2
for the period from 24 October 2000 to 30 October 2001 respectively as CFO and daily leader of Dansk Magna Service ApS, Knud Bro Alle 5F, Stenløse, jointly and by prior arrangement, in order to gain for themselves or others an unjust enrichment, fraudulent toward ATP-Huset Feriekonto, Kongens Vænge 8 Hillerød, during that period to have failed to pay holiday pay for five employees to Feriekonto, by which they caused a capital loss of 8,420.72 DKK for Lønmodtagernes Garantifond (Employees Guarantee Fund).
Accused //Vetted//, accused Henrik Haugberg Madsen and accused Bo Lavstsen for fraud of aggravated nature per Penal Code § 279, see § 286, subsection 2
for the period from 14 February 2001 to 13 July 2001 respectively as CFO, general manager and operations manager of the Dansk Multi Service ApS., Knud Bro Alle 7C, Stenløse, and Sct. Annæ Plads 9-11, Copenhagen K, jointly and by prior arrangement, in order to gain for themselves or others an unjust enrichment, fraudulent to have managed to get the staff of Sonofon, Skelagervej and Sonofon dealers in the Greater Copenhagen area, against payment by sending invoices partly to provide telecommunications equipment for a total value of 19,110.00 DKK and partly to create 14 GSM mobile phone subscriptions, which then of the defendants and DMS’s employees in the period up to 13 July 2001 were used for a total value of 31,646.18 DKK, as the defendants withhled that they lacked the will or ability to pay for the delivery, by which they caused Sonofon a capital loss of 50,756.18 DKK.
Accused //Vetted//, accused Henrik Haugberg Madsen and accused Bo Lavstsen for fraud of aggravated nature per Penal Code § 279, see § 286, subsection 2
for the period from 6 March 2001 to 31 May 2001 respectively as CFO, general manager and operations manager of the Dansk Multi Service ApS and Dansk Mandskabs Service ApS, Knud Bro Alle 7, Stenløse (6 March 2001 to 31 March 2001.) and St. Annæ Plads 9, Copenhagen K (1 April 2001 to 31 May 2001.) jointly and by prior arrangement, in order to gain for themselves and others an unjust enrichment, fraudulent to have managed to get the staff of Semco Danmark A/S, Park Alle 373, Brondby, against payment by forwarding of invoices to perform electrical work at the address St. Annæ Plads 9-11, Copenhagen K, for a total value of 214,938.66 DKK, as the defendants concealed that they lacked the will or ability to pay for the delivery, by which they caused Semco Denmark A/S a corresponding loss of capital.
Accused //Vetted//, accused Henrik Haugberg Madsen and accused Bo Lavstsen for fraud of aggravated nature per Penal Code § 279, see § 286 subsection 2
for the period from 3 April 2001 to 12 November 2001 respectively as finance manager, general manager and operations manager in a DMS company, St. Annæ Plads 9, Copenhagen K, jointly and by prior arrangement, in order to gain for themselves or others an unjust enrichment, fraudulent to have managed to get the staff of Rentokil, Poul Bergsøe Vej 22, Glostrup, against payment by sending invoices to provide and service plants in pots with a total value of 58,657.50 DKK, as the defendants concealed that they lacked the will or ability to pay for the goods delivered, by which they caused Rentokil a corresponding loss of capital.
Accused //Vetted//, accused Henrik Haugberg Madsen and accused Stig Nielsen for fraud of aggravated nature per Penal Code § 279, see § 286 subsection 2
respectively the 2 March 2001, 19 April 2001 and 21 May 2002 as Finance manager (Jensen) and manager (Madsen) in DMS Kontraktservice ApS, Knud Bro Alle 5E, Stenløse and director of Lystrup Tømrer & Snedker (Carpenters and Joiners), Petersmindevej 130 Lystrup (Nielsen), which was owned by Lejfi Holding ApS, jointly and by prior arrangement, in order to gain for themselves or others an unjust enrichment, fraudulent to have managed to get the staff of TDC Forlag A/S, Rødovrevej 241, Rødovre, to place advertisements in telephone directories for 2002 and 2003 worth a total of 691,750, – DKK, as the defendants concealed that they lacked the will or ability to pay for the delivery, by which they caused TDC A/S a corresponding loss of capital.
Accused //Vetted// and accused Henrik Haugberg Madsen for fraud of aggravated nature per Penal Code § 279, see § 286 subsection 2
for in October 2001 respectively as CFO and managing director of DMS Kontraktservice ApS, Knud Bro Alle 7C Stenløse, jointly and by prior arrangement, in order to gain for themselves or others an unjust enrichment, fraudulent to have managed staff at Knud Jorgensen Automobiler, Østerbrogade 105, Copenhagen Ø, to conclude a servicing agreement regarding four Toyota vans belonging to either For Kvalitet A/S or Inuxx ApS, after which two of the cars were serviced for a total of 36,835.08 DKK against payment by sending of invoices as the accused concealed that they lacked the will or ability to pay for the delivered, by which they caused Knud Jorgensen Automobiler a risk of a capital loss of 36,835.08 DKK.
The Prosecutors have also made the following corrections to the indictment:
Issue 20: Instead of “248,308.13 DKK” insert “198,532.92 DKK”.
Issue 24: After “Lystrup Tømrer & Snedker (Carpentry and Joinery)” insert “A/S”
Issue 33: “260,909.04 DKK” is changed to “260,906.04 DKK”
Issue 56: “the 1 February 2002” is changed to “March 2002”
Issue 63: “Gl. Ølstykkevej 19” is changed to “GI. Roskildevej 19”
The Prosecutors have finally requested permission to correct issue 61 in the indictment so instead of “DMS Kontraktservice ApS” is inserted “For Kvalitet A/S”.
The legal counsel for accused Mikkel Guldager Nielsen has protested against it.
The prosecution pleads the defendant //Vetted// pursuant to Section 68, subsection 2 in the Penal Code, cf. Section 69, to be sentenced to outpatient psychiatric treatment at a psychiatric ward with oversight from the Probation Service so that the Probation Service in concert with the chief psychiatric consultant may determine admission. The prosecution also seeks to set a maximum time for the arrangement of 5 years and that the longest time for any hospitalization not to exceed 1 year, cf. Section 69 subsection 1 of the Penal Code.
Defendant //Vetted// has agreed with this assertion in the case that she might be found guilty.
The prosecution has for the other defendants pleaded increase of the sentence.
The case in the High Court was primarily treated in 33 hearings during the period from 10 August 2010 until 1 June 2011, where after judgment was taken to conviction. As for sanction of defendant //Vetted// the case was however postponed for outpatient mental health screening until 8 August 2011, where the case was admitted to ruling on sanction for her.
The prosecution has in connection with counts 1, 3, 3A, 4-9 and 11-14 sought confirmation of the district court’s ruling on damages, except in connection with count 12 where the prosecution only has claimed damages of 376,971 DKK.
The prosecution additionally presented the following damage claim:
Issue Accused Compensated party Amount
16 and 54 //Vetted// and Kuwait Petroleum A/S
Henrik Madsen Law Firm Brask Thomsen 306,190.48 DKK
jointly St. Clemens Torv 8
8100 Aarhus C
17 and 20 //Vetted// and Henrik Madsen, jointly ATP-huset Feriekonto Kongens Vænge 8, 3400 Hillerød 206,953.64 DKK
18 //Vetted// and Henrik Madsen, jointly Tele-Point Søborg A/S, Søborg Hovedgade 51, 2860 Soborg 69,066.51 DKK
19 //Vetted// and Henrik Madsen, jointly Henkel-Ecolab A/S, Carl Jacobsens Vej 29-37, 2500 Valby 70,512.62 DKK
21 Henrik Madsen Jensen-Sega A/S
c/o lawyer Peter Skov Sorensen
1253 Copenhagen K 49,803.00 DKK
22 //Vetted// and Henrik Madsen, jointly Sonofon, Skelagervej 1, 9000 Aalborg 50,756.18 DKK
24 //Vetted//, Henrik Madsen and Stig Nielsen, jointly Thisted Trapper
c/o Attorney Ronald Juul Pedersen, Bytorvet 22B, 7730 Hanstholm 55,025.00 DKK plus interest
25 //Vetted// and Henrik Madsen, jointly Søndagsavisen A/S, Gladsaxe Møllevej 28, 2860 Søborg 2,262.50 DKK
26 //Vetted//, Henrik Madsen and Bo Madsen jointly Bowie Møbelindustri A/S
c/o attorney Peter Tauby Sørensen
Landemærket 10, 1119 Kbh K 89,628.19 DKK plus interest
27 //Vetted// Bravida Danmark A/S 214,938.66 DKK
Henrik Madsen and Bo (former Semco Danmark A/S)
Madsen, jointly Park Alle 373, 2605 Brøndby
29 //Vetted//, Henrik Paustian A/S 95,736.00 DKK
Madsen and Stig Nielsen Skovvejen 2, 8000 Aarhus C
30 //Vetted//, Henrik Falck Danmark A/S 229,828.51 DKK
Madsen and Bo Madsen Roskildevej 157
jointly 2620 Albertslund
31 //Vetted//, Henrik Rentokil Initial A/S 58,657.50 DKK
Madsen and Bo Madsen Paul Bergsøes Vej 22
jointly 2600 Glostrup
32 //Vetted//, Henrik Altikon Kontormøbler 117,967.50 DKK
Madsen and Bo Madsen c/o Altikongruppen
jointly Kobbervænget 74
33 //Vetted//, Henrik Brejnholts Tømmerhandel A/S 260,906.04 DKK
Madsen and Stig Nielsen Ørneborgvej 46, 8900 Randers
Nyropsgade 45,5, 1504 Kbh. K
34 //Vetted//, Henrik De Gule Sider A/S 691,750.00 DKK
Madsen and Stig Nielsen Rødovrevej 241, 2610 Rødovre
35 //Vetted//, Henrik Topnordic A/S (tidl. Eterra A/S) 283,575.26 DKK
Madsen and Stig Nielsen Oluf Palmes Alle 44,
jointly 8100 Aarhus N
36 //Vetted//, Henrik Minolta Danmark A/S 77,142.50 DKK
Madsen and Bo Madsen Stenmosevej 15
jointly 2620 Albertslund
37 //Vetted//, Henrik Sonofon 174,041.11 DKK
Madsen and Stig Nielsen Skelagervej 1
jointly 9000 Aalborg
– 12 –
38 //Vetted//, Henrik Canon Business Center, Viborg 80,288.75 DKK
Madsen and Stig Nielsen c/o Canon Danmark A/S
jointly Knud Højgaards Vej 1
39 //Vetted//, Henrik Xerox Partner City A/S 68,175.00 DKK
Madsen and Stig Nielsen Kornmarksvej 6
jointly 2605 Brøndby
40 //Vetted//, Henrik Bondo Kontormøbler A/S 121,280.00 DKK
Madsen and Bo Madsen Smedeholm 16
jointly 2730 Herlev
41 //Vetted//, Henrik Abena A/S (earlier Sækko) 38,957.50 DKK
Madsen and Bo Madsen Egelund 35, 6200 Aabenraa plus interest
42 //Vetted//, Henrik 1) The estate after HT Defta A/S 70,833.56 DKK
Madsen and Stig Nielsen by Birgit Skovbo Jørgensen
jointly Olinemindesvej 30
8722 Hedensted and
2) Hermes Kreditforsikring
Nyropsgade 45, 5, 1504 Kbh V
45 //Vetted//, Henrik Semaphor 91,284.38 DKK
Madsen and Bo Madsen Trekronergade 147B
jointly 2500 Valby
46 //Vetted//, Henrik Papyrex A/S 98,837.32 DKK
Madsen and Bo Madsen Rugvænget 8-14
jointly 6100 Ringsted
47 //Vetted//, Henrik Trico Firmatøj A/S 169,643.13 DKK
Madsen and Bo Madsen Sjællandsgade 21
jointly 7100 Vejle
49 Henrik Madsen and Bo GSV Materieludlejning A/S 107,985.38 DKK
Madsen jointly Industrikrogen 18, 2635 Ishøj
51 Henrik Madsen and Bo Værktæjssalget 1,156.26 DKK
Bo Madsen jointly Bredgade 165, 9700 Brønderslev
52 //Vetted//, Henrik Johnson Diversey 150,093.13 DKK
Madsen and Bo Madsen Teglbuen 10, 2990 Nivå
53 //Vetted// and Servial CC ApS 6,375.00 DKK
Henrik Madsen jointly Ramløsevej 59, 3200 Helsinge
55 //Vetted//, Henrik Per Aarsleff A/S 61,620.71 DKK
Madsen and Stig Nielsen Lokesvej 5, 8230 Åbybro
56 //Vetted//. Henrik Morten Sørensen Grafisk Tegnest. 26,062.50 DKK
Madsen and Mikkel Guldager c/o lawyer Ole Anders Petersen
Nielsen jointly Gothersgade 2, 8800 Viborg
57 //Vetted// and Henrik Haulage contractor Erik 763,75 DKK
Madsen jointly Flemming Nielsen
Svalebo 22A, 2750 Ballerup
58 //Vetted// and Henrik Novodan Center Nordsjælland ApS 38,873.56 DKK
Madsen jointly Gydevang 18, 3450 Allerød
59 Henrik Madsen Hotel Skuldelev Kro 8,738.00 DKK
Skuldelev, 4050 Skibby
60 Henrik Madsen Unik Farver Frederikssund 3,397.73 DKK
Jernbanegade 13a, 3600 Frederikssund
61 //Vetted//, Henrik Radisson SAS, Limfjord Hotel 13,471.66 DKK
Madsen and Mikkel Guldager Ved Stranden 14-16
Nielsen jointly 9000 Aalborg
62 Henrik Madsen and Stig Gundsø Beton ApS 30,986.25 DKK
Nielsen jointly Holmevej 41, Gundsømagle
63 Henrik Madsen and Stig Hotel Hillerød 14,650.00 DKK
Nielsen jointly Milnersvej 41
– 14 –
64 Henrik Madsen and Stig Hotel Orø Inn 2,512.00 DKK
Nielsen jointly Bygaden 57, Orø
66 //Vetted// and Lynæs Inn 2,172.00 DKK
Henrik Madsen Frederiksværkvej 6
67 Sørensen Henrik Salbol Hewlett Packard A / S 261,406.75 DKK Attorney Jens Anker Rasmussen,
GI. Mont 4
1117 Copenhagen K
Additional statement of claim
The companies involved
The case includes a number of companies which have delivered cleaning services according to contracts entered with different companies for delivering cleaning services. In the operation of the cleaning company a number for cleaning staff, inspectors and office staff, including marketing and sales personnel have been employed. The defendants in the case have all – with the exception of Stig Nielsen, who was employed in Lystrup Tomrer og Snedker A/S – worked for the companies.
Berner Huse A/S was originally founded as a small private limited company [ApS] and the majority of shares (190,000 DKK out of a share capital of DKK 200,000) were purchased by a company owned by Soren Henrik Salbol, Abbey Oak Contractors Ltd, on 1 January 1993. In 1995, Berner Huse ApS was converted into a large private limited company [A/S], where Soren Henrik Salbol joined the Executive Board and the Board of the company, which at the same time took the secondary company name Din Rengoring A/S among others. On 2 May 1996 a change of company address was registered from Jernbane Allé in Vanlose to Islevbrovej in Rodovre, and the company moved to a new address again on 28 September 2000 to Kobmagergade 2 in Copenhagen where the company entered an agreement to lease an address and telephone service.
According to the accounts, sales of Berner Huse A/S increased from 17.1 million DKK to almost 22 million DKK from the fiscal year 1994/95 to the fiscal year 1998/99, and the gross margin from approximately 1 million DKK to approximately 4 million DKK. Throughout that period, the net income was modest, but positive, up to 237,000 DKK in 1997/98 and equity was throughout the period rising to almost 1 million DKK as of 31 March 1999. The accounts were annually given an unqualified audit by a certified public accountant Anders H. Lind. The company Din Rengoring A/S (Bemer Huse A/S) was selected out by the Copenhagen Tax Administration in 1996 for an audit review, which was concluded by letter dated 23 January 1997 to Soren Henrik Salbol in which attention was drawn to the rules in the Accountancy Act and the Executive Order on Commercial Enterprises Bookkeeping, Annual Accounts and Storage of Accounting Records, but other than that no further action was taken. The company’s last published annual accounts cover the accounting period from 1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999. The company was declared bankrupt on 17 November 2000 and the estate was closed on 19 April 2002 without funds pursuant Section 143 in the Bankruptcy Act.
The company’s assets, in the main consisting of cleaning contracts, were sold. The signing of the purchase contract by seller was dated 24 February 2000 and by buyer dated 6 March 2000, however according to Henrik Madsen and Soren Henrik Salbol’s statement it wasn’t signed before the autumn of 2000 with final takeover 1 September 2000, transferred at a price of 822,500 DKK to Din Rengoring ApS with a CVR number [company register number] corresponding to the CVR number of Dansk Multi Service ApS.
On 28 September 2000 the statutes of Dansk Multi Service ApS, which originally was founded as a shell company with no board, were amended, whereby the company including other things changed its name and location to Dansk Multi Service ApS, Knud Bro Alle 7 in Stenløse. //Vetted// joined at this stage the management. According to the registration of 15 December 2000 she was on the 15th November 2000 replaced by Henrik Madsen in the management. In its notice to the tax office of 15 November 2000 //Vetted// stated, as responsible manager, that the company on 1 July 2000 had started VATable activities. //Vetted// had from 13 September 2000 a power of attorney to the company’s bank account at Lokalbanken, and on 15 September 2000 she and “DMS A/S” entered into an employment agreement with her as bookkeeper. By letter dated 20 September 2000 the employees were informed that “DMS” 16 September 2000 had taken over the obligation to deliver on Din Rengørings service contracts, and that they from that date were employed in “DMS”.
On 16 October and 24 October 2000 the companies Dansk Mandskabs Service ApS and Dansk Magna Service ApS were founded with registered address at respectively Knud Bro Alle 5 E and 5 F in Stenløse. The companies issued paychecks to the employees, and Dansk Mandskabs Service billed “crew pay” to “DMS” and For Kvalitet A/S. By letter dated 7
May 2001 it was reported to the tax office in Hillerød that the companies had moved to Petersmindevej 130 in Lystrup. However, the offices here appeared unused when the tax office visited the place on 2 August 2001. Dennis Flemming Skjold Jensen was registered as the director of both companies. //Vetted// had power of attorney to the companies’ accounts in Nordea as of 24 October 2000 to 18 January 2001. The companies did not submit any financial records before they were declared bankrupt on 11 December and 30 October 2001. The trustee has concerning both companies indicated that both estates under bankruptcy probably can be completed in pursuance of the Bankruptcy Act § 143.
For Dansk Multi Service ApS there was never registered any change of address, but per the explanations of the defendants the company transferred its operations in April 2001 to the address at St. Annæ Plads 9, which was rented by Lejfi Holding ApS on 1 April 2001. From mid-June 2001 payment of the invoices of the company had to happen to Lejfi Holding.
Lejfi Holding ApS was founded on 20 June 2000 by Jan Obbekær Hansen, who also was inducted as its director until Henrik Madsen on 5 November 2001 – after the Commercial and Company Agency the same day had withdrawn its request for a forced liquidation of the company – joined the Executive Board instead of Jan Obbekær Hansen. The limited company submitted on 24 June 2001 its financial records for the period 20 June to 31 December 2000. By a change of statutes on 14 November 2001 the company was transformed into a shareholding company, registered under the name KF Finans A/S. Henrik Madsen was still the director and was also a member of the board together with, among other Hanne Dahl Riisbjerg. //Vetted// had from 12 March 2001 a power of attorney to the company’s bank account at Lokalbanken. The company purchased per the share transfer agreement, signed on 8 February and 23 February 2001, shares in Lystrup Tømrer & Snedker A/S, which was declared bankrupt on 8 May 2001. KF Finans A/S was declared bankrupt on 31 January 2003, and the trustee has indicated that the funds which were recorded in the company at the raid on 13 June 2002, a total of 277,000 DKK, belong to other companies in the group.
The 1st October 2001 Dansk Multi Service ApS was requested dissolution by force of the Commerce and Company Agency because of its failure to submit its financial records. Henrik Madsen’s request for resumption of the company was on the 5th November 2001 declined and the company was on 18 January 2002 declared bankrupt following a petition from the company’s liquidator. The trustee has indicated that the estate will probably be completed in pursuance of the Bankruptcy Act § 143.
The cleaning activities in Dansk Multi Service ApS were continued under the auspices of the company For Kvalitet A/S, founded on 31 August 2001 by //Vetted//, who also was registered as a director and member of the board in the company. The company had registered address at St. Annæ Plads 9-11 in Copenhagen. //Vetted// stated in connection with its submission to the tax office that the company started VATable activities on 10 October 2001 and made the first payment of wages 31 October 2001. According to the opening balance there was paid in assets totaling 2.5 million DKK at the foundation of For Kvalitet A/S. According to handwritten notes concerning the foundation the assets of the company consisted of cleaning contracts, machinery and equipment and cash. //Vetted// was registered as retired from the company’s board on 4 July 2002. On 29th January 2003 forced liquidation was started on the company at the request of the Commerce and Company Agency, and 28 February 2003 it was declared bankrupt. The assets of the company were in the liquidator’s statement of 27 June 2003 totaling DKK 12,500
DMS Kontrakt Service ApS was founded on 29th December 2000 by Karina Enegaard Jorgensen at the request of Henrik Madsen. Karina Enegaard Jorgensen was also registered as the director of the company. The company had its registered office address of Knud Bro Alle 7 C in Stenløse, but was also doing business from the address GI. Roskildevej 19 in Ølstykke where a storage was rented from For Kvalitet A/S. The company was never reported to the tax authorities, but billed pay for the crew to For Kvalitet A/S and issued paychecks to employees from January 2001 to June 2002. On 7th June 2002 it was declared bankrupt, and the trustee has indicated that the estate is expected to be completed without means per Bankruptcy Act § 143.
Money transfers from Berner Huse A/S to Soren Henrik Salbol from July to October 2000
Vouchers, signed by //Vetted// and Soren Henrik Salbol show that on 28 July 2000 100,000 DKK was paid out in cash from Berner Huse A/S’s bank account in Danske Bank, and furthermore //Vetted// signed two payment notes on 19 July and 25 July 2000 for 15,000 DKK and 35,000 DKK.
It was – as stated in District court’s the judgment – during the liquidator’s examination of Berner Huse A/S’s bank account in Danish Bank found that there had been cash disbursements totaling 460,000 DKK during the period from 12 September 2000 to 9 October 2000. The withdrawal vouchers were all signed by //Vetted//, who explained that she transferred the amount drawn to Soren Henrik Salbol. There is evidence of disbursement vouchers where Bente and Soren Henrik Salbol have acknowledged receipt of 40,000 DKK on 20 September 2000 and 50,000 DKK on 29 September 2000. Dansk Multi Service ApS’ bank account shows a deposit of 135,000 DKK on 13 September 2000, 50,000 DKK on 25 September 2000, 52,355.06 DKK on 26 September 2000 and 52,000 DKK on 6 October 2000.
Money transfers via Western Union
During the period from 28 December 2000 to 8 April 2002 there were 35 money transfers via Western Union from persons associated with the DMS companies to Soren Henrik Salbøl or his family, Henrik Madsen and their American advisor Tom Lawler at the addresses Palm Bay, Florida (27 transfers) and Tunbridge Wells in Kent (6 transfers), while two transfers have no specified address. On the transfers Soren Henrik Salbol or his family were listed as the recipient of 27 transfers from 28 December 2000 to 8 April 2002 of a total of 643.499 DKK , while Henrik Madsen was listed as receiving three transfers totaling 68,070 DKK from 21 February to 10 April 2001, while 10 transfers to Tom Lawler at a total of 216,900 DKK took place during in the period from 18 January to 29 June 2001.
Money transfers via Hanne Dahl Riisbierg
According to the statement from Hanne Dahl Riisbjerg´s bank account in Ryslinge Andelskasse and other data given that from 30 August 2001 to 13 June 2002 there was among other things deposited 1,958,253 DKK, from checks issued by Henrik Madsen, from transfers from Lejfi Holding ApS/KF Finans A/S, and from a client account with attorney Kim Toxen Worm. Hanne Dahl Riisbjerg withdrew from the bank account cash 1,235,000 DKK divided by 280,000 DKK on the 14 July 2001, 300,000 DKK on the 6 September 2001, 300,000 DKK on the 17 December 2001, 55,000 DKK on the 31 December 2001, 200,000 DKK on the 15 March 2002 and 100,000 DKK on the 5 April 2002.
In the district court decision there is a mail correspondence between some of the defendants. In addition to those the following mails may be mentioned:
Email dated 14 August 2001 from Soren Henrik Salbol to Henrik Madsen reads (in part):
“Rikke is nudging me daily for the money. She has given me the letter, which she agreed would be sent via fax with a tax deduction of approx. 17600. Would you please send them to her as a WU [probably Western Union, trans. note] here in Florida – since she will be here until the end of the month.”
Email dated 12 December from Soren Henrik Salbol to Henrik Madsen reads (in part):
“Regarding: REMINDER – Note: your PC address is closed (mail is being returned)
[Trakker] 10 pieces to UK (7) urgent
Paper bags (US Customs with send me information and I’ll be getting an offer from two suppliers)
Money to be deposited as “Salary” transfer via bank system UK
Lawyer working in English re. conditions for shareholders
Money for me for top up [sic.] – via WU
Money to your own account here
TV Business / repairman prices?
Company purchase DK/(UK)
Talk about Jakob – So how did it go this weekend?
Money for the insertion of “Salary” transfer through banking system United Kingdom
From email dated 18 December 2001 13:48 from Soren Henrik Salbol to Henrik Madsen reads (in part):
“Regarding: It is important to have a USD 5000 WU before Thursday”
Email dated 30 April 2002 from Henrik Madsen to Soren Henrik Salbol reads (in part):
“Regarding: Just a small question whether we found any leads to “the shop” and if we have set up an office at the “office hotel””
The added explanation by the late Kasper Hagen Møllenberg to police report of 18 June 2002 is documented under the former Code of Civil Procedure § 877 (now § 871), and states among other things:
“The witness was employed as a cleaning assistant on 1. Jan 2002 in the company DMS Kontrakt Service ApS. The witness knew that he performed work for DMS For Kvalitet. After 2-3 weeks //Vetted// contacted the witness and asked him to hold a job as an inspector in the company. The Inspector job consists of talking to the customers of the company, ordering goods, cleaning, make the monthly plan, which means calculating the employee working hours which would be handed over to //Vetted// who based on this calculated the pay, since //Vetted// was CFO in the company.
Concerning the daily operations and purchase of materials the witness explained that often, in fact from one time to the next there was a change of supplier concerning purchase of goods. The witness knew this, as he had received several phone calls from suppliers asking for the bills for purchased goods to be paid. Sometimes the witness had discussed this issue with //Vetted//, who seemed quite indifferent about the missing payments. The witness had overheard telephone conversations between //Vetted// and different suppliers where //Vetted// to suppliers had simply said that the payments were coming. In some cases, she had been stubborn and had expressed that no one should dictate her, about when the bills should be paid. ”
Ad issue 1
The evaded amounts of VAT mentioned in the indictment are calculated based on information in the company accounts on revenues and expenses in conjunction with the electronic registration of the reports made the company to the tax office concerning the VAT liability. According to the tax office decision of 10 October 2001 the VAT for the period 1 October 1996 to 31 March 1997 was reported 128,393 DKK too much, for the period 1 april 1997 to 31 March 1998 reported 606,351 DKK too little, and for the period 1 april 1998 to 31 March 1999 reported 858,595 DKK too low, so in total for the period was reported 1,336,553 DKK too low. Throughout the period the purchase VAT was reported too low. During the proceedings in the City Court there was made corrections to it with a total of 21,292 DKK, so that the evaded amount is 1,315,161 DKK, as stated in the indictment.
Ad issue 3, 3A and 14 (VAT evasion)
Issue 3 and 3A relate to VAT evasion in Dansk Mandskabs Service ApS, partly in the period leading up to the company’s bankruptcy on 11 december 2001 (issue 3), partly in the subsequent period when the company’s operations continued to the end of the first quarter of 2002 without registration at the Tax Office (issue 3A). Issue 14 relates to VAT evasion in the company For Kvalitet ApS.
It appears from the tax office´s calculation of 19 March 2009, which forms the basis for the declaration of the evaded amount in the indictment that the amounts are calculated based on the VAT reports provided by the companies and the provisional assessments which the tax office made
for the periods when the companies did not report VAT. The statement in the indictment of the evaded tax amount is the difference between the reported / preliminary estimated VAT for the time in question and the calculated VAT. The calculation of purchase VAT has according to the Tax Administration’s statement of 28 January 2008 been made on the basis of the Tax Administration’s accounting of the available accounting records, and during this accounting the Tax Administration has considered the current rules regarding deductibility. The purchase invoices which it hasn’t been clearly possible to be attributed to a particular company have been placed in Danish Multi Service ApS until 18 January 2002, when the company was declared bankrupt, and thereafter in For Kvalitet A/S, since these two companies were the only companies, which had done book keeping.
In counts 3 and 3A the sales VAT totaled DKK 2,665,188 for the whole period in question. The sales VAT mostly concerns VAT of 22 invoices minus two credit notes all relating to “workmen salary”. 12 of invoices are stamped “book”, while 10 invoices do not carry such a stamp. VAT on the invoices that are not stamped “book” totals DKK 829,874. Only in one case was payment found concerning an invoice for “workmen salary”. This is Invoice No. 1, issued by Dansk Mandskabsservice ApS on 18 November 2000, when the invoice amount of DKK 275,000 has been registered to enter the company’s bank account on 22 November 2000. The purchase VAT under the same counts has been calculated to be DKK 689,582, so that the correct due VAT payment to the Tax Administration has been calculated to be DKK 1,975,606. As the company only reported VAT for the 4th quarter of 2000 with DKK 2,950 and the Tax Administration provisional calculations for 2001 totaled DKK 375,000 the total VAT evasion is calculated to be DKK 1,597,656.
In count 14 the sales VAT was calculated at DKK 1,697,048 million and the purchase VAT at 1,208,715 million, giving a calculated payable VAT of DKK 488,332, of which the company has reported a total of DKK 4,104 for the fourth quarter of 2001. Tax has also made preliminary fixings for the first quarter 2002 of DKK 8,000 and for the second quarter of 2002 of DKK 10,000. The evaded VAT from this amounts to DKK 466,228, but as it follows from the district court’s judgment, there has been a binding prosecution limitation to this count based on an earlier statement.
The Tax Administration has occasioned by the defense‘s request to prepare a cash flow analysis on the companies to clarify the relationship between companies’ earnings and expenses in an undated memo from 2011, entitled “Cash Flow Analysis for the DMS companies”, stated:
“The Tax Administration has examined the case in detail and finds that it is not possible to implement a cash flow analysis.
The primary reason is that the companies’ financial records do not contain the audit trail required by the accounting law.
The accounting made by the companies prepared, which have been made available to the Tax Administration via the accounting material that was seized by the police in the raid is extremely flawed and does not meet the statutory requirements for accounting, audit trail and accounting records in general.
On the companies’ bank accounts thee are several large round amounts, both deposits and withdrawals, which the Tax Administration cannot reconcile with physical records and thus the Tax Administration is not able to ascertain what the amounts cover.
In its review of the companies’ bank accounts, it also noted that there are several round amounts transferred to “DMS”, but it is not possible to identify what the transactions relate to, including the possible case of payments between the companies and, if so, which companies.
In reviewing the companies’ accounts it is fount that the accounting text is several times “transfer”. It is therefore not possible conclusively to identify what the amounts are used for. It also appears that more amounts in the accounts are mutually identical.
The Tax Administration also has no certainty of whether companies have used other bank accounts than the information on bank accounts contained in the investigative material.
Given the companies’ inadequate accounting in conjunction with the non-informative accounting texts used and the lack of audit trail, it is not possible for the Tax Administration to carry out an accurate cash flow analysis for the DMS companies. ”
The Tax Administration does furthermore in an undated memo from 2011 regarding purchase VAT in connection with count 34 state the following:
“The VAT on the advertising contracts in question is not included in the Tax Administration’s statements on purchase VAT neither with Dansk Mandskabs Service ApS nor with DMS Kontraktservice ApS. The reason being that there are no available purchase invoices for the 3 advertising contracts in the present financial data.”
Re. counts 4 to 9 and 11 to 13 (evasion of income tax. AM-contributions and SP-contributions in relation to respectively Dansk Mandskabs Service ApS (counts 4 to 6). Dansk Magna Service ApS (counts 7 to 9) and Dansk Kontrakt ServiceApS (counts 11 to 13)
The Tax Administration’s calculation of the amount evaded in these circumstances is based on a review of 1308 paychecks that are either “paper slips”, which were found during the raid of the accused or they were sent to the Tax Administration after the Administraion contacted former employees, who sent in the pay slips or “computer paychecks” that were printed by the police from the computers seized from the company. Almost 15% of the pay slips are computerized pay slips. According to a report made by the Tax Administration the payroll expenditures from these companies’ bank accounts do not correspond with the payments based on pay slips. To the extent that the Tax Administration has identified specific payrolls those have been made from bank accounts belonging to Danish Multi-Service ApS or Lejfi Holding ApS / KF Finans A/S.
The Tax Administration has in connection with Dansk Mandskabs Service ApS in its compilation of 19 March 2009 estimated the total withheld income tax from the pay slips to be DKK 2,299,603, while the company declared and paid income tax amounting to DKK 174,181 plus the preliminary fixings of DKK 320,0 in AM-contribution was withheld with DKK 653,500, while the company merely reported and paid DKK 50,792 kroner in AM-contribution, and the AM-contribution was provisionally fixed at DKK 95,000. SP-contributions were withheld amounting to DKK 81,281, however not SP-contributions where reported or provisionally fixed. They evaded amount in connection with counts 4 to 6 is the difference between the calculated and the reported/preliminary fixed amounts.
For Danish Magna ApS the Tax Administraion has in a compilation of 19 March 2009 with correction note issued on 24 March 2009 based on pay slips found the withheld income tax to be DKK 298,118. The company reported and paid DKK 56,038 hereof, while the provisional fixings amounted to DKK 147,000. AM-contributions were withheld amounting to DKK 85,878. The company declared and paid DKK 17,601 hereof and the provisionally fixing was at DKK 44,000. The amount of SP-contributions withheld by the company was DKK 10,672, while no SP-contributions where reported, nor provisionally fixed. The evaded amount in relation counts 7-9 is the difference between the calculated and the reported / preliminary fixed amount.
In regards to DMS Kontrakt Service ApS the Tax Administration has in its compilation of 19 March 2009 estimated the total withheld income-tax to be DKK 1,284,811, withheld AM-contribution to be DKK 376,971 and withheld SP-contributions to be DKK 47,013. The company was not registered and did not report neither income-taxes
– 24 –
AM-contributions nor SP-contributions, and the calculated amount is thus the evaded amount in counts 11 to 13.
Re count 18
On 19 September 2000, Tele-Punkt Soborg A/S offers delivery and installation of a telephone exchange with associated system phones at a price of 32,165 excl. VAT, which offer was accepted by Lisa Mie Jensen for “DMS”. According to witness Paul Martin Kyed’s statement to the district court the signed offer was returned within a week from 19 September 2000. The delivery and installation of telephone system normally be completed within 4-6 weeks from the time when the binding contract had been received. The 4 invoices totaling DKK 69,066.51, which this count concerns, were issued during the period between 15 November 2000 and 17 January 2001.
Re. count 24
The count concernes ordering and delivery of 3 stairs from the company Thisted Trapper in Lystrup Tomrer og Snedker A/S. One set of stairs is billed on 22 February 2001 with DKK 24,375 incl. VAT, while the other two stairs are invoiced on 11 april 2001 with a total of DKK 30,650 incl. VAT.
The statement, prepared by Kurt Hedegaard from Thisted Trapper, which was included with the company’s report dated 23 April 2002 to the Copenhagen Police, states in part:
“By delivery of stairs at addr. Kirsebaerhave in 8520 Lystrup, present was a carpenter Kaj, employed by Lystrup Tomrer og Snedker A/S and company owner MARTIN JENSEN.
Martin Jensen then ordered 2 stairs, and we drove him to the address Peder Skramsgade in Trojborg nearAarhus to measure the size on these. In the connection Martin Jensen stated that he had sold half of the company to a company on Zealand [Eastern part of Denmark]. (A scaffolding firm that wanted in on the Jutland market.)”
Re. count 28
On invoice No. 104795 dated 7 March 2001 written “Bo Laursen” as contect person and Tonny Mathissen as seller. The following invoices have no specification as to contacts.
Witness Tonny Mathissen have in the District Court confirmed the explanation he gave to police on 6 January 2004, stating in part:
“The questioned witness remembered that he had been contacted by someone from DMS. The witness could not now remember this person’s name, but it must be listed on the invoices.
The person had presented himself as a sales manager for 8-9 sales people, to whom he needed some computer equipment.
Some equipment was ordered and this was delivered to the company address in Stenlose by courier. The witness could not remember how much was delivered.
Shortly after it was found that invoices were not paid. The witness went to the company address in Stenlose, but the company had disappeared from that address.
When they phoned the company’s telephone number they got hold of a woman who reported a different company name. She would not acknowledge DMS, but would otherwise like to order some more equipment. However the witness would not deliver that. ”
Re. count 29
On 19 March 2001, Paustian A/S offers to Lystrup Tomrer og Snedker A/S various furniture for a total price of DKK 60,000 excl. VAT. The furniture was invoiced on 20 March 2001, by which was granted a discount of 15.54%. By invoice dated 20 March 2001 Paustian A/S demnded additional payments for the furniture, etc. without deduction of discount of DKK 5,899.85. By invoice dated 30 June 2001 on the same supplies Paustian A/S claim less discount for both deliveries amounted to DKK 80,858.63, which amounts Stig Nielsen, by his signature of 6 July 2001 on behalf of the Dansk MAndskabs Service ApS acknowledged to owe Paustian A/S.
On the invoice dated 1 august 2001 concerning the the same furniture, etc., the discount is not deducted, and the invoice amount in the indictment was then DKK 95,736
Re. count 30
The sum of DKK 229,282.51 in the count is the sum total of 11 invoices from Falck Danmark A/S to Dansk Mandskabs Services ApS, of which 6 invoices relate to the installation of burglar alarms, etc. at the address St. Annae Plads under contract of 27 March 2001 and provision of access system according to the order confirmation of 29 March 2001 and acceptance slip. The other 5 invoices relate to the installation of burglar alarms under contract 31 March 2001 and monitoring from the 26th May 2001 at the address Herluf Trolle 23.
– 26 –
Invoice of 11 June 2001 relating to installation of S8500 access system etc. at the address St. Annae Plads 9 to a total of DKK 142,731.23 The basis of this invoice is the account department’s bill draft of 7 June 2001, where “Bo Lauersen” is listed as such purchaser and pays on behalf of Dansk Mandskabs Service ApS.
Re. count 70
It is stated in the letter dated 20 august 2003 from the Tax Adminstration to Alm. Brand:
“The region came into possession of an invoice issued by Entreprenorfirma Lars Nielsen ApS, Havnegade 100 D, 2nd floor, 5000 Odense.
The invoice is numbered 7642 and is in total DKK 420,000 and concerns a correction of an asbestos damage, which occurred on the property Trunderupvej 67, 5683 Haarby.
The region at presented Lars Nielsen with invoice No. 7642 a visit to the address Havnegade 100 D in order to get confirmation of the invoice. Lars Nielsen has neither been able to confirm or reject the invoice. He stated that it was not his invoice numbering sequence, which the region subsequently found to be correct.
He will return when he had spoken to his lawyer
Lawyer Kim Toxen-Worm who isn’t available before Friday 22 August 2003. ”
The High Court has received additional statements from the defendants, except defendant Stig Nielsen and the witnesses Alice Friisenborg (formerly Andersen), Tom Wiese, Dennis Flemming Skjold Jensen, Annette Siff Hamann, Hamidu Barrie, Martin Spendrup, Karina Enegaard Joergensen, Jan Dalhoff Jorgensen, Finn Ellebjerg Lund Hansen, Tina Charlotte Olsen, Wagner Vengfeldt, Bente Joergensen, Jan Rasmussen, Karin Madsen, Poul Martin Ky-ed, Ronald Gyring Nielsen, Jannie Larsson, Detective Ejner Miller, Rita Larsen, Per Henriksen, John Martin Jensen, Kurt Hedegaard, Peder Christian Brejnholt, Reda Bel-Dami, Nicolai Jorgensen, Knud Jorgensen, Allan Nielsen, Lars Overgaard Andersen, Villy Lock Rasmussen, Tanja Holtegaard, Lars Nielsen, attorney Christopher Trier Hermann and Ejvind Jensen.
Also, statements have collected from Bente Salboel, attorney Jacob Bemer Rue and Peter Bejlegaard Overgaard Jensen.
The statements given to the District Court by witnesses Niels Salling, Soren Larsen, Detective Leif Johansen, Lars policewoman Arbirk Wenstrup, Tina Malmqvist, Lone Smenge Dupont, Lise Hai-grove, Stine Christensen, Mette Sorensen Richter, Hans Brix, Bent Soendergaard, Harry Aa-
– 27 –
mand, Thomas Lau, Rosa Nielsen Balle, Per A. Svendsen, Jytte Kjeldsen, Karin Madsen, Kim Jensen, Susanne Vestergaard, Helle Orum, Carsten Helmet Roth, Unni Riel, Kenneth K. Johansen, Flemming Glerup Soren Groenhoej Borup, Jens Martin Jensen Arne Christensen, Claus B. Soerensen Gitte Oelsgaard, Thomas Krogh, Carl Martin PorSarson, Hanne Larsen, Michael Moller-Kristensen, Lisa U. Lassen, Betina Fredslund Christiansen, Jeanette Hansen, Elsie Rasmussen, Hans Petersen, Henning Larsen, Tonny Mathissen Michael Sandstroem Schou, Torben Dane, Anita Bretting, Lone Roemeling, Claus Frederiksen, Helge Nedergaard, Henrik Steen Andersen, Jytte Nielsen, Leif Hedegaard, Helge Andersen, Svend Erik Bruun, Horst Wolff, Harry Lassen, Helene Frydenlund Roennest, Mette Jensen, Morten Sorensen, Anne Christine Hoejte, Detective Ejner Moller, Morten Svarre Langer, Kim Toxen Worm and Erik Flemming Nielsen, explanations are documented under the former Code of Civil Procedure § 965c, paragraph. 4 (now § 923).
The statements given by Stig Nielsen and in part by Henrik Madsen to the district court are documented pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 871, paragraph. 2, No. 2 (now § 877, paragraph. 2, No. 2)
The statements made to the district court, which are reproduced in their entirety in the record, are given below as far as they are likely to have some bearing on the outcome of the case.
Defendant Soeren Henrik Salboel explained among other things that in 1993 he moved to England with his family. His wife, Bente Salboel, who in reality ran Berner Huse A/S, flew back and forth between Denmark and England until 2000. He was briefed on the operation of Berner Huse A/S through his wife and //Vetted//, who had been employed as a bookkeeper in the company around 1993. //Vetted// was good at handling wages and the economy in the company. She was also responsible for reporting and paying income tax and VAT returns, but if he happened to be in the company, he signed the reports. There might have been some problems with the Concorde bookkeeping system, which could explain why the VAT reports were not correct.
He had at that time grown tired of the company and was more interested in his activities in England. He had discussions with //Vetted// and Dennis Flemming Skjold Jensen in May 2000 about purchase of the company. He has drawn up and signed the draft contract of 31 May 2000 sale of the company to //Vetted//, but he never saw her signature on the contract. It ended with //Vetted// not buying the contracts personally. However, it was made clear to employees in the spring of 2000 that there would be a transfer of the business. The agreement concerning the sale of Din Rengoering A/S (Berner Huse A/S) to Din Rengoering ApS, dated 24 February and 6 March 2000 was discussed between him, Henrik Madsen, //Vetted// and Dennis Flemming Skjold Jensen. He did not know who owned the shares in Din Rengoering ApS or who was registered as the managing director of that company. It was originally intended that only a portion of the cleaning contracts were to be transferred, but the reality was that Din Rengoering ApS took over all cleaning contracts. It was he and Henrik Madsen, who signed the purchase contract, which happened in September 2000. The contract was backdated, because at the time of the signing there were threats of declaring Berner Huse A S bankrupt. From September 2000 steps were taken to make the transfer happen, including transfer of contract. It was his idea to split the female and male employees into each their company, Dansk Mandskabs Service ApS and Dansk Magna Service ApS. He discussed the creation of the two companies with Hans Brix, but it was on its own initiative, Hans Brix approached Danske Bank A/S on 26 September 2000 with purpose of establishing companies. He completed registration papers to the Tax Administration. After the transfer of the cleaning contracts he came only a few times to the business addresses, respectively Knud Bro Allé and St. Annae Plads. He had since then nothing to do with running the company and he only provided computer-related assistance. He had continued contact with Henrik Madsen concerning, among other things a joint construction project in Florida.
It was agreed that the purchase price of the cleaning contracts should be paid to him personally and not to Berner Huse A/S. Some amount was transferred to him and Bente Salboel via Western to cover part of the purchase price. Also some money was transferred to be used for the construction project in Florida to Tom Lawler, who was his and Henrik Madsen’s partner in Florida. His explanation of the district court that the purchase price never was paid is thus not correct. Money transfers via Western Union from autumn 2000 could not come from other sources than Dansk Multi -Service ApS. He does not know what role Henrik Madsen played in this company.
He does not recall the reason for the withdrawals referred to in //Vetted//’s mail to him on 3rd August 2000, or disbursements from Berner Huse A/S’s account in Danske Bank in September and October 2000 totaling DKK 460,000. Costs and disbursement vouchers Lokalbanken in 2000 and the bank document of 28 July 2000 concerning a withdrawal of DKK 100,000 from Danske Bank suggests that he – contrary to what he explained to the district court – has received greater amounts in cash from //Vetted// from 1998 to 2000. It was surprising
– 29 –
to him that the financial situation in Berner Huse A/S was so serious that the company
2000 might go bankrupt.
He does not remember //Vetted//’s mail to him of 12 September 2000, but her remark in the mail about how “we” move on, did not refer to him. Regarding //Vetted//’s email of 13 September 2000 it was only a briefing to him about what she had been doing, presumably to obtain his recognition of her work. As for //Vetted//’s email of 22 September 2000, he could not explain why she told him that the invoices would henceforth “go to Lokal Banken”, but it must have been a regular briefing. As for //Vetted//’s email of 15 November 2000, he does not do not know why Jannie, Ronald and Henning, who all worked in the office, should refer to Bente. As for //Vetted//’s email of 27 November 2000 is probably regarding a communication from the finance company that had financed the cars in Berner Huse A/S. He does not remember that he should have spoken to //Vetted// about the mail. He does not know why //Vetted// asked what was happening on the instating of new directors in the companies. He had no influence on this. As for //Vetted//’s email of 28 November 2000, he later checked up on this and got received confirmation that Bente Salboel by this time had been granted debt relief. He did not know it then, because at that time they lived separately and did not have much to do with each other. It was not him who should issue an invoice, but Bente may have operated a business that she could bill through. He does not know what “rhythm”, Lisa Mie Jensen applies to. As for //Vetted//’s email of 21 December 2000 by he did not know why she wrote to him about a new company “DMS 2”. It surprises him that she had not contacted Brix or Stakemann herself about establishing them. As for //Vetted//’s email of 3 January 2001 he doesn’t recal that either. The term “creative thinking” he perceives as a question of cash flow improvement through use of appropriate financial periods. He would have been surprised if she had directly written to him that the company should cheat on the VAT reporting.
Attorney Jacob Berner Rues explanation surprised him. Attorney Rue has not previously spoken to him about a conscious accumulated VAT debt in Berner Huse A/S. He recalls a meeting with the auditor Anders Lind, attorney Rue and himself where attorney Rue would subsequently go out to //Vetted//. At the time there was not talk of dismissing //Vetted//. He tried to prevent attorney Rue from driving as attorney Rue was heavily
– 30 –
under influence of alcohol. He also has on other occasions experienced attorney Rue under influence of alcohol.
As for count 67 Soeren Henrik Salboel explained among other things that he spoke with Henrik Madsen about the value of computer equipment being DKK 145,000 to DKK 147,000 and that the DMS company would take over the computer equipment. He also spoke with Hewlett Packard A/S before 17 September 2000 about transfer of the leasing contracts and expected an email would be sent from Hewlett Packard A/S to DMS about this. He however he never followed up on this with Hewlett Packard A/S. He did one time get a question by mail from //Vetted// asking what should happen to the leasing contract, which he certainly answered. During a court meeting in Frederikssund he informed attorney Valdal about the leasing contracts. During a visit to the police in St. Kongensgade together with the prosecutor in the city court proceedings in late 2008, he noted the police had detained the leased equipment except that a document server was missing.
Defendant //Vetted// explained, among other things, that Berner Huse A/S had the service contracts, while all 40-60 cleaning staff members were employed in “Den Rene Blaa Linje”. Bente Salboel had at one time a vision of merging the two companies into one company, which happened around 1997 when the company moved to Roedovre. Bente and Soren Henrik Salboel had offices both in the premises in Roedovre and in Stenloese.
In the summer of 2000 the company was running as it used to. Her email of 3 August 2000 at13.48 to Bente Salboel concerned a small debt to the Tax Administration. Throughout 1990ies the company was not behind with its taxes, but around 1998 they had problems with a computer system and changed payment terms, which gave them some cash flow problems. Her mail the same day at 16.16 was about some account withdrawal of which she had received no prior notification. She would not meddle in this, but simply to draw attention to the problems it could cause. In relation to the lawyer Jacob Berner Rues explanation, she has never been aware of an accumulated VAT debt in the company of DKK 2,700,000. Attorney Rue visited her during her maternity leave in August 1998 but she did at the time not realize what the reason for his visit was. After a conversation with Bente Salboel she subsequently came to think whether perhaps he came to dismiss her, so that the auditor Anders Lind could take over her work on the bookkeeping. Attorney Rue drank and could be unpredictable. She has never expressed herself as reported by him.
It was around September 2000 when Bente Salboel at lunch told that the company should futurewise be run under DMS. She does not recall when the Dansk Multi Service ApS actually took over the service contracts. Her email of 13 September 2000 was about the relocation of the company to Stenloese. The cleaning continued, but she does not under which company business was run. It was Bente or Soren Henrik Salboel who decided to move the company Berner Huse A/S to Koebmagergade. She does not know why this happened. During the time when she was registered as a director of the Dank Multi Service ApS, Bente and Soren Henrik Salboel were the real owners and managers of the company. Bente Salboel was dealing with the administration to do while Soren Henrik Salboel evenings and weekends helped solve computer problems and dealt with business affairs of the company. Her email of 15 November 2000 to Bente Salboel was showing that Bente Salboel at that time would know what was happening in the company in regards to sales and marketing. When Henrik Madsen joined the company, she didn’t hear so much of theSalboel family, but it is her opinion that Soren Henrik Salboel never really withdrew from the company. She does not know what specific functions Bente and Soren Henrik Salboel undertook in the company after it was moved to St. Annae Plads, except that she is from Bo Madsen heard that Soren Henrik Salboel provided service on the old computer system. Bente and Soren Henrik Salboel did have their own office on St. Annae Plads, but there were plenty of vacant desks for them when they visited.
She once lended Dansk Multi Service ApS DKK 60,000 for salary payments, as stated in her email of 31 August 2000 to Bente Salboel. She did this because she could see that there was no coverage for the paysplips that were printed, and this she could not endure. She got the money paid back after about 3 weeks. None of the employees were paid their wages in cash. It was only Soren Henrik Salboel and Henrik Madsen, who received cash payments. The withdrawals from September to December 2000 totaling DKK 374,000, which she has made a handwritten note of, were made at the request of Soren Henrik Salboel. She issued the cheque on DKK 130,000 of 12 September 2000 and Bente Salboel acknowledged receipt thereof. She does not remember the actual payout and she was usually never told what the Salboel family needed the money for. It was also she who made some of the transfers via Western Union, which happened at Henrik Madsen’s instructions. As for her email of 28 November 2000 to Henry Salboel this was about the annual disbursement of cash to Bente Salboels debt relief, it was a standard practice, which had also been a prective in Berner Huse A/S, that when as cash payment had been made to Soren Henrik Salboel, then an invoice for consultancy was received from one of his companies. She does not know whether such an invoice covered any actual service. As for her email of 21 December 2000 to Soren Henrik Salboel this was prompted by the fact that she had received a letter from the liquidator in Berner Huse A/S, attorney Valdal, that she had withdrawn DKK 460,000, which had upset her. It was at that time still Bente and Soren Henrik Salboel, who ran the company. She knew they were Scientologists, and also that some employees were connected to to this movement. She does not know if some of the amounts paid to Henry Salboel were transferred to Scientology. She was unhappy about all these payments, because she could see that the money would be missing in the company at the end of the month. Henrik Madsen was also very displeased that Soren Henrik Salboel always needed money, but she was not further involved in their discussions thereof. The transfer statement to Din Rengoering A/S, which follows from the invoices issued by “DMS” during the period from 24 November 2000 to 1 December 2000, corresponded to the transfer statement, which was printed on Din Rengoering’s invoices. She was the one responsible for billing at this time, and she cannot imagine that she would have prompted such a transfer statement on DMS invoices. There must be a mistake. She does not recalls why the invoice number series is descending, but it could be done in the system to create manual invoice numbers and dates.
From around January 2001 she reported to Henrik Madsen. Bo Madsen came to company at the same time as Henrik Madsen did. Bo Madsen helped in production and later became production of the company instead of Dennis Flemming Skjold Jensen, when he resigned. The work production manager did among other things include ordering of materials and the overall running of the inspectors. Bo Madsen did also regularly participate in the weekly production meetings with the inspectors. He also omce helped the marketing department with some computer programs, but as far as she remembers, it was only after the company was moved to St. Annae Plads in April 2001. It is possible that he worked together with Soren Henrik Salboel in this. She has not seen the “Intenal Memo” from Henrik Madsen before this case, and the her job description herein does not match the actual content of her work. From 1993 to 2000 she worked as a bookkeeper and was in charge of bookkeeping and payroll. The quarter when she was registered as a director of the Dansk Multi Service ApS, she also formalluy signed tax and VAT returns, but she remained bookkeeper. She was gone in the first week of January 2001 because her father had to undergo surgery. When she returned, she experienced being frozen out of the business, leading to a sick leave because of stress. She was sick for several months before she returned on a full schedule. She was doing fine until Henrik Madsen joined the company.
From January 2001 she sat in the premises on Knud Bro Alle 5, while Henrik and Bo Madsen sat with the marketing department at Knud Bro Alle 7. In late January
2001, Henrik Madsen had assumed the responsibility for pay and removed her from being responsible for the bookkeeping. She therefore no longer had any authority over the company’s bank accounts. Her duties in this period consisted of writing pay slips and invoices, collecting money from debtors and various ad hoc tasks. She also no longer had anything to do with the actual payment of salary or reporting and payment of income tax. Henrik Madsen always opened the mail, and it was he who decided which bills she should pay and he could also transfer money from its accounts himself. After the company had moved to St. Annae Plads, she became more involved in the operation of the cleaning company, including responsibility for the allocation of staff on cleaning jobs. In 2001 and 2002 it happened several times that Henrik Madsen withheld her salary or reimbursement of expenses to tease her, or because he was angry with her for arguing with him. Her paycheck was in those cases placed on her desk without being signed and she had to beg him to sign it. Henrik Madsen could become quite furious. She had been told that he had lung cancer and believed that his behavior was due to powerlessness against the disease.
After the summer 2001 Henrik Madsen asked her to help him set up a new company. He could be registered with this company himself, because he lived in England. She signed the documents relating to For Kvalitet A/S in order to do him a favor, but she was not involved in the operation of the company. She did not sign the lease of 9 November 2001 on For Kvalitet’s rent of the premises at Nicolai Eigtveds Street 36. She has not seen this contract prior to the district court case. Henrik Madsen used the company For Kvalitet A/S as his own company and did not involve her in it. He promised repeatedly that he would make sure to get her de-registered with the Company Regestry, but this never happened. She has during those years been called Helle, Mie and //vetted//.
Re. counts 16 and 54, //Vetted// explained among other things, that when her name appears on the invoices, it is because it was she who originally applied for the company cards in question on request by Soren Henrik Salboel. She did not interfere in who had company cards. Card no. 1 probably belonged to her while card no. 3 seems have been used by Henrik Madsen. Card no. 2 seems more likely to have been an inpector card, since it had been used for refuling at locations where the company’s customers were located. It was not she who ordered the cards on12 November 2001. DMS had no account with Handels Banken herself as the bank relation. Henrik Madsen, however, wanted to have an account in Handels Banken, and therefore it may have been he who ordered the cards in her name. This was his usual behavior. She also had a company card which she used for gasoline, oil, and washing of her own car, because she also used it for company purposes. Henrik Madsen arranged it so that at the Q8 gas station at the Landegreven there was a common card, which drivers and maybe accountant Anders Lind could use to refuel.
Re. count18 //Vetted// explained, among other things, that she was not involved in the ordering of new telephone systems in the company. She signed the offer of 19 September 2000 on the installation of telephone system, because she at that time was registered as managing director in the company. She recalls that Bente Salboel and Ronald Gyring had been discussing a new telephone system for the company for a long time.
Re. count19 //Vetted// explained, among other things, that the production manager, Dennis Flemming Skjold Jensen, Bo Madsen and inspectors ordered goods. From December 2000 also Henrik Madsen ordered goods. Bente Salbol was also involved in goods ordering in Rodovre, and this may be the reason why her name appears as a contact person on later invoices. Wagner Vengfelt had been visiting the company for quite some time and knew both her and Bente Salboel well. It’s not her, who signed the check of 14 December 2000 to Henkel-Ecolab at DKK 45,146. The signature, however, look like Henrik Madsen’s. Since he entered the company in Secember 2000, she paid only the bills, which he asked her to pay. Before that, she had usually taken care of accounting and payment of invoices after delivery notes and invoices had been checked at the storage, and she had informed Bente Salboel about how much money went in and out of the company.
Re. count 17, 20 and 23, //Vetted// explained among other things that Mikkel Guldager Nielsen was hired as a telemarketing assistant on office staff terms and he was paid paid with a fixed salary. Henrik Madsen was Mikkel’s senior and also the person that could and should have answered the questions re. employment conditions, etc., wich Mikkel asked her in an undated letter. It was thus Henrik Madsen, who should review and approve the employment contracts of the company. When invoices and documents pertaining to personnel matters were faound during the search of her car, it was because she after a meeting at the bankruptcy court in Frederikssund had been asked by Henrik Madsen to pick up the papers on his desk at St. Annae Plads. It was a Friday, and she could not get hold of Henrik Madsen until the following Wednesday, and he told her that the papers should just be driven home to him and Bo Madsen. She did not know for which purpose he needed the papers. In the car’s trunk there were som bookkeeping document, which she had brought home to work with. She had nothing to do with “Kreditgruppen” which Mikel Guldager Nielsen was going to start up in Aalborg.
Re. count 26 //Vetted// explained among other things that she had nothing to do with ordering the furniture, but there was some furniture at St. Annae Plads, which might well resemble the BOWI furniture. She cannot remember that she should have asked BOWI to reinvoice Dansk Multi Service ApS to DMS Kontrakt Service ApS, but if she did it, it can only have been at the request of Henrik Madsen. She had since mid-January 2001 not had access to the companies’ bank accounts, so she did not know whether there was money on the respective companies’ accounts. She might accidentally have seen some statements in connection with the accounting of payment, but mostly she received information about payments from Henrik Madsen on small scraps of paper.
Re. count 29 have Lisa Mie Jensen explained among other things, that she was to send brochures to potential customers, who responded by telephone on an ad from Norske Fjellhuse, but she was not otherwise involved in this business. She had nothing to do with the financial statements of Lystrup Tomrer og Snedker A/S and have never seen any financial records or talked with Henrik Madsen about reminders from creditors concerning that company. She first heard about Lystrup Tomrer og Snedker A/S, when Stig Nielsen, one day met with Henrik Madsen about this on St. Anna Plads. After this time, she received information from Stig Nielsen on tax card, bank details and timesheets for employees, and she made pay slips, which she gave to Henrik Madsen for his approval before the payment of wages.
Re. count 47 //Vetted// explained, among other things, that she knows nothing about the order or invoice, but she may have spoken with someone from the company and taken a message if she sat at the reception. It’s not true, as explained by Bo Madsen, that she should have talked to him about the problem of recognizing people on the work places. He and Henrik Madsen would give her the blame for everything in the District Court.
Re. count 50 she does not agree with the statement of claim in the writ. It was Bo Madsen, who ordered service on the cars. She was only – and prompted by Henrik Madsen – involved in the loan of a car from Knud Jorgensen Automobiler for a test drive, which car she drove to St. Annae Plads. She dared not do otherwise than what she was asked. She does not remember the specific course of events concerning the loan of the car, but she was probably informed by Henrik Madsen which car to borrow. She signed the declaration on the test run with a statement that the car would be returned after an hour, and then she drove to St. Annae Plads in the belief that Henrik Madsen would make sure that the car was returned within the stipulated hour. When it dawned on her Henrik Madsen intent of the test run was that she contacted the police in Bellahoej at 4 PM. A meeting at the station was arranged where she and Knud Jorgensen were supposed to exchange cars. When Knud Jorgensen, however, hadn’t brought the car keys, she took the key to the test drive car home with her. When she later returned the car it was damaged as she had run into a gate by the building on St. Annae Plads. She has never said to Knud Jorgensen Automobiler that “the damage was the price for the plaintiff negligence” as stated in the writ. She may have told Knud Jorgensen on the phone that he should change the invoice to DMS Kontrak Service ApS, but if so this was by order from Henrik Madsen.
Re. count 55 //Vetted// explained among other things that the premises at Gl. Roskildevej 19 were exclusively used as a warehouse. She had sometimes pick up mail from the address, because she lived near by, but she does not know why the mail should be sent to that address and does not recall told suppliers to send mail there herself.
Defendant Henrik Madsen explained, among other things, that he has not had something to do with the creation and operation of the DMS companies, but that he only did Soren Henrik Salbol and //Vetted// various favors as a friend. This for instance applies to the acquisition of a company with Stakemann in order to establish Dansk Multi Service ApS and registering him as managing director for that company. The minutes were signed on 14 December 2000 and backdated to 15 November 2000. He had before that time few meetings with //Vetted// and Soren Henrik Salboel about the company. He cannot recall how much money he got from the company for being a managing director from 2001, or how he got it paid out. As a managing director he appeared in the bankruptcy court to help Soren Henrik Salboel cover up that the assets of Din Rengoering A/S had been transferred to Dansk Multi Service ApS. He knows Jannik Lauenburg, which was supposed to have been registered as managing director of the Dansk Multi Serivce ApS, however this never happend. He does not know why Jannik Lauenburg name appears in connection with Hans Brix’s creation of the two companies Danish Magna ApS and Dansk Mandskabsservice ApS. He personally had nothing to do with these companies. Stig Nielsen’s explanation in the bankruptcy court in Frederikssund of 30 October 2001, where Stig Nielsen claimed to have bought shares in the companies Dansk Magna Service ApS and Dansk Mandskabs Service ApS of him, is not true. He assisted in the formation of the company For Kvaliet A/S as a friendly favour to //Vetted//. He was not present at the signing of the statutes of For Kvaliet A/S, and he has not signed them since then. He owned personally or through a company 5 pct. of the shares in For Kvalitet A/S, which shares he had acquired through the settlement of intercompany account between originally Dansk Multi Service ApS and KF Finans A/S, later between For Kvaliet A/S and KF Finance A/S. For Kvalitet was registered as the tenant on the lease for the address Nicolai Eigtveds Gadet, since at that time he had no registered residence in Denmark. At the suggestion of ATP there was a verbal agreement several months before the signing of the lease that For Kvalitet A/S got at contract on the cleaning for ATP at an inflated price in exchange for ATP billing the full rent for the premises at Eigtveds Nicolai Street to For Kvaliet A/S. Lejfi Holding paid the deposit and rent to ATP and received its share of the agreed upon discount through the intercompany account with For Quality A/S. It was just formally that For Kvalitet A/S was on the lease.
Only in late 2000 he began to acquire some knowledge about the cleaning industry. Prior to this he had been engaged in catering services. Since Lejfi Holding began lending money to the DMS companies he became more involved in the DMS companies. He bought Lejfi Holding in late 2000 or early 2001. From this time was Jan Obbekær Hansen is no longer the actual managing director of the company. On 14 June 2001 was an invoice mortgaging to Lejfi Holding was established similar to the invoice mortgage agreement, Soren Henrik Salboel in 2000 had established in Din Rengoering A/S. There was no written agreement. In practice it was done so that Lejfi Holding received all payments on invoices, and than the company’s expenditures for salaries, etc., were drawn on Lejfi Holding’s account. As an exchange for that arrangement Lejfi Holding would receive some percentage of the invoiced amount. //Vetted// was supposed to keep running track of the companies’ balances, but these statements were fewer and fewer as time went by. //Vetted// gave those reports to him in the office on St. Annae Plads. He cannot recall what he did with. He later tried to reconstruct the statements to an auditor, but was not able to do so.
In 2001, Bente and Soren Henrik Salboel were resident in England, but Bente Salboel also lived some time in an apartment on Amagerbrogade. In December 2000, Soren Henrik Salboel came to the office every day, but his visits became less frequent throughout 2001. Bente and Soren Henrik Salboel had no office in St. Annæae Plads, but Soren Henrik Salboels function did not lessen for that reason, and it was still he who controlled the company. Soren Henrik Salboel talked on the phone and emailed with //Vetted// every day. His statement to the bankruptcy court on 4 January 2001 that he was the “daily manager of DMS Cleaning” only meant that he was the registered as managing director. His statement that Soren Henrik Salboel had no employment or connection to DMS was false, since the whole purpose of him going to thebankruptcy court was to “state that Soren Henrik Salboel was out of it.”
//Vetted// was throughout the company’s existence the daily leader Dansk Multi Service ApS and she also participated in the company’s social events. Thus, it is not correct, as explained by her, that he during a period in 2001 pushed her off the line. From December 2000 when he started coming to the company, the atmosphere between them was good and she performed her work in quite the usual way. She had power of attorney to the company’s bank accounts until the company went bankrupt. As managing director he signed blank checks that were in the safe, which she could use, and he also understands that she used his signature if necessary. From autumn 2000 to summer 2002, the revenue increased in the DMS companies from about DKK 700,000 per month to around DKK 1,000,000. There was a probably DKK 100,000 to DKK 200,000 in profit a month on the operation of the cleaning company. From this turnover there would not have been any basis to pay DKK 200,000 per month to Soren Henrik Salboel.
Defendant Hanne Dahl Riisbierg explained among other things that she had nothing to do with the companies’ reporting or payment of VAT and income taxes. In 2001 she lived in in Funen [far away from Copenhagen, trans. note], but when Henrik Madsen was on vacation, she and the children lived in his apartment in Copenhagen. She was previously married to Henrik Madsen, and they have two daughters now aged 13 and 19. At the time of the marital separation she did via a company own some buildings together with Henrik Madsen, and she was suppose to be paid the value hereof at the division of property. There was an actual division of property settlement, and she did not consult any attorney o this. She did not wonder why she should withdraw money from her bank account and give them in cash to Henrik Madsen and Soren Henrik Salboel as she had been informed that Henrik Madsen, who had a good income, had no Danish bank account.
Defendant Bo Madsen explained, among other things, that he and Henrik Madsen got offices at the premises in Stenloese after the company Christmas party in 2000. He had seen Soren Henrik Salboel twice before that time on festive occasions. He cannot remember seeing Bente and Soren Henrik Salboel in Stenløse and have only seen them on a few occasions at the premises on St. Annae Plads. He does not know whether it was Henrik Madsen and //Vetted//, who owned the DMS companies, except that it was Henrik Madsen, who formally owned the company in Stenloese. In his daily work he spoke mostly with //Vetted// about wages and other practical matters. //Vetted// was responsible for bookkeeping and his immediate senior. He does not know whether she and Henrik Madsen took decisions on behalf of the company jointly, or who actually controlled the company, made budgets etc. He has never been interested in registratins in the Company Registry Agency. //Vetted// spoke with Henrik Madsen about different things, but otherwise Henrik Madsen worked mostly on his own area, i.e. real estate and rental of domestic appliances. Henrik Madsen was good at paperwork and has probably also helped in this area. Everyone in the company could go on restaurant visits. //Vetted// came along about half the time. Both Henrik Madsen and //Vetted// had corporate credit cards for payment of such restaurant visits.
He was never formally employed by DMS and received no salary for his work up to the imprisonment in 2002. He his living expenses were paid by Henrik Madsen and he worked a lot. In Stenloese he helped with practical tasks, and after the company had moved to St. Annae Plads, he worked as production manager, including ordering of materials. When he ordered materials on its behalf, he asked that the bill were sent to “DMS”. There were also others who could make purchases on its behalf. Inspectors would be able to order cleaning supplies, machinery and probably also work clothes. Major investments were decided after discussions with all staff groups who were in the office. Ultimately it was //Vetted//, who asked him to make purchases. He’s probably been asked to do so by Henrik Madsen. He was responsible for updating the company’s server, in which connection he frequently consulted Soren Henrik Salboel who had more experience with it. He sometimes transferred money to Henrik Madsen and Sørensen Henrik Salbøl via Western Union at the request of Lisa Mie Jensen and Henrik Madsen. He was given money in cash but was not further informed of the reason for the transfers. He cannot say whether “Bo Laursen” is identical with himself, but the Vesterdalen 26, Odense, was his previous address on Funen, and the signature on the transfer documents of 2 December 2001 is similar to his.
Concerning issue 56, Bo Madsen has among other things explained, that he would not have seen the business plan for Kreditgruppen A/S. He is a trained chef and has never been on university in Belgium mentioned in the plan.
Concerning issue 70, Bo Madsen has among other things explained that brought about by letter of 13 August 2003 by Alm. Brand Henrik Madsen asked Lars Nielsen during a dinner, if he could help with the issuance of an invoice. Lars Nielsen agreed to it. At a later date, he drove Henrik Madsen to Lars Nielsen’s office. After some hours he picked up Henrik Madsen again and Henrik Madsen showed him the invoice, Lars Nielsen had issued.
Accused Mikkel Guldager Nielsen has among other things explained that he was at a job interview with Ronald Nielsen and subsequently received an employment agreement from //Vetted//. He became employed in “DMS” and does not know from which company his salary was paid. He performed his work with telemarketing from St. Annæ Plads and had an office in the basement. The offices at St. Annæ Plads were nice and gave the impression of a fine company. There were also staff outings, including a trip to Lalandia with about 30 employees and a trip to London with 10-15 employees. His immediate superior was //Vetted//, who along with Henrik Madsen was the management of the company. Henrik Madsen was at times only sporadically in the office. Bo Madsen’s title was chief operating officer, and it was Bo Madsen, who took care of problems with the IT system. After one month, the accused became leader of the telemarketing department. His job was to ensure that the 3-6 employees in the telemarketing department phoned and booked meetings with potential clients. Peter Bejlegaard Jensen was telemarketing employee, while Jannie Nielsen was one of the salespeople who met with clients. When he from telemarketing department rang out of the house on its behalf, he presented the company as “DMS”, except in a period where he had been told to say “For Kvalitet”. He has never received nudges from suppliers or the like, and letters to him always went through the reception and //Vetted//. Phone calls for him were also handled via the reception. When hiring new employees in the telemarketing department, he did the interview with the applicant and made a write up to //Vetted//. It happened 4-5 times during his time as the head of the department. The lease in Bredgade was gotten for him by //Vetted//. He paid no deposit, but in a period he paid himself at least a portion of the rent out of his salary. He made this agreement with Henrik Madsen, but it was //Vetted//, who handled all the practical things in connection with the lease. He has at one time heard Henrik Madsen
talk about the company’s finances. It took place in 2002 when he and Henrik Madsen were in Aalborg to look at premises together with a real estate agent who at one point asked how financially strong he was. Henrik Madsen replied that he was “good for one and a half.” For a short period of time he had a business relationship with Henrik Madsen after his stay in prison.
Concerning issue 45 Mikkel Guldager Nielsen has among other things explained that there were no other than Bo Madsen and himself who had contact with Semaphor.
Concerning issue 56 Mikkel Gulodager Nielsen has among other things explained that the billing should take place via For Kvalitet A/S, because it was the company he was employed in the time, and which should take care of the activities of Kreditgruppen ApS in Aalborg. They founded the company together, so that they each had 50% of the shares, but there was immediately made a transfer agreement under which he transferred all his shares to Henrik Madsen. He has not previously seen the business plan for Kreditgruppen. They had talked about the company’s organization, his position and employment conditions, but never about a business plan. It was Henrik Madsen’s idea that he should be the managing director and daily leader of Kreditgruppen’s activities in Aalborg. He received no pay for it.
He was not aware of that Morten Sørensen could charge for preparation of draft of logo and offers. On the contrary it was his view that Morten Sørensen was only entitled to claim payment from the time the order confirmation was accepted. Morten Sørensen did not say otherwise to him. In connection with the power-point presentation, he would have used the logo for the power-points, which Morten Sørensen had made. He did not consider in this context whether Morten Sørensen should have been paid for his work with power-points. Today he does not recall whether he ever used these power points.
Concerning issue 61 Mikkel Guldager Nielsen has among other things explained, that he booked rooms at the SAS hotel a few days before 9 april 2002 in the name he used at the time when he rang on behalf of the company. It may well have been “DMS For Kvalitet”. Changing of the booking of two single rooms to a suite was in agreement with //Vetted//. It was both cheaper and more convenient with a suite. During their stay in Aalborg they shortly met with Henrik Madsen and he weakly recalls, that he and Peter Bejlegaard Jensen and Henrik Madsen had lunch with Morten from Grafisk Tegnestue. Regarding the bill from the Radisson SAS hotel, it was his opinion that they had
been eating and drinking “in good faith.” There was not set up a limit for their consumption. During the meetings, they should wear nice clothes on, which is the reason that the bill includes cost for “laundry”, which related to the pressing of shirts. Recruitment interviews were held with candidates for positions as telemarketing staff in one of Henrik Madsen newly started businesses. He and Peter should themselves come up with a name for the company and it became BB-Marketing. This company would among other things, sell the solutions that Kreditgruppen ApS. created and designed, and the new employees should be employed in both companies. At this time Kreditgruppen was. already “on the drawing board.” He had by Henrik Madsen been offered employment in one of these companies on better terms than his terms in DMS companies. It was his opinion that “DMS” should stand behind these new companies, and as they had not been established yet it was “DMS” which would pay the cost of job interviews. //Vetted// should stand for the practical things in relation to the employments. Before holding of the job interviews, he had 13 March 2002 together with Henrik Madsen looked at facilities in Aalborg for the use of BB Marketing. They had on that occasion been picked up at the airport by realtor Roland Lund. On the 23 to 26 April 2002, he held a meeting at Quality Hotel in Scheelsminde. He ordered the stay for DMS Kontraktservice ApS. with address Gl. Roskildevej 19. He went to Aalborg by plane which had been paid by //Vetted//. He was there together with the course tutor Per Bo Johansen. He was not billed for the stay at the Quality Hotel on departure, and he does not know whether the bill was paid.
Bente Salbøl has among other things explained that in 1973 she was trained as shoe seller assistant and has a education in management and organization of Scientology. She has no education in economics. When she worked in Scientology, she was course instructor and therapist. She has also worked with the purchase and sale of clothing and as a cleaner. Since the late 1980s, she has submitted bids on cleaning job and has been selling cleaning contracts. In 1992, she and Søren Henrik Salbøl ran a cleaning business under Berner Huse ApS. It was her who led the company. In 1995, she trained in ISO certification, and in 2000, Berner Huse A/S was close to become ISO-certified in operations and sales. Søren Henrik Salbøl was registered as the director. In 1994 he was declared persona non grata by the Church of Scientology, which resulted in among other things, that he had to stay completely away from the company to not meet the cleaners who were members of Scientology. The company had about 225 customers and a couple of hundred cleaners. There were three employees in the administration, including //Vetted//, two employees in sales, two employees of telemarketing and 8-10 employees in the operations department. She was responsible for sales, marketing and operation of the company. She received 25,000 DKK in salary per month. She was present in the company almost every day. She did not know anything about bookkeeping and “numbers”. Søren Henrik Salbøl lived in England and provided IT assistance related to the company. He received no pay for this. He came in the company, if //Vetted// asked him about it, but had otherwise nothing to do with the company. He was however in a month in late 1999 regularly coming in the company, and she therefore sent on 6 January 2000 an email to employees to inform them that it again was her who led the company. //Vetted// was CFO and took care of all accounting, payroll, reporting and payment of income tax and VAT. Although the witness had the overall responsibility for the company’s finances, it was //Vetted//, who had the insight and knowledge. When it was Søren Salbøl Henrik, who was the recipient of //Vetted//’s email of 25 January 2000 with information about VAT and payment terms, is it probably because he had more sense of numbers than her. //Vetted// also informed her about the company’s accounting situation and the liquidity of the company was per the information she got good.
In July 1999, the operations manager Jan Stevns Hansen quit, and his successor, Jan Jensen, did not fit within the company and had to be dismissed. Consequently, and as a result of bad publicity in the media the company lost customers, and in addition several large customers, representing a monthly turnover of almost DKK 700,000, terminated for other reasons their cleaning contracts. In 1999 a business consultant assessed that the company could be sold for 11 million DKK, and in the spring of 2000 she considered to sell the company to Dansk Butiksrengøring. The economy in Berner Huse A/S began to tighten in May 2000 where //Vetted// called her in England or the United States and said that she had to make a bad check on the company account in Amagerbanken. //Vetted// asked if she could sell two of the company cars. Throughout the 1990s the company owned 7 cars with yellow plates and 1 car with white plates, and in 1999 they had bought another car with yellow plates. Subsequently //Vetted// told her that they had managed to sell the two cars with the assistance of Henrik and Bo Madsen, who in early 2000, had rented the premises for running catering business. On one occasion //Vetted// lended money to the company. In April 2000, //Vetted// spoke for the first time about buying the company. During the summer of 2000 she was told by //Vetted// that the company had a larger tax debts, and she said to //Vetted//, that now the company had to be sold or shut down, whereafter //Vetted// said she wanted to continue to run the company because she thought it was a shame that so many good jobs would disappear. //Vetted// had
To pay a small sum to Abbeyoak Contractors for the purchase of the cleaning contracts. Søren Henrik Salbøl negotiated on her behalf. She did not herself participate in these negotiations. She wanted at the time just to get out of the cleaning company and all the traveling that was involved in operating it, so she was no longer interested in the price of the company, and she does not know how much //Vetted// had to pay for the cleaning contracts. Around 22 September 2000 //Vetted// took over the company’s operations and ran them under the DMS company. //Vetted// said she wanted it “just like in the old days” when there was a company with the contracts and a company with the employees. Until 7 or 9 October 2000S she helped //Vetted// with the takeover of the company, including looking at premises in Stenløse and contacting the company’s major customers, after which she withdrew completely from the company. She did however have an agreement with //Vetted// that sellers may want to call her if she could help. Søren Henrik Salbøl resided at that time in England and had also no longer anything to do with the company. When //Vetted// in her email of 15 November 2000 informed her of the company’s financial situation, it was as part of their friendship to orient her that it went //Vetted// well. The invoice //Vetted// called for in her email of 28 november 2000 to Søren Henrik Salbøl, should be printed by Abbeyoak Contractors and concerned payment of her assistance to //Vetted// in the transition period. She attended the company Christmas party in December 2000, and when she the day after was in the business to say goodbye to //Vetted//, Henrik and Bo Madsen showed up. They talked about the turn over of the business, and Henrik Madsen volunteered to be registered as a director since //Vetted// was nervous for it. She had nothing to do with the company in 2001 and 2002, but had lunch with Henrik and Bo Madsen on April 30 2001 in Nyhavn and also met with them on another occasion for half an hour in the company in 2001.
There was, after she had stopped in the company, transferred an amount of the order of 7 -800.000 DKK for the Salbøl family, an amount she saw as a payment for the transfer of the cleaning contracts. It is her who signed the expense voucher as an acknowledgment of receipt of 35,000 DKK on 9 December 2000. The money that was part of the payment for the cleaning contracts to Abbeyoak Contractors, she got paid for the payment of installments as part of her debts. She remembers nothing about the withdrawals of DKK 50,000 and DKK 100,000, mentioned in //Vetted//’s mail to her on 3rd August 2000. Concerning transfer of 18,080 DKK to her from Henrik Madsen she does not remember ever to have received money from Henrik Madsen. The transfers made to her 12 January
2001 and 13 January 2001 of a total of 58,000 DKK were used for payment of school fees for her daughter. When she stands as the addressee on the transfer voucher of 10 May 2001, it was not because the transferred amount of 28,620 DKK was for her, but because she had to pick them up.
She and Søren Henrik Salbøl have known lawyer Jakob Berner Rue since the beginning of the 1990s. She is not aware of that in 1999 there should have been accumulated a VAT debt. Lawyer Rue had told her that the reason for his leaving the company’s board was that he had undergone a “Minnesota-cure” for his alcohol addiction and that he would now focus more on politics and religion and to save his marriage. She had herself asked lawyer Rue to leave the board because of his alcohol problems. She has at some time heard from lawyer Rue that he would visit //Vetted// at her home during her maternity leave concerning a question of imbalance in the accounts, but she had not spoken to him about this before his visit. It was accountant Anders Lind, who had brought up the matter and had said that the bookkeeping work was not good enough, so he suggested that they instead employed a more competent bookkeeper. She did not see any reason to dismiss //Vetted//. Lawyer Rue said after the meeting with //Vetted//, that he would like to fire her, but it was worse to have her as an enemy than as an employee. She understood from attorney Rue that //Vetted// had threatened to go to the press to get Din Rengøring linked to Scientology, and that was why lawyer Rue would not dismiss her. When she spoke with attorney Rue after the visit with //Vetted//, he seemed diffuse, but not drunk. She did not talk with Søren Henrik Salbøl about //Vetted//´s threat or employment. She and Søren Henrik Salbøl have not since his resignation from the board had any business contact with lawyer Rue.
Dennis Flemming Skiold Jensen among other things explained, from the late 1990s to 2000, it was Bente Salbøl who decided in the company. This was how it seemed in the office. He did not see much of Søren Henrik Salbøl. In 2000, before the move from Rødovre to Stenløse, the company “Din Rengøring” was running very well. After moving to Stenløse the company continued its activities unchanged under the auspices of the Dansk Multi-Service ApS. He never considered to take over the company alone or together with //Vetted//. He does not know why he should be the director, or why more companies had to be established. He might have explained to the police, during a hearing on 28 January 2004, that Søren Henrik Salbøl had told him that by creating two or more companies the money could be moved around in order to avoid paying VAT, but he recalls nothing so today. At the end of his employment, the atmosphere in the company had deteriorated and
he was deprived of some tasks, which was why he wanted to leave the company. At some point of time //Vetted// withdrew from the management of the company and had no longer so much to do with the economy, which probably also helped that he would quit. He quit to Henrik Madsen, since at that time he was the one who decided in the company. There was not a real change of management at the turn of 2000/2001, but Henrik Madsen took over more and more. Until he retired, he received salary and holiday pay, except for the last month. He has not been involved in any decision not to report A tax etc in the company.
Attorney Jacob Berner Rue has among other things explained, that today he is an acting attorney and has been Chairman of Din Rengøring ApS. He was at a point of time also legal advisor to Bente and Søren Henrik Salbøl and the company where he worked several hours a day. He himself made the minutes of the board meetings. At the general meeting in september 1998 it was mentioned that there was a VAT debt of 1.7 million DKK, and it was stated by Søren Henrik Salbøl that the debt would be reduced quickly. In early February 1999, he learned from the accountant Anders Lind and Søren Henrik Salbøl that now there had accumulated a VAT debt of the order of 2.7 million DKK. He saw this VAT debt listed as an item in the balance, but never in the company accounts. The issue of VAT debt was presented to him in such a way that he did not doubt that we were talking about systematic tax evasion. Søren Henrik Salbøl suggested that on this occasion dismissed //Vetted// because she might be incompetent as a bookkeeper. This made the witness insecure and very angry, so the same day he went to //Vetted// at her home to speak with her. She told him she had been ordered by Søren Henrik Salbøl to make systematic VAT evasion, which she herself felt very bad about. He told her that he would support her in every possible way, and that he by the way himself would withdraw from the board, which he did on 13 February 1999. She expressed that she would make a statement about the whole process and put it in a bank vault. After the meeting with //Vetted//, he spoke with Søren Henrik Salbøl and accountant Anders Lind that the situation regarding the VAT debt was totally unacceptable and that it seemed pointless to sack the bookkeeper instead of correcting it. He told them that he would not sit as the chairman of a company where you consciously accumulated VAT debt. He got no answer on this. He has since his resignation of the board had no contact with the accountant Anders Lind or family Salbøl.
Alice Friis Borg has among other things explained that it is usual that you in the case of missing vouchers base it on the company’s financial records in order to calculate the VAT liability. There had in the case concerning Berner Huse A/S, been given deduction of purchase VAT on the basis of the financial records. It does not appear in the accountant’s report on the financial records of Berner Huse A/S whether the accountant has gone through the documents, including purchase invoices, but in her calculation of the due VAT she assumed that he had. At first she was interested in the VAT statements in Berner Huse A/S, but due to the turnover of the activities of the company, she also became familiar with some of the other companies. In the tax office they base their evaluation on the information entered into the system, which is why the documents are destroyed after 5 years. She did not consider to ask for the actual physical tax returns in connection with her investigation, as it was not normal practice. As the curator was not in possession of the documents in addition to the documents that SKAT’s already had gotten, he had no comments to the statement she sent to the estate in bankruptcy on 10 October 2001. She focused solely on the VAT statements and not the company’s payments to the tax authorities. Part of her research, would however also have identified whether the company was in arrears to the tax authorities. She noted that through the indictment period was reported too little purchase VAT, which in her experience may reflect that the accounts did not include the company’s full sales and not all purchases. The differences at least show that there was no control on the VAT reports. After having taken over the cleaning activities Henrik Madsen also represented Berner Huse A/S. Her evaluation that evasion was committed by the company, she based on that the company had reported too low VAT in conjunction with the fact that you could not get financial documents or its management. She therefore proposed to the jurists in the tax office that the case should continue as a criminal trial.
Anette Sif Hamann has among other things explained that she has been working as a receptionist in Din Rengøring and the DMS companies. She was aware of that there were different companies, but in daily life you did not distinguish between the DMS companies. The phone she replied with “DMS, hello” and then she connected the phone call to the person asked for. In Stenløse //Vetted// was the manager. After the company had moved to St. Annæ Plads, Henrik Madsen got the decisive influence in the company. Bente and Søren Henrik Salbøl came in the company in both Rødovre and Stenløse while she did not recall having seen them at St. Annæ Plads. She had the impression that they continued to be involved as part of the management after the company was transferred to DMS. She may well have explained to the police during her interrogation on 4 February 2004 that //Vetted// knew about irregularities in DMS that
she performed them on the orders of Henrik Madsen and that //Vetted// was very nervous when she had been summoned to meetings with lawyers Valdal because //Vetted// did not know what she should say at these meetings. She does not remember her explanation of this today.
Tina Charlotte Olsen has among other things explained, that her investigations did not concern Berner Huse/Din Rengøring, but only the DMS companies. It was her recommendation to the legal department that we were talking about an intended VAT- and tax evasion. It was also her opinion that Henrik Madsen was the real leader of the companies, as he during the search answered all questions, no matter which company you asked about, and as he via KF Finans A/S was able to acquire the assets of the companies.
The calculation of sales VAT was for all the companies done based on the actual figures showed in the physical documents. Concerning the calculation of purchase VAT, it appears from the VAT Act, that you can only deduct a quarter of the amount of VAT on entertainment expenses, which was taken into account in the calculation of the purchase VAT in relation to all companies. It was by the way assumed in the first statement by the tax office that the company would not miss out on the deductibility of purchase VAT, and therefore the initially reported figures from the companies were used. However, during the case in the District Court all the documents were gone through again due to new information, including explanations from the accused and situations relating to the existing documents pointed out by the defense lawyers. There was then made a re-statement, based on the accounting documents instead of VAT reports. Any new information was incorporated into the calculation which is the basis for the present indictment. In principle, VAT amounts of invoices issued and paid invoice amounts should be equal in a company that ceases. The actual payments have no bearing on the obligation to report and pay VAT. Therefore, it was only at the request of the defense lawyers that the tax office at the end of the main negotiation in the district court assessed the VAT on actual payments. In the calculation of the VAT liability in issues 3-14 purchase VAT relating to issues 15-66 is deducted. There is in the statement, contrary to the usual VAT practice, also admitted deduction for purchase according to delivery notes, where the amount listed on the delivery note subsequently is seen to have been paid, although there is no original invoice. The tax office has not contacted the suppliers in those cases where the amount according to the delivery notes is not seen to have been paid via the companies’ bank accounts, which is reflected in the statement of 8 October 2008. The companies have twice declared VAT on paper. At the tax office we have all the time viewed the matter as one single case, but during the preparation of the indictment it has been divided up so they relate to different companies and periods.
Determining the missing reported A tax we have received payslips found at the search, payslips submitted by employees and payslips, which have been printed from the companies’ computer system. You are only obliged to report A tax actually withheld A-tax amounts.
Re “payment destinations”
She has no place in the documents she has gone through, seen loan documents between the DMS companies and Lejfi Holding, or intercompany accounts related to the same companies. The tax office has gone through the bank accounts of Lejfi Holding and KF Finans to see if they from the documents in the DMS companies could identify specific deposits and withdrawals on these accounts, but the tax office has not conducted a proper review of the individual entries in these
Re “sorting of invoices and payslips on the individual companies”
The allocation between the companies of invoices and payslips occurred based on the mentioned CVR no. or SE no and then by the mentioned company name. In some cases where there was neither a CVR no. or company name on the document the address information was used.
Re: “Vouchers stamped booked or not stamped booked”
It has not played any role in the tax office statement whether the vouchers were stamped “booked” or not. The computer invoices have been printed by the tax office, which explains why they are not stamped “booked” as it is usual to making by the booking of any physical documents. Neither at the calculation of the product sales, it was of significance, whether the voucher was stamped booked or not. Many of the found physical vouchers were not stamped “booked”, which is consistent with the fact that the booking in the companies was very sparse. The tax office went through both physical vouchers and computerized records and made the booking from scratch based on all the vouchers. In the connection the tax office ensured that the same invoice was not booked twice. If the invoices had different invoice numbers, both invoices were included in the booking of the sales, although the text on the invoices concerned the delivery for the same period, unless there was a credit note. She has not compared the size of the monthly billing amount of wages to the size of the booked turnover.
Re “the mask problem”
By distribution of the payslips between the companies, where there was neither a CVR number nor the name of the company, but only the address “Gammel Roskildevej 19” the payroll costs were placed in the company, where you based on information on payroll expenses prior to or after the relevant pay period estimated that the person was hired. This has been listed in the tax office overview of payroll in the field “comments”.
Re “payment of salary, if not done through the DMS bank accounts”
The basis for calculation of income tax, labor market fee and SP fee was the statement on the payslip of the holiday-eligible salary. One can not from the amount paid calculate backwards and in that way find the tax amount. Some of the salary payments we have not been able to find on the bank accounts of Lejfi Holding and the Dansk Multi Service ApS, but it is possible that the companies have had bank accounts which the tax office has no knowledge about or that the salary is paid in cash from the large cash withdrawals that are made on the bank accounts. All the found payslips that are not balanced with a “minus-payslip” are included in the calculation of the A-tax amount. The employees were not pre-paid. They were paid on the basis of timesheets, and it can in her opinion not have led to writing out of “too many payslips” that employees in a local area occasionally had spells of unemployment. None of the companies had made annual salary reports to the tax office. The tax office therefore prepared these and sent them to the staff in 2003. Most had no comments to the calculation made by the tax office, but in some cases the employees came back and told they had had their salaries paid in cash, and she is aware of one case in Brøndby municipality where the employee had disputed the size of the salary, but the taxpayer´s claim was in this case not accepted. The processing of the cases regarding the payment of salaries, however, lies in the municipalities that were not obliged to inform the tax authorities on their possible cases. Per her memory, there were many check copies in relation to payment of salaries, and these checks were just as often signed by Henrik Madsen as by //Vetted//.
Wagner Vengfeldt explained among other things that customers can place orders in person to the witness, by telephone or by fax or mail to the company. He was account manager for Dansk Multi-Service ApS and went to the company in person, both to receive orders and to nudge for payment. It appears from his diary entries, whom he has had contact with in the company. It was generally Dennis Flemming Skjold Jensen, who to the witness ordered goods for Dansk Multi-Service ApS. He spoke with Bente Salbøl about starting up new customers and payment. He only had contact with Søren Henrik Salbøl related to “Telelog”.
He visited the company both when it was located in Vanløse and in Rødovre, and he normally did not see Søren Henrik Salbøl there on these occasions.
Peter Bejlegaard Jensen has among other things explained that he currently works as a policeman. He was at a job interview with Mikkel Guldager Nielsen and was employed by DMS for 8-9 months. He did not notice whether he received his pay from different companies. He considered Henrik Madsen as the Chief Executive of DMS, and he was sure that Henrik Madsen had several companies. //Vetted// made payslips etc. At one time he was asked by Henrik Madsen to go with Mikkel to Aalborg to conduct recruitment interviews. He spoke with a number of candidates these days. As they were leaving the hotel, there were some personnel from the hotel, who wanted to have a copy of one of their passports, as there were some problems. He could not hear if Mikkel was basked to pay and does not recall the details. He has never seen documents relating to Kreditgruppen ApS.
Jannie Larsson has among other things explained, that when she was hired in 1999, the company functioned well and structured. She got her new employment contract, dated 15 september 2000, in connection with a transfer of the business. It was signed by Dennis Flemming Skjold Jensen, because he at that time was temporarily functioning as the director until Henrik and Bo Madsen had taken over the business from Henrik and Bente Salbøl. Bente Salbøl said at one point that she following the transfer would only be in the company until all was in place. Thereafter Henrik and Bente Salbøl were hardly in the company. Subsequently, it was Henrik Madsen, who decided. //Vetted// was very curious, and it annoyed her as she at Knud Bro Alle lost touch with what happened as a result of the limitations, Henrik Madsen put on her authority. At St. Annæ Plads she was very close to Henrik Madsen. He had told that he was very ill, and //Vetted// took care of him. It was her feeling that Henrik Madsen was very scheming, and the atmosphere was uncomfortable. She considered Henrik Madsen as the manager of the company at St. Annæ Plads and //Vetted// as the bookkeeper. She always got her pay. In the last period of her employment in spring 2002 when she worked in the reception, she often saw there were nudges for payment of invoices. She delivered the message on these nudges to Henrik Madsen. Phones were answered with “DMS”.
Detective Einer Miller has among other things explained, that much of the documents that was found in searches carried out on 13 June 2002, were not systematized and lay loose in boxes, and there
were numerous unopened envelopes which contained reminders. The police made computerized lists of creditors, customers and employees, which were subsequently contacted in writing. The response to these inquiries were put into folders, including the personnel files with the responses from former employees. He has never encountered any loan documents or between-bill-accounts between the various DMS companies and Lejfi Holding A/S.
Per Henriksen explained among other things that there was usually done a credit evaluation of the new customers, but he did not hear that there would have been something wrong. The first order, which was billed by invoice no. 462073, was made during a meeting at St. Annæ Plads, while other orders were placed by telephone. He got during the meeting a good impression of the company, but should perhaps have wondered that the company the specified prices presented by him without further negotiation.
Peder Christian Brejnholt has among other things explained, that originally it was told that the company name was DMS A/S. At one point of time it was discovered that this company did not exist and therefore the name was changed to Dansk Mandskabs Service ApS, so the name would fit with the CVR number. Since there began to be missing payments on the account, he was by Stig Nielsen referred to contact Henrik Madsen, and in the beginning, payment would then take place. After some time he was also unable to persuade Henrik Madsen to pay the amounts due. At one point he said to Henrik Madsen, that he would not deliver more goods until payment was done. Henrik Madsen called back and threatened the witness saying some rockers would be sent after him.
Knud Jorgensen has among other things explained that he wanted his money in cash, so he was sure to get his payment. The agreement for the repair of the cars was made between the workshop foreman and //Vetted// at DMS Kontraktservice ApS. There were no repairs done on the cars without prior agreement. When he attended a meeting at St. Annæ Plads he met a lady who had to do with money matters. She first said that Henrik Madsen was probably in town to raise cash for them. After some delay a call was received at the office on St. Annæ Plads and they were told that Henrik Madsen had picked up one of cars of the witness, which he would only get back when Henrik Madsen’s car had been returned. He subsequently contacted the lawyer Jens Skytte and explained him the situation whereupon the lawyer drew up the writ. The information contained herein about the companies which was made an agreement with, stems from the foreman.
Villv Lock Rasmussen has among other things explained that he was originally hired in Lystrup Tømrer og Snedker (Carpentry and Joinery) A/S, which at one point was taken over by a company in Copenhagen. In this connection, Stig Nielsen came into the picture, and he was also introduced to Henrik Madsen at the negotiation of a collective agreement. He considered Henrik Madsen the main executive of the company. He and his wife attended the Christmas lunch in the company together with, among others Henrik and Bo Madsen and //Vetted// in some premises at Gammel. Roskildevej in Ølstykke. He was asked by Stig Nielsen to help with the renovation of the summerhouse on Grantoften 10. He was told it had to be used for rental to staff or others. He worked together with Stig Nielsen and Jacob Østergaard Sørensen. He does not know exactly why they should stay at different hotels, but they got the impression from Stig Nielsen that it was because the rooms at the previous hotel were occupied. They assumed that everything was paid, but eventually they figured out that the reason for the many moves was payment problems. They never asked directly about it. It was the Stig Nielsen, who told Jacob Østergaard Sørensen, where they would live. Whether he discussed this with //Vetted//, he does not know. He met on one occasion Henrik and Bo Madsen at the summerhouse. Bo Madsen gave them money for their travel home. He has met //Vetted//, who was at an inn at Funen together with Henrik Madsen. //Vetted// also came with her child and Henrik Madsen at Skuldelev inn where they all ate dinner together. He perceived the relationship between //Vetted// and Henrik Madsen as very fine. She took care of the payments of salaries. Two or three times he got his salary by check, but otherwise this was done by bank transfer. It is true as stated in the police report of 5 February 2004, page 4, that there once was written another SE no. on the pay slip, prompting the witness to contact //Vetted//, who explained there had been computer-related problems and that salaries would be paid from Henrik Madsen’s private account. He did not get any explanation why he should be employed in “DMS Kontraktservices” from December 2001. He felt a bit bad to pick up paint in Unik Farver, because he had a feeling that the bill would never be paid.
Lars Nielsen has among other things explained that he had heard there was something to be repaired on Trunderupvej. At that time he regularly saw Henrik Madsen as his then girlfriend was good friends with him. He can not recall whether he on the 14th august 2003 had a meeting with Henrik Madsen in his office. Henrik and Bo Madsen came sometimes to visit him. It has never been the case that he should help Henrik Madsen, by printing an invoice for use for Alm. Brand. His invoices were printed from a document template in the bookkeeping system. He had not made the document template himself, but downloaded it from the web.
Additional information and explanations about the accused’s personal circumstances
Accused //Vetted// has earlier repeatedly been convicted of offenses against property, latest in 1994.
During the proceedings in the High Court there has been made an outpatient mental examination of accused //Vetted// at the Ministry of Justice Legal Psychiatric Clinic. The conclusion of the statement of 27 June 2011 states:
“The person being examined is therefore not insane, and she can not be assumed to have been insane at the time of issues she is being sentenced for. She is averagely gifted, she does not suffer from epilepsy or other organic brain disorder.
She grew up in a good, safe environment. She has a partner, whom she has known since 1990, they have together a daughter who is 13 years old. Her partner is suffering from a progressive muscle disease. She works full time.
She has never had any abuse of alcohol or drugs
She has never been hospitalized in a psychiatric ward or similar. She has several times been on sick leave through her own doctor because of stress conditions. She is presently followed by a private practicing psychiatrist due to a depression diagnose, she is being treated with antidepressants.
She is also being treated with medicine for too high bloodpressure, as she during a number of years has been negatively impacted by this.
At the present examination it was found she has personality traits similar to an anxious and dependent personality structure. Further she has symptoms similar to a severe depression, other than depressed mood, but is undergoing medical treatment for depression. It is estimated that we may see a woman with recurrent depression or an adjustment reaction with anxiety and depression symptoms.
She is then governed by Penal Code § 69 You have to if she is found guilty, as a more appropriate measure to address future similar nature see § 68, point 2 in the same law, recommend judgment for outpatient psychiatric treatment at a psychiatric department with supervision by the criminal authority so that the criminal authority along with the doctor can decide whether to hospitalize. ”
As regards to the accused Henrik Madsen it is noted that the district court’s suspended sentence of 1 november 2005 concerns attempt to fraud for an amount of approx. 50,000 DKK in
September 2000. Accused Henrik Madsen is beyond the sentences mentioned in the district court’s judgment, punished as follows:
At the Court of Odense judgment of 11 March 2009 per the Penal Code § 121 notice regarding good order and the Judicial Code § 750 with 10 fines of DKK 200.
Accused Søren Henrik Salbøl has about his personal situation among other things explained that he and Bente Salbøl the 1st February 2011 moved to England because he has gotten a job in a company headquartered north of London. During the District Court proceedings, where he was also residing in England, it had a large family and personal inconvenience for him to have to be so many days in Denmark. His job possibilities are in the course of time reduced significantly.
As regards the accused Mikkel Guldager Nielsen, who as mentioned in district court judgment at the Copenhagen City Court judgment of 8 december 2003 was sentenced for embezzlement and a 60 days suspended jail sentence with a probationary period of one year, it is stated that there was appointment of a defender in this case by the Copenhagen City Court pursuant to the request received 4th March 2004.
The reasoning of the High Court and result
The question concerning Guilt
Re. the indictment Section A
Re. issue 1:
Even after the production of evidence the High Court found it proven that Berner Huse A/S has evaded VAT as mentioned in the indictment because there is no basis to neglect the statement made by the tax office on the extent of the VAT evasion. It is hereby noted that per the production of evidence it can be assumed that the accounting records of the company have been removed to avoid a correct statement of the company’s VAT liability. There is no evidence of actual errors in the statement of the tax office or the way it has been made and Søren Henrik Salbøl has in the District Court explained that he was aware of there were “differences”, that he had asked the company’s accountant to look at them, and that original calculated difference concerning VAT liability of 1,336,503 DKK made by the tax office probably was right. The fact that the calculation of the tax office is not based on the physical vouchers, but only on the electronic records of these is irrelevant for calculating the amount evaded, since there is no basis for assuming that the electronic records are defective.
Søren Henrik Salbøl was during the period of the indictment registered as director of the company, signed the company’s accounts and was the sole owner of its shares through its British company Abbeyoak Contractors Ltd. It is further proven per the production of evidence before the High Court that Søren Henrik Salbøl also was the real leader of the company. The company’s VAT reports for the indictment period differed significantly from what – according to the accounts – should have been reported and from March 1999 no VAT was declared, although the company continued its operations until at least summer 2000. Based on //Vetted//´s email to Søren Henrik Salbøl on 4 september 2000 that it was “bad news” that the tax office would check the accounts of the last 3 years, and //Vetted//’s email of 13 september 2000 that she had thrown away various accounting documents, it is found proven that Søren Henrik Salbøl knew that the accounts of Berner Huse A/S were not correct and that in connection with the continuation of the company under the auspices of Dansk Multi-Service ApS were made invoicing and “creative accounting” to reduce the VAT liability, see //Vetted//’s mail to him on 3 January 2001. That Søren Henrik Salbøl knew about the VAT evasion is further supported by the fact that Jacob Berner Rue per his explanation indicated to Søren Henrik Salbøl that the stated reason for him leaving the board of the company was that systematic VAT evasion occurred, but that Søren Henrik Salbøl did not do anything in this connection.
In the light of this and with reference to the not inconsiderable amount of cash which it must be assumed – per the production of evidence – was paid to Søren Henrik Salbøl from Berner Huse A/S from July to October 2000, it is – regardless of periods where there might have been problems with the accounting software in the company – not difficult to consider it proven that Søren Henrik Salbøl had intent to tax evasion in the indictment period.
Accused Søren Henrik Salbøl is hereafter found guilty according to the indictment issue 1.
Re issue 3, 3A and 14 and issue 4-9 and 11-13
High Court finds that the corrected indictment on these issues, contains such a specification, which is necessary for an adequate and clear description, see current Civil Code § 834, and thus there is not – as claimed by the accused Søren Henrik Salbøl – basis for acquittal due to the wording of the indictment, regardless that it is not specified in detail in what way the individual defendants have contributed to the evasion of VAT, tax etc.
Regarding issue 3, 3A and 14, the accused have in relation to the calculation of sales VAT pleaded that some of the invoices concerning “pay for the staff”, that are not stamped “booked”, should be deleted from the calculation of sales VAT because they do not reflect real billing and that the calculations of the sales VAT otherwise should be ignored, since there is no direct coherence between the booked expenses and revenues done by the tax office, and there has not been made a cash flow analysis to illustrate this.
The High Court notes that the starting point is that VAT should be reported to the tax office from the invoices which have been issued. Although some of the invoices without the “have been booked” stamp in the tax office calculation refers to “pay for the staff” for the same period as invoices with the “have been booked” stamp, they are not identical, as they are all equipped with different invoice numbers, and there is nothing in the way the invoices have been written which indicates that certain invoices are drafts or specimen sheets, and thus less valid than the other invoices. It appears that the procedure followed by the tax office in the statement made 19 March 2009, per the stated in the undated memo by the tax office from 2011, “Cash Flow Analysis for the DMS companies”, regarding that you cannot in a defensible way make a cash flow analysis, and since it per the production of evidence can be assumed that in order to avoid proper calculation of VAT liability in the companies, etc.no proper accounting and financial reporting has been made by the companies and accounting records are disposed, we find it not difficult to use the tax office´s calculation of sales VAT as our basis.
The fact that the tax office calculation is not based on the physical vouchers, but only the electronic records of these, is irrelevant for the calculation of size of the evaded amount, since there is no basis for assuming that the electronic records are defective.
The accused have in the High Court also argued that the outstanding VAT debts, calculated in issue 10, where the accused per the prosecutors claim were dismissed by the district court, must be deducted in determining the evaded VAT in the other issues together with the calculated VAT amount in issue 34.
The High court concludes that the negative VAT liability, resulting from the calculation of VAT liability for DMS Kontraktservice ApS in issue 10, should not be set-off in the calculation of the VAT amount the accused have deprived the Exchequer by not making proper reports
of the VAT due concerning Dansk Mandskabs Service ApS, the non-registered continuation of this activity and on For Kvalitet A/S, pursuant to issue 3, 3A and 14. It should be noted that, since they are separate legal entities, and there has been no joint registration of the companies, it fell on each of the DMS companies to make VAT declaration in relation to each company’s purchases and sales.
Issue 34 concerns to two orders of ads made by Lystrup Tømrer og Snedker (Carpentry and Joinery) A/S on the 19 April 2001 of respectively 209,250 DKK incl. VAT and 157,500 DKK incl. VAT and DMS Kontraktservice ApS’ ordering of ads for 325,000 DKK incl. VAT on the 21 May 2002. Neither Dansk Mandskabs Service ApS nor For Kvalitet A/S is obligated to pay for the ads, why the purchase VAT on those ads will not be set-off in the calculation of the evaded amount of VAT.
Based on the present payslips and the information about the tax office´s investigation on these, including the explanation by Tina Charlotte Olsen that the salaries according to the payslips, which are solely based on computerized records of the companies, are located in the companies from where the employee according to paper versions of the payslips received pay before/after the pay period in question, there is no basis for believing that the calculation by the tax office concerning A-tax, etc.. in issue 4-9 and 11-13 is defective. The fact that the tax authorities and the prosecution failed to evidence salary payments equal to all payslip amounts, can not lead to neglect of the calculation made by the tax office, given the extremely poor accounting in the companies and failure to keep accounting material.
With these comments and in light of the thorough review carried out by the calculation of the evaded amounts during the proceedings in the District Court and High Court, it is considered proven that the evasions of VAT, income tax, labor market contributions and SP contributions at least have had the extent mentioned in the indictment, and that the objective content of the acts under issue 3, 3A, 4-9 and 11-13 have been carried out in the manner described in the indictment, whether it be the “emptying” of the companies and their bankruptcy which ultimately led to that the Exchequer was deprived the calculated amount.
The question is whether the individual defendants in these matters has been involved in the evasion in a criminal way and have had the intention to commit the tax- and VAT evasions.
For Henrik Madsen it is for the reasons stated by the district court endorsed that he, despite his explanation that he merely acted as a kind of puppet, is regarded as the real leader of the DMS companies and thus responsible for the evasion of taxes in these issues.
The companies reported and paid only a small amount of the due taxes. The earnings of the companies were to a high extent included in the company controlled by Henrik Madsen, Lejfi Holding ApS/KF Finans A/S, without evidence of a reason of business, and Henrik Madsen had also without no documentation of the basis therefore paid large cash sums to, among others themselves and Hanne Dahl Riisbjerg. The accounting of the DMS companies was inadequate or nonexistent, and the companies gave no accounts before they were declared bankrupt. Against this background, it is considered not difficult to consider the operation of the DMS companies to have been organized in such an order to enable the evasion, as mentioned in the indictment. Henrik Madsen was the real leader and active force in the companies. The High Court therefore finds that he undoubtedly had the intention of evasion of taxes and fees, and based on this he is found guilty in issue 3, 3A, 4-9 and 11-14.
Søren Henrik Salbøl has explained that he with the sale of Berner Huse A/S and its subsequent bankruptcy on the 17th November 2000 ceased to run cleaning companies and that he in relation to the acquiring companies only helped with IT work and in addition tried to get the purchase sum of Berner Huse A/S of approximately DKK 800,000 paid to himself personally.
The cleaning activities in the company Din Rengøring A/S/Berner Huse A/S was according to a purchase contract concluded between Søren Henrik Salbøl and Henrik Madsen transferred with effect from 1 September 2000 and it must also be assumed per the production of evidence to the High Court that the actual transfer of the activities took place around this time. Søren Henrik Salbøl had at the time of entering this contract committed extensive VAT fraud in Berner Huse A/S in the period April 1996 to March 1999, see issue 1.
It appears from the purchase contract dated 24 February and 6 March 2000, that Søren Henrik Salbøl as payment for the transfer of the cleaning activities would receive 822,500 DKK, which was a significant amount compared to the size of previous years
profit of the cleaning activity, and per Søren Henrik Salbøl´s explanation about the negative trend of the market over the last year prior to the transfer, a purchase price of this size could hardly be expected to be paid solely by the profit from the ordinary operations of the business.
Søren Henrik Salbøl contributed actively in the creation of the DMS companies Dansk Multi Service ApS, Dansk Magna Service ApS and Dansk Mandskabs Service ApS in the summer and autumn of 2000 and was also for a period after the transfer directly involved in the operation of the companies, see mail from //Vetted// on 22 September 2000 concerning the invoices which in the future “lands in the local bank”, on 27 November 2000 concerning the installation of new directors and 21 December 2000 concerning Søren Henrik Salbøl´s desire for the establishment of yet another company to counter that “”Valdal” manage to destroy the company”, whereupon the DMS Kontraktservice ApS, whose share capital was paid by Dansk Multi Service ApS, was founded December 29, 2000. Søren Henrik Salbøl completed the VAT registration form for Dansk Multi Service ApS to the tax office dated 5 November 2000, stamped as received on 6 December 2000, and he completed similar registration forms for Dansk Mandskabs Service ApS and Dansk Magna Service ApS, like he, according to his statement, signed the accountant report of 6 December 2000 on behalf of director Dennis Flemming Skjold Jensen concerning the financial circumstances in Dansk Mandskabs Service ApS.
It appears from //Vetted//’s email of 28 November 2000, that Søren Henrik Salbøl (continued) made withdrawals from the bank for private purposes in a DMS company. From December 2000 to April 2002 there was apparently without being entitled to do it transferred a total amount of nearly 650,000 DKK to Søren Henrik Salbøl or his allied from DMS companies.
It further appears from //Vetted//’s email of 3 January 2001, that Søren Henrik Salbøl was informed about “creative thinking” concerning the VAT report for the third quarter of 2000 in Dansk Multi Service ApS, an email that notwithstanding //Vetted//’s explanation about off-setting VAT on purchased equipment and use of personnel must be taken as an indication that he at that time became acquainted with tax evasion for almost 470,000 DKK for this quarter.
Against this background and given Soren Henrik Salbøls longstanding knowledge of Henrik Madsen and continuing business relationship with him and his continued connection to the companies on Sankt Annæ Plads including by virtue of his computer-related assistance, based on the evidence it is found demonstrated that Søren Henrik Salbøl with intent to tax evasion in a criminal manner has contributed to the evasion that occurred in connection with the operation of the continuing companies until the expiry of the period of time where the crimes took place.
For //Vetted// it is concurred per the evidence presented before the High Court for the reasons stated by the district court that her explanation that she only had a subordinate office position in the DMS-companies, is overridden as untrustworthy, and that she from autumn 2000 to summer 2002 was not only registered as a director for various periods in the companies Dansk Multi Service Ltd. and For Kvalitet A/S (A/S is a shareholding company), but also in at least the major portion of the period was part of the daily management of the DMS-companies and as the responsible for the bookkeeping had insight into the financial situation in the companies and to some extent had authority to the bank accounts of the companies.
The mails that //Vetted// has written to Soren Henrik Salbøl and Henrik Madsen, including mail dated 3 January 2001 on “creative accounting” and mail about actively disposal of financial records show that //Vetted// not only acted on orders and felt threatened by Henrik Madsen, but that she actively participated in tax avoidance and was aware that the reported VAT statements were not real. She was also as the responsible for the preparation of pay slips to employees familiar with the size of the withheld A-tax, etc.., which however, only at a very modest scale was reported to the Tax office. She was also aware of and participated to some extent to that large sums of money were paid to Soren Henrik Salbøl and Henrik Madsen without the necessary documentation for the legitimacy thereof, and she as a bookkeeper should be familiar with the transfer of large funds between the DMS-companies and Lejfi Holding Ltd./KF Finans A/S, the inadequate accounting in the DMS-companies and the lack of notification to the Tax Office by the company DMS Kontraktservice ApS.(ApS=Ltd)
Hereafter it is found proven that //Vetted// with intent to deprive the state of the amounts mentioned in matters 3, 3A, 4-9 and 11-14, in a criminal way contributed to the tax avoidance.
For Hanne Dahl Riisbjerg it is taken for our basis, in accordance with her explanation, that she was employed for 2-3 months as a quality employee in the DMS-companies after the companies around the 1st April 2001 had moved to new premises at Sankt Annæ Plads and that she in the summer of 2001 during Henrik Madsen´s holiday picked up mail at the office, which she brought to Henrik Madsen’s apartment and that she in this period may have had authority to sign checks. It is further take as one´s basis that she joined at 30th October 2001 as board member of Lejfi Holding ApS, and that she from the 30th August 2001 to 13 June 2002 contributed to the payment of large amounts of cash to Henrik Madsen and Søren Henrik Salbøl via her bank account.
Regardless of in the light of the above and according to her knowledge in general about Henrik Madsen may have been clear for Hanne Dahl Riisbjerg that the purpose of making her bank account available as happened was to get Henrik Madsen and Søren Henrik Salbøl a portion of proceeds obtained by a criminal offense, however, per the above or per the evidence it is not demonstrated that Hanne Dahl Riisbjerg had such knowledge and role in the companies that she may be held liable for the VAT and tax evasion that occurred in the companies from autumn 2000 or from the later time when she was employed by the companies. Hanne Dahl Riisbjerg is therefore acquitted for the charges raised in conditions 3, 3A, 4-9 and 11-14.
Regarding the indictment Section B:
As stated by the district court the different company names were arbitrarily used by the defendants and without regard to the rules for who had authority to sign for the companies and real leadership- and liability issues.
Per the evidence the district court thus conclude that in the period covered by Section B often happened that goods or services were ordered by one of the defendants in the name of a company, after which the defendants failed to pay the suppliers and at the sending of invoices from suppliers frequently referred them to re-submit the invoice, but issued to another company. High court considers it as the district court for proved that the use of several companies with the same initials have had the purpose to create confusion and uncertainty among contractors about who could sign for the company, and that the defendants thereby knowingly sought to impede the creditor proceedings.
For defendant Henrik Madsen the High Court finds, based of the above mentioned under Section A about Henrik Madsen’s role as the actual chief executive of the DMS-companies, it would not lead to worry to take for one´s base, that the goods and services for which payment was not paid, were ordered with Henrik Madsen’s acceptance. The High Court also consider that the operation of the companies specified in Section B from the time Henrik Madsen was appointed manager,
was organized in order to obtain delivery of goods and services without having to pay.
For defendant //Vetted// it is noted that she as a bookkeeper and participant in the management of the DMS-companies throughout the period covered in Section B has had continuous and significant insight into the liquidity and the economy of the companies in general and thus both in the arrangements which she herself directly made and actions carried out by the defendants Henrik and Bo Madsen. After the explanation to the district court of the witness Wagner Vengfeldt, who both the 5th February and the 22nd February 2001 spoke with //Vetted// about non-payment of Henkel-Ecolab outstanding debts, it would not lead to worry to take one´s base that //Vetted//, at least from this time has been aware of that it was probably true that there would be no payment for the ordered goods and services. As regards the ordering of goods and services, done by Stig Nielsen for Lystrup Tømrer & Snedker A/S and in connection with others in Jutland-based businesses as well as similar orders in relation to Kreditgruppen and Henrik Madsen’s private summerhouse, it is per the evidence not proven, that //Vetted// solely by virtue of her role in the DMS-companies in a criminal manner has contributed to these conditions. Therefore she can not be punished for fraud in relation thereto, unless she in the specific incident actively has participated in the ordering.
For defendant Bo Madsen it is noted that he in a number of situations per his own explanation has made orderings of goods and services, and co-contractors in various cases have mentioned his name in order confirmations or invoices. There is no proof that Bo Madsen attended the senior management of the DMS-companies. In view of his position in the companies, his close relationship with Henrik Madsen and based on Wagner Vengfeldts explanation in relation to issue 19 about his conversations with Bo Madsen on the 28th February 2001 and later it is however found proven that he at least from the end of February 2001 had such a thorough knowledge of the financial position of those in Section B mentioned companies, that he realized that there is every probability that the goods and services which he took part in ordering would not be paid.
Regarding the indictment on the individual issues the High Court notes the following:
Re issue 16
Of the reasons stated by the District Court, including that the defendants //Vetted// and Henrik Madsen had business cards available, which continued to be used in connection with purchases, after the payment of an invoice had been dismissed from the bank, the district court finds it proven that the defendants had intent to give Kuwait Petroleum A/S a loss of assets. The defendants are then guilty in accordance with the indictment, the district court, however, notes that the period of the crime only is considered to have commenced on 10 April 2001.
Re issue 17
The way the matter has been described in the indictment, and this has been verified to the High Court, the description of the criminal act does not qualify as a conviction of Penal Code § 279th. The defendants are therefore acquitted on this matter.
Re issue 18
According to the evidence presented we take as our base that Tele-Point Søborg A/S’s offer of 19 September 2000 was signed by //Vetted// and returned within one week. The invoices all relate to delivery of phones and service-agreement in connection with this offer.
It is not proven that Henrik Madsen at the time of acceptance of the offer was involved in the management of Danish Multi Services Ltd. in such a way that he can be said to have participated in the order of the equipment, nor is it proven that after the acceptance of the offer has participated in more orders with Tele-Point Søborg A/S.
Notwithstanding the knowledge that defendant //Vetted// later got to those of defendant Henrik Madsen used business methods, the High Court doubts the advisability to consider it proven that she, as this delivery was ordered, knew or certainly suspected that the payment would not take place.
The defendants //Vetted// and Henrik Madsen are therefore acquitted on this matter.
Re issue 19
In view of the above general data regarding the accused Henrik Madsen’s role in the DMS-companies and after among other things the content of accused´s letter of 3 April 2001 to the law firm Jan Anker Rasmussen the High Court finds it proven that the accused must have been intimately acquainted with the trade relationship between the Danish Multi-Service ApS and Henkel-Ecolab A/S and that
the payment of invoices did not occur. The High Court finds it now proven that the accused Henrik Madsen, who must be considered to have acted with intent to inflict Henkel-Ecolab A/S a loss of assets and is guilty according to the indictment.
Since it is inadvisable to consider it proven that the accused //Vetted// in the period from 20 November 2000 to 13 February 2001, when the delivery took place, knew or certainly suspected that the payment would not happen, the accused //Vetted// is acquitted on this matter.
Ad conditions 20
It is endorsed as stated by the district court that it was incumbent on the accused Henrik Madsen and //Vetted// by virtue of the positions they held at the time of the criminal act in DMS Kontraktservice Ltd., to report and deposit to Lønmodtagernes Garantifond/ATP-huset, Feriekonto (note: the Employees’ Guarantee fund/ATP-house, Holiday Account). The accused had due to the missing report the intent to inflict Lønmodtagerner Garantifond/ATP-huset, Feriekonto a loss of capital. Then the accused are found guilty according to the indictment, as this is corrected for the High Court.
Ad ratio 21
Of reasons mentioned by the District Court and with reference to the accused’s own testimony to the District Court it is concurred that the accused Henrik Madsen, who must be considered having acted with intent to inflict Jensen Sega A/S a loss of capital is guilty according to the indictment.
Ad conditions 22
Of the reasons mentioned by the District Court on the accused //Vetted// and Henrik Madsen and with reference to the above on the generally stated on these accused persons the High Court finds that the accused, who is deemed to have acted with intent to inflict Sonofon with a loss of capital, are guilty according to the indictment, as this is corrected for the High Court.
Ad ratio 23
Because prosecutors have dropped the charge, the accused //Vetted// and Henrik Madsen are acquitted in this matter.
Ad conditions 24
Witness Kurt Hedegaard has explained to the district court that the first of the stairs referred to in the indictment were delivered to John Martin Jensen. The High Court therefore finds also taking into account the time of delivery, 22 February 2001, compared with the time of Lejfi Holding ApS´ acquisition of the shares in Lystrup Tømrer og Snedker A/S (Carpentry and Joinery A/S), that it is not proven that any of the accused were involved in this delivery. Accused Henrik Madsen is therefore acquitted with respect to an amount of 24,375 DKK Under the current Code of Procedure § 927, paragraph. 2, accused Stig Nielsen is similarly acquitted.
After explanations by the witnesses John Martin Jensen and Kurt Hedegaard for the District Court and High Court, the High court takes as their basis that the other two staircases were supplied by agreement between the witness Kurt Hedegaard and accused Stig Nielsen, whether it were not originally Stig Nielsen who had ordered them. Due to the position held by the accused Stig Nielsen in Lystrup Tømrer og Snedker A/S (Carpentry & Joinery A/S), the High court concluded that he acted on instructions from Henrik Madsen, who at that time controlled Lystrup Tømrer og Snedker A/S (Carpentry & Joinery A/S). Then the High Court finds that the accused Henrik Madsen acted with intent to inflict Thisted Trapper (Stairs) a loss of capital. Accused Henrik Madsen is thus guilty according to the indictment, as this is corrected to the High Court, but only for an amount of DKK 30,650.
In light of the above generally mentioned about //Vetted//’s lack of responsibility for Stig Nielsen´s orderings of goods and services under the auspices of Lystrup Tømrer og Snedker A/S (Carpentry and Joinery A/S) it is not proven that the accused //Vetted// in a criminal way participated in the purchase and delivery of the staircases. Accused //Vetted// is therefore acquitted in this matter.
Re issue 25
Invoice of 18 March 2001 relates to ordering of job advertisements in Dansk Multi Service Ltd. as part of its regular operations of the business. Hereafter and with reference to the above mentioned on the accused Henrik Madsen and //Vetted//, the high court finds that the accused, who must be considered to have acted with intent to inflict Søndagsavisen A/S a loss of capital are guilty to the extent claimed by the District Court.
Re issue 26
The High Court notes that issued order confirmations by the injured party Bowi Møbelindustri A/S (Bowi Furniture Industry Ltd) and packing slip to “Dansk Multi Service” is bearing the name “Bo Lauritzen.” The High Court took into account, that we are talking about accused Bo Madsen. High Court finds it then and after the explanation of witness Kenneth K. Johansen proved that the accused Bo Madsen took part in the ordering of the goods supplied by Bowi Møbelindustri A/S. After the above generally stated data on the accused Henrik Madsen and //Vetted// the High Court finds that all three accused must be considered to have acted with intent to inflict Bowi Møbelindustri A/S with a loss of capital according to the indictment.
Re issue 27
For the reasons stated by the district court and with reference to the above generally stated it is found proven that the accused Henrik Madsen and //Vetted//, who must be considered to have acted with intent to inflict Semco Denmark A/S a loss of capital, are guilty in accordance with the indictment, as this evidenced for the High Court. As regards the accused Bo Madsen the High Court finds, given the lack of interconnection between different parts of Semco’s delivery, that his responsibility alone comprises the invoice of 31 May 2001 of 29,533.41 DKK, which is addressed to him. Accused Bo Madsen is therefore only guilty of this amount.
Re issue 28
The High court finds due to the stated reasons by the district court and after Tonny Mathiesen’s explanation to the police report of 6 January 2004 that the person who ordered the computer equipment, introduced himself as a sales manager and he noted his name on the invoices, that it is proved that it is the accused Bo Madsen, who has been ordering all the goods. It may further per the content of the invoices issued be taen as the basis that the goods were delivered to the address Knud Bro Alle 7 C in Stenløse, which the accused Henrik Madsen and //Vetted// must have been familiar with. Then, and with reference to the above stated on these two accused the accused Henrik Madsen, //Vetted// and Bo Madsen, must have acted with intent to inflict Aston Web Sales A/S a loss of capital and are found guilty according to the indictment .
Re issue 29
Of the stated reasons by the District Court regarding the accused Henrik Madsen, the high court find it evidenced that the accused Henrik Madsen, who is considered to have acted with intent to inflict Paustian A/S a loss of capital, is find guilty of fraud. As there originally was agreed a price of
80,858.63 DKK for the at Paustian A/S ordered furnitures the accused Henrik Madsen is however only guilty of this amount.
Under Judicial Code § 927, paragraph. 2, is accused Stig Nielsen then also only guilty to the same extent.
In light of the above generally stated //Vetted//’s lack of responsibility for Stig Nielsen´s orders of goods and services under the auspices of Lystrup Tømrer og Snedker A/S (Carpentry and Joinery A/S) it is not proven that the accused //Vetted// in a criminal way participated in the purchase of furnitures at Paustian. Accused //Vetted// is therefore acquitted in this matter.
Re issue 30
Following the expalnations by the accused Henrik Madsen and Bo Madsen for the district court in conjunction with the submitted invoices and bill drafts of 7 June 2001 the High Court finds it proven that the accused Bo Madsen with the agreement of the accused Henrik Madsen ordered the alarm systems and service in question as described in the indictment. Accused //Vetted// is according to the above stated also responsible.Hereafter the accused, who is considered to have acted with intent to inflict Falck Denmark A/S a loss of capital, found guilty according to the indictment.
Re issue 31
Per the content of the submitted invoices and order forms from A/S Rentokil and in conjunction with the given explanation for the district court by the witness Anne Christine Højte and accused Bo Madsen’s explanation to the district court the High Court finds it proven that the accused Bo Madsen made orders for plants and plant services. As the plants in question were delivered and services performed in the premises on Sankt. Annæ Plads 9, the district court finds it proven that the accused //Vetted// and Henrik Madsen also must have been aware of this. Then and by reference to the above generally stated the accused, who must have acted with intent to inflict A/S Rentokil a loss of capital, found guilty in accordance with the indictment, as evidenced for the High Court.
Re issue 32
Per the content of the submitted invoices from Altikon Kontormøbler A/S (Altikon Office Furnitures A/S) in conjunction with the explanation given by the witness Carl Martin Adam Tordsson to the district court the High Court finds it to be proven that the accused Bo Madsen made orders for office furniture as indicated in the invoices.
As the furnitures in question were delivered in premises at Sankt Annæ Plads 9, the high court finds it proven that the accused //Vetted// and Henrik Madsen also must have been aware of this. Then, and by reference to the above generally stated the accused, who must have acted with intent to inflict Altikon Kontormøbler A/S a loss of capital are found guilty in accordance with the indictment.
Re issue 33
Per the evidence, including especially witness Peder Christian Brejnholt´s explanations for the District Court and High Court and accused Stig Nielsen’s explanation for the district court, the High Court finds it proven that the accused Stig Nielsen carried out the orders with Brejnholts Tømmerhandel A/S (…Timber A/S), which are listed in the indictment, and that this occurred in concert with accused Henrik Madsen. It must also be assumed that the accused Henrik Madsen tried to complicate the creditor proceedings by his statements to Peder Christian Brejnholt that payment had been made. Then, and by reference to the above generally stated accused Henrik Madsen, who must have acted with intent to inflict Brejnholts Tømmerhandel A/S a loss of capital is found guilty in accordance with the indictment, as evidenced for the High Court.
Under the current Code of Procedure § 927, paragraph. 2, the accused Stig Nielsen is convicted only in accordance with the evidenced indictment.
In light of the above generally stated //Vetted//’s lack of responsibility for Stig Nielsen orders of goods and services under the auspices of Lystrup Tømrer og Snedker A/S (Carpentry and Joinery A/S) is not proven so that the accused //Vetted// in a criminal way participated in the referred purchases in question. Accused //Vetted// is therefore acquitted in this matter.
Re issue 34
Of the stated reasons by the District Court, it is found proven that accused Henrik Madsen, who must be considered to have acted with intent to inflict TDC A/S a loss of capital is guilty in accordance with the indictment, as evidenced for the High court.
Accused //Vetted// has on the 21 May 2002 completed, signed and submitted an order for ads on behalf of DMS Kontraktservice ApS (Contract Services Ltd.) for a sum of 325,000 DKK. Hereafter and due to the above generally stated on the accused it is found proven that –
the accused //Vetted//, who must be considered to have acted with intent to inflict TDC A/S a loss of capital, is guilty in accordance to the indictment concerning this amount.
In light of the above generally stated about //Vetted//’s lack of responsibility for Stig Nielsen´s orders of goods and services for Lystrup Tømrer og Snedker A/S (Carpentry and Joinery A/S) it is notfound proven that the accused //Vetted// in a criminal way participated in ordering the other ads. Accused //Vetted// is therefore acquitted for the part relating to advertisements for Lystrup Tømrer og Snedker A/S (Carpentry & Joinery A/S).
Re issue 35
Of the reasons stated by the district court it is found proven that accused Henrik Madsen, who must be considered to have acted with intent to inflict Eterra A/S a loss of capital is guilty according to the indictment.
In light of the above generally stated about //Vetted//’s lack of responsibility for Stig Nielsen´s orders of goods and services for Lystrup Tømrer og Snedker A/S (Carpentry and Joinery A/S) and other businesses based in Jutland it is not found proven that the accused //Vetted// in a criminal way participated in these deliveries. Accused //Vetted// is therefore acquitted in this matter.
Re issue 36
Per the given explanation of the witness Michael Sandstrøm Schou to the district court the High Court finds it is proven that goods delivered by Minolta A/S were ordered by the accused Henrik Madsen and Bo Madsen, or that Bo Madsen certainly was involved in the negotiations which led to the order. Then, and with reference to the above generally stated the accused, who must be considered to have acted with intent to inflict Minolta A/S a loss of capital, are found guilty in accordance with the indictment.
Re issue 37
According to the accused Stig Nielsen’s explanation in the district court that he ordered phones, etc. in agreement with the accused Henrik Madsen. It can further be seen from the explanation that a larger number of phones were sent to Copenhagen. Based on this the High Court finds it inadvisable to disregard the accused Henrik Madsen’s explanation, according to which he was totally unaware of these orders, and to put accused Stig Nielsen´s
explanation as the basis. Then, and taking the above generally stated into consideration the accused Henrik Madsen, who must be considered to have acted with intent to inflict Sonofon a loss of capital, is found guilty in accordance with the indictment.
Per the explanation given by the accused Stig Nielsen in the district court it must be taken as one´s basis that the accused //Vetted// was surprised that he had ordered the phones and subscriptions in question. The phones or any part thereof were to be used in a business that was outside the DMS-companies usual scope of work. Hereafter it is not found proved that the accused //Vetted// in a criminal way participated in the ordering of these phones, why she is acquitted in this matter.
Re issue 38
Per the given explanation to the district court by the witness Kim Jensen and the content of the invoices made by Canon Business Centre it is found proven that the order was made by the accused Stig Nielsen. The High Court shall per the data given on the relationship between the accused use as their basis that this order has been made with the agreement or in concert with the accused Henrik Madsen. Then, and due to the above generally stated the accused Henrik Madsen, who must be considered to have acted with intent to inflict Canon Business Centre a loss of capital, is found guilty in accordance with the indictment.
In light of the above generally stated //Vetted//’s lack of responsibility for Stig Nielsen´s orders of goods and services, and as it is not proven that delivery of the goods in question came to the premises of the DMS companies, the High Court finds it inadvisable to consider the accused //Vetted// to be criminally responsible for this. Accused //Vetted// is therefore acquitted in this matter.
Re issue 39
Of the reasons mentioned by the District Court the High Court endorses that the order is placed by accused Bo Madsen. Subsequently, and per the above generally stated the accused Bo Madsen, Henrik Madsen and //Vetted//, who must be considered to have acted with intent to inflict Partner City A/S a loss of capital, are found guilty in accordance with the indictment.
Re issue 40
Per the witness Søren Grønhøj Borup´s explanation to the district court and per the content of the presented invoices the district court held that the relevant orders with Bondo Kon
tormøbler A/S have been made by the accused Bo Madsen, Henrik Madsen and //Vetted// or that the accused at least were aware of and agreed to it. Hereafter all the accused, who must be considered to have acted with intent to inflict Bondo Kontormøbler A/S (Bondo Office Furnitures A/S) a loss of capital, are found guilty in accordance with the indictment.
Re issue 41
Accused Bo Madsen is listed as the person ordering on at least one of the invoices issued by Sækko A/S. When this is compared to the position that the accused Bo Madsen held in the company, the High Court finds it proven that he has ordered the bags in question or ordering was done in agreement with him. Subsequently, and per the above generally stated on the accused all the accused, who must be considered to have acted with intent to inflict Sækko A/S a loss of capital, are found guilty in accordance with the indictment.
Re issue 42
Of the reasons mentioned by the District Court the High Court endorses that the accused Henrik Madsen, who must be considered to have acted with intent to inflict HT Defta A/S a loss of capital, is guilty in accordance with the indictment.
Per the given explanation by the accused Stig Nielsen to the district court and the content of the presented invoices it must be assumed that the deliveries related to construction materials for use in contracts, which the accused Stig Nielsen was in charge of. In light of the above generally stated //Vetted//’s lack of responsibility for Stig Nielsen´s orders of goods and services for Lystrup Tømrer og Snedker A/S (Carpentry and Joinery A/S) and in other businesses based in Jutland it has not been proven that the accused //Vetted// in a criminal way participated in connection with these deliveries. The accused //Vetted// is therefore acquitted in this matter.
Re issue 43
Per the explanation by the witness Henning Larsen in the district court in conjunction with the issued creditnote by DanaSport ApS (Ltd.) on which there is written “Bo Laursen,” the High court concluded that exercise-equipment were ordered by the accused Bo Madsen. Subsequently, and due to the above generally stated on the accused, they must be considered to have acted with intent to inflict DanaSport ApS a loss of capital, and they are found guilty in accordance with the indictment.
Re issue 45
By the given explanation by the witness Harry Lassen for the district court which is corroborated by the submitted email correspondence addressed to among others “Bo Laursen,” and taking into account the above on the accused the High court finds it is proven that the accused Bo Madsen, Henrik Madsen and //Vetted//, who must be considered to have acted with intent to inflict Semaphor a loss of capital, are guilty according to the indictment.
Re issue 46
For the reasons stated by the district court the High Court endorses that the accused, who must be considered to have acted with intent to inflict Papyrex A/S a loss of capital, are guilty according to the indictment.
Re issue 47
As stated by the district court, it must be assumed that the orders of the clothes in question were made by the accused Bo Madsen or agreed with him. Per accused Bo Madsen’s explanation in the district court it must also be assumed that the accused //Vetted// was aware of this. Then and taking into account the above generally stated on the accused the High court finds it is proven that the accused Bo Madsen, Henrik Madsen and //Vetted//, who must be considered to have acted with intent to inflict Trico Firmatøj A/S a loss of capital, are guilty according to the indictment.
Re issue 48
Per the content of the submitted order confirmations and the given explanation by the witness Torben Dane to the district court the High Court finds it is proven that the accused Bo Madsen ordered the gas truck in question. Then and taking into account the above generally stated, the High court finds that the accused, who must be considered to have acted with intent to inflict DanTruck A/S a loss of capital, are guilty in accordance with the indictment. The circumstance that because of the security taken by Dan Truck A/S alone was no obvious risk of financial loss, can not lead to a different result.
Re issue 49
Per the given explanation by the witness Claus Frederiksen to the district court it must be assumed that the accused Bo Madsen at least knew about the hiring of the mini-loader. It should be used at the private property of the accused Henrik Madsen. In view of the relationship between the accused Henrik Madsen and Bo Madsen and taking into account the above generally stated on these accused the High Court endorses that the accused Bo Madsen and Henrik Madsen, who must be considered to have acted with intent to inflict GSV Materieludlejning A/S a loss of capital, are guilty according to the indictment.
Re issue 50
Per the given explanation by the witness Knud Jørgensen for the District Court and High Court and as the High court did not find they could give the detailed explanations of the accused on this issue any importance the accused Henrik Madsen and //Vetted//, who must be considered to have acted with intent to inflict Knud Jørgensen Automobiler A/S a loss of capital, are guilty in accordance with the indictment, as evidenced for the High Court.
Re issue 51
Per the content of the presented invoice issued to DMS/Bo Lauritsen, in conjunction with the explanation of the witness Arne Christensen to the district court, and due to that the mini-loader is ordered to be used apply at the accused Henrik Madsen’s property, the High court finds, that the accused, who must be considered to have acted with intent to inflict Værktøjssalget (tools sale) by Arne Christensen a loss of capital, are guilty according to the indictment.
Re issue 52
For the reasons stated by the district court the High Court endorses that the accused, who must be considered to have acted with intent to inflict Diversey Lever A/S a loss of capital, are guilty according to the indictment.
Re issue 53
Per the evidence, particularly including the given explanation by the witness Nikolaj Jørgensen to the District Court and the High Court, the High court finds it proven, that the accused //Vetted// ordered containers in agreement with the accused Henrik Madsen. Subsequently, and per the above generally stated on these accused persons Henrik Madsen and //Vetted//, who must be considered to have acted with intent to inflict Servial CC ApS a loss of capital, are guilty in accordance with the indictment.
Re issue 54
For the reasons stated by the district court it is agreed that the gasoline cards in question were ordered by the accused //Vetted//. High court does not doubt the advisability to base its decision on, that both accused persons were aware of that the cards were used as indicated in the indictment, and that it was intended that there should be no payment. Hereafter the accused Henrik Madsen and //Vetted// are found guilty according to the indictment.
Re issue 55
Per the given explanation by the accused Stig Nielsen and the witness Allan Nielsen to the district court the High Court decided to reason that the work done by Per Aarsleff A/S is ordered by the accused Stig Nielsen per instructions from accused Henrik Madsen. Taking this into account and to the above generally stated on accused Henrik Madsen the High Court finds that the accused Henrik Madsen, who must be considered to have acted with intent to inflict Per Aarsleff A/S a loss of capital, is guilty in accordance with the indictment.
In light of the above generally stated //Vetted//’s lack of responsibility for Stig Nielsen´s orders of goods and services for Lystrup Tømrer og Snedker A/S (Carpentry and Joinery A/S) and others businesses based in Jutland, it is found not proven that the accused //Vetted// in a criminal way participated in connection with these deliveries. The accused //Vetted// is therefore acquitted in this matter.
Re issue 56
The High Court shall, due to the evidences, reason that the accused Mikkel Guldager Nielsen turned to Grafisk Tegnestue w/Morten Sørensen with a request for assistance with the preparation of business cards, letterhead, etc. as described in the indictment. It must, however, on the evidence presented be assumed that no final order was given to Grafisk Tegnestue w/Morten Sørensen. Irrespective of For Kvalitet A/S or the accused personally could be charged to pay Grafisk Tegnestue by Morten Sørensen for the work done by him, the High Court does not found proven that the accused were aware that there could be a claim for payment for this work. It is therefore not evidenced that the accused had intent to commit fraud, why they are acquitted in this matter.
Re issue 57
Per the given explanation by witness Erik Flemming Nielsen to the district court in conjunction with the above generally stated on the accused //Vetted// and Henrik Madsen the High Court finds it is proved that the accused, who must be considered to have acted with intent to inflict haulage contractor Erik Flemming Nielsen a loss of capital, are guilty according to the indictment.
Re issue 58
The High Court as well as the District Court held that cleaning materials as referred to in the indictment were ordered by Kasper Hagen Møllenberg. Per the content of the presented invoices they were addressed to these accused //Vetted//. When this is compared to given explanation by Kasper Hagen Møllenberg to the police report that is documented in the High Court, and in view of the above generally stated on the accused, the High court finds it is proven that the accused //Vetted// and Henrik Madsen, who must be considered to have acted with intent to inflict Novodan Center Nordsjælland ApS a loss of capital, are guilty according to the indictment.
Re issue 59
As the ordering of the stay for the employees at Skuldelev Kro occurred in connection with work, which had to be performed on accused Henrik Madsen’s private property, the High Court it inadvisable to disregard his evidence before the district court that he knew nothing about it. The High Court finds it proven that the order has been made with the agreement or in concert with accused Henrik Madsen. Accused Henrik Madsen, who must be considered to have acted with intent to inflict Skuldelev Kro a loss of capital, is then found guilty according to the indictment.
Re issue 60
Of the reasons stated by the district court the High Court endorses that the accused Henrik Madsen, who must be considered to have acted with intent to inflict Unik Farver by/ Leif Hedegaard a loss of capital, is guilty according to the indictment.
Re issue 61
In opening it is noted that the asked for correction by the prosecutor of the High Court concerning this issue, so instead of “DMS Kontraktservice ApS” is inserted “For Kvalitet A/S” is not of such a nature that the accused Mikkel Guldager Nielsen did not have adequate possibility to defend himself, see current Code of Procedure § 917, paragraph. 1, see § 883, paragraph. 4, why the asked for correction is permitted pursuant to existing Code of Procedure § 917, paragraph. 1, see § 836, paragraph 2.
The High Court took into account, that the tasks the accused Mikkel Guldager Nielsen and the witness Peter Bejlegaard Jensen performed in Aalborg, were launched on the instructions of accused Henrik Madsen. Then, taking account the above generally stated on accused Henrik Madsen
it is found proven that accused Henrik Madsen, who must be considered to have acted with intent to inflict Radisson SAS a loss of capital, is guilty according to the indictment, as evidenced for the High Court.
As stated by the district court the plane tickets used by the accused Mikkel Guldager Nielsen were ordered and paid by accused //Vetted//. Per the evidence, including the explanation by the witness Mette Jensen to the district court, which is corroborated by the given explanation by the accused Mikkel Guldager Nielsen, it must further be assumed that the accused //Vetted// towards Mette Jensen has expressed that the Radisson SAS receivable would be paid. Then, taking account of the above generally stated on accused //Vetted// it is found proven that the accused //Vetted//, who must be considered to have acted with intent to inflict Radisson SAS a loss of capital, is guilty according to the indictment, as evidenced for the High Court.
Per the evidence for the High Court the High Court finds it is not proven that the accused Mikkel Guldager Nielsen at the time of the crime for issue 61 had such knowledge to the business methods used by the DMS companies that he realized that the bill from the Radisson SAS would not be paid by his employer, or that there was an obvious risk for this. The High Court has thereby also emphasized that the plane tickets had been booked and paid for by accused //Vetted// and that accused Mikkel Guldager Nielsen therefore could assume that she would also arrange for payment of other expenses. Accused Mikkel Guldager Nielsen is therefore acquitted in this matter.
Re issue 62
For the reasons stated by the district court the High Court endorses that the accused Henrik Madsen, who must be considered to have acted with intent to inflict Gundsø Beton ApS a loss of capital, is guilty according to the indictment.
Re issue 63
Of the reasons stated by the District Court which are corroborated by the given explanation to the High Court by the witness Willy Lock Rasmussen, the High court endorses that the accused Henrik Madsen, who must be considered to have acted with intent to inflict Hotel Hillerød a loss of capital, is guilty in accordance with the indictment, as evidenced for the High Court.
Re issue 64
Of the reasons stated by the District Court which are corroborated by the explanation given by the witness Willy Lock Rasmussen to the High Court, the High court endorses that the accused Henrik Madsen, who must be considered to have acted with intent to inflict Orø Kro a loss of capital, is guilty in accordance with the indictment.
Re issue 66
Of the reasons stated by the District Court which are corroborated by the explanation given by the witness Willy Lock Rasmussen to the High court, it is found proven that the accused Henrik Madsen and //Vetted//, who must be considered to have acted with intent to inflict Lynæs Kro by Horst Wolff a loss of capital, are guilty in accordance with the indictment.
Regarding the indictment Section C Ad issue 67
The High Court make, as the district court, the basis that accused Søren Henrik Salbøl failed to disclose about the rented equipment, when Din Rengøring A/S went bankrupt and that he contrary to the rights of Hewlett Packard A/S concerning the computer equipment handed it over to Dansk Multi Service ApS without prior permission from Hewlett Packard A/S. Then, and since it can not lead to another result, that equipment at a significantly later time re-appeared, it is found evidenced that the accused, who must be considered to have acted with intent to embezzlement, is guilty to the extent determined by the district court, however, that the matter is placed under Penal Code § 285, paragraph 1.
Re issue 69
High court finds it easy – as the District court – to disregard the explanation by the accused Henrik Madsen to the district court. Subsequently, and also according to the stated reasons by the district court concerning this, the accused Henrik Madsen is found guilty to the same extent as happened at the district court’s ruling.
Re issue 70
Per the evidence, including in the light of the vague explanation by the witness Lars Nielsen to the Tax office (Customs and Excise) concerning the invoice in question, the High Court finds it is not proven that the invoice was false. The accused Bo Madsen and Henrik Madsen are therefore acquitted on this point.
Determination of sanctions
As a result of the foregoing, the accused Hanne Dahl Riisbjerg and Mikkel Guldager Nielsen are acquitted.
The setting of the sanctions for the other accused is done pursuant to the provisions cited by the district court, however so that the citing of the VAT Act § 81 paragraph. 2, is omitted concerning the accused //Vetted//, Henrik Madsen and Søren Henrik Salbøl, that the citing of Penal Code § 172, paragraph. 2, see § 171, is omitted concerning the accused Henrik and Bo Madsen, and that the citing of the Penal Code § 286, paragraph. 2 concerning accused Søren Henrik Salbøl re issue 67 is changed to § 285, paragraph 1.
Per the High Court´s result of the evidence accused Søren Henrik Salbøl is found guilty of tax evasion at 7,291,524 DKK and the accused Henrik Madsen and //Vetted// are found guilty of similar evasion of 5,976,363 DKK. In addition, the accused are found guilty of fraud and attempt of fraud with a total financial loss or the threat thereof of 4,511,244 DKK in so far as accused Henrik Madsen, 2,811,979 DKK in so far as accused //Vetted//, 1,754,482 DKK in so far as accused Bo Madsen and 1,782,672 DKK in so far as accused Stig Nielsen. Finally, Henrik Madsen is found guilty of perjury and Søren Henrik Salbøl in embezzlement of 261,406 DKK.
In relation to the determination of the sanction the counsel for the defence has argued that the timing implies a violation of Article 6 of the European Human Right Convention.
The High Court has been informed that the tax aspects of the case were under investigation by Tax Office Hillerød (Customs and Tax Hillerød) from autumn 2001. Searches done on the addresses of the DMS-companies, including among others at the accused Henrik Madsen, Bo Madsen and //Vetted// were conducted on 13 June 2002, following a search warrant issued by the Copenhagen City Court. At the searches carried out were taken a significant amount of financial records equivalent to 25 boxes and some stored computer files. Per the report the financial records were deficient and disorderly and unsystematic condition.
The accused Bo Madsen, Henrik Madsen and //Vetted// were arrested, and the latter two were both remanded in custody following the searches.
Subsequently an extensive police investigation was launched, which included a larger number of orders to banks, contacting creditors of the bankrupted companies, and a rogatory letter to the U.S. authorities regarding accused Henrik Madsen’s economic interests in the U.S..
The request for charging from the tax office was received 17 December 2003, and the majority of the case was received by the prosecutor in July 2004.
On 25 October 2005 the prosecution submitted interrogation requests for a total of nine suspects, including all who were later accused, to the Copenhagen City Court for hearings and the possibility to treat the cases as confession cases. Most of the accused had previously through their lawyers announced that they did not want to be examined by the police.
Hearings were scheduled, but was for the accused persons subsequently canceled, as they still did not want to be examined, also not in court.
Indictment was forwarded to the Copenhagen City Court on 8 June 2006.
Regardless of the size and complexity, and regardless that the length of the processing time to some extent have been motivated by the behavior of the accused and circumstances among the defence lawyers, who per the wish of the accused have been appointed for them, the High court finds that the prosecution’s management of the case from July 2004 until the filing of the indictment in June 2006 compared with the total duration of the searches carried out on 13 June 2002 to the pronouncing of the appeal sentence 11 August 2011 after a comprehensive assessment involves a violation of the accused human rights under Article 6 of the European Human Rights Convention.
The sentences for the accused are determined based on one hand due to the considerable extent of the crime and on the other hand, the violation of Article 6 of the European Human Rights Convention and the time elapsed since the acts were committed, pursuant to Penal Code § 82, No. 13 and 14, and also for the reasons stated by the district court concerning the individual accused.
Re. determining sanctions for accused //Vetted//.
Four voting judges said:
Prosecutors and defense counsel did not want the matter referred to the Legal Medical Council and has submitted the claim that //Vetted// is ordered to undergo measures as suggested in the conclusion of the mental statement. It must be assumed in accordance with the conclusion in the mental statement that //Vetted//, when the crimes were committed, was covered by Penal Code § 69, but it is per the evaluation of the judges not clear, that it is suitable that //Vetted// is subject to measures as alleged instead of sanctions. However, the voting judges have not found sufficient reason for now to decide to postpone the decision of the case with the purpose of obtaining a statement from the Legal Medical Council. Based on the present mental statement the voting judges also find it dangerous against the claims of the parties to impose the usual sanctions. The voting judges therefore vote in favour of, that //Vetted// is not sanctioned, but sentenced to outpatient psychiatric treatment at the psychiatric department overseen by the Probation Service so that the Probation Service together with the head doctor can decide concerning hospitalization, and thus the longest time for the provisions and hospitalization shall be 5 years and 1 year.
Two voting judges said:
Per the symptoms described in the mental statement and given the cited sanctions we don´t find it suitable, including to prevent further offenses, to impose measures other than sanctions. We therefore vote in favour of sentence the accused //Vetted// a sanction of imprisonment for 1 year and 6 months and affirm the district court’s decision on an additional fine, with the modification that the alternative penalty shall be imprisonment for 40 days.
The sentence concerning the size of the sanction is for the accused //Vetted// passed upon according to majority vote.
The penalty for accused Henrik Madsen, there is an additional sentence per the Penal Code § 89, is reduced to imprisonment for 3 years. The penalty is established pursuant to Penal Code § 61 paragraph. 1 as a single sentence, which also comprises the suspended prison sentence at decision of 1 November 2005.
The penalty for accused Søren Henrik Salbøl is reduced to imprisonment for 2 years.
Additional penalty for accused Bo Madsen is reduced to imprisonment for 1 year and 6 months.
The penalty for accused Stig Nielsen, which is an additional penalty cf Penal Code § 89 and the principle therein, is reduced to imprisonment for 1 year. The Court notes that the accused´s previous convictions for property crimes have no repetition effect in relation to this matter.
Notwithstanding the acquittal of accused Hanne Dahl Riisbjerg and the imposition of a measure on accused //Vetted// the High Court finds no basis for raising the additional fines that the accused Henrik Madsen and Søren Henrik Salbøl have been impose by the District Court ruling.
The alternative penalties by the District court ruling for accused Henrik Madsen is changed to jail for 40 days and accused Søren Henrik Salbøl to jail for 60 days.
Per the decision by the legal judges the district court’s decision on damages is upheld on issue 1, 3, 3A, 4-9 and 11-14 with the modification that Hanne Dahl Riisbjerg is acquitted these claims and the amount payable for issue 12 is reduced from 377,126 DKK 376,971 DKK.
Damage claims relating to other issues are accepted as per the specification below. To the extent that damage claims have not been accepted, they are transferred to a possible civil action.
The damage amounts relating to issue 24, 26 and 41 bear interest at process rates as per the District Court judgments, as the claims have not been further explained for the High Court.
It is hereby decided:
The accused Hanne Dahl Riisbjerg and Mikkel Nielsen Guldager are acquitted.
Accused //Vetted// is sentenced to outpatient psychiatric treatment at the psychiatric department overseen by the Probation Service so that the Probation Service together with the chief doctor may determine hospitalization. Longest time for the measure is fixed at 5 years and the longest time of hospitalization is set to 1 year.
Accused Henrik Madsen is sentenced with a single additional sentence of imprisonment for 3 years.
Accused Søren Henrik Salbøl sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years.
The decision in the sentence on additional fines to the accused Henrik Madsen and Søren Henrik Salbøl is confirmed with the modification that the alternative penalty for accused Henrik Madsen is jail for 40 days while alternative penalty for accused Søren Henrik Salbøl is jail for 60 days.
Accused Bo Madsen is sentenced by an additional sentence of imprisonment for 1 year and 6 months.
Accused Stig Nielsen is sentenced by an additional sentence of imprisonment for 1 year.
The Treasury must pay the costs of both courts on the accused Hanne Dahl Riisbjerg and Mikkel Guldager Nielsen and the costs of the High Court regarding the other accused, while the district court’s ruling on costs for these accused is confirmed.
The district court’s decision regarding the compensation issue in point 1, 3, 3A, 4-9 and 11-14 is confirmed with the modification that Hanne Dahl Riisbjerg is acquitted for the claimed compensation, and that the accused //Vetted//, Henrik Madsen and Søren Henrik Salbøl concerning point 12 jointly have to pay DKK 376,971.
The accused Søren Henrik Salbøl, Henrik Madsen, //Vetted//, Stig Nielsen and Bo Madsen must on the other issues pay compensation as follows:
(the following abbreviations used by translator: //Vetted//=HMJ, Henrik Madsen=HM, Søren Henrik Salbøl=SHS, Stig Nielsen=SN, Bo Madsen=BM)
Issue Accused The compensated part Amount in DKK
16, 54 HMJ & HM, jointly Kuwait Petroleum A/S,
Law Firm Brask Thomsen
St. Clemens Torv 8,
DK-8100 Aarhus C 306,190.48
19 HM Henkel-Ecolab A/S 70,512.62
Carl Jacobsen Vej 29-37
20 HMJ & HM jointly ATP-Huset, Feriekonto 198,532.92
Kongens Vænge 8
21 HM Jensen-Sega A/S 49,803.00
c/o lawyer Peter Skov Sørensen
1253 Copenhagen K
22 HMJ & HM jointly Sonofon, Skelagervej 1 50,756.18
24 HM & SN jointly Thisted Trapper 30,650
c/o Attorney Ronald Juul Pedersen
25 HMJ & HM jointly Søndagsavisen A/S 2,262.50
Gladsaxe Møllevej 28, 2860 Søborg
26 HMJ, HM & BM Bowie Møbelindustri A/S, 89,628.19
jointly c/o attorney Tauby Peter Sørensen, Landemærket 10
27 HMJ & HM jointly Bravida Danmark A/S 214,938.66
(formerly Semco Danmark A/S) Park Allé 373, 2605 Brøndby
BM jointly Bravida Danmark A/S 29,533.41
with HMJ & HM (formerly Semco Danmark A/S) Park Allé 373, 2605 Brøndby
29 HM & SN jointly Paustian A/S, Skovvejen 2, 80,858.63
8000 Aarhus C
30 HMJ, HM & BM Falck Danmark A/S 229,282.51
jointly Roskildevej 157, 2620 Albertslund
31 HMJ, HM & BM Rentokil Initial A/S, 58,657.50
jointly Paul Bergsøes Vej 22, 2600 Glostrup
32 HMJ, HM & BM Altikon Kontormøbler A/S 117,967.50 jointly Kobbervænget 74, 2700 Brønshøj
33 HM & SN jointly Brejnholts Tømmerhandel 260,906.04 Ømeborgvej 46, 8900 Randers
Hermes Kreditforsikring, Nyropsgade 45, 5,
1504 Copenhagen V
34 HM & SN jointly De Gule Sider A/S 691,750.00 (formerly TDC Forlag A/S) Rødovrevej 241, 2610 Rødovre
HMJ jointly with De Gule Sider A/S 325,000 HM & SN (formerly TDC Forlag A/S) Rødovrevej 241, 2610 Rødovre
35 HM & SN jointly Topnordic A/S 283,575.26 (formerly Eterra A/S) Oluf Palmes Alle 44, 8100 Aarhus N
36 HMJ, HM & BM Minolta Danmark A/S 77,142.50 Stenmosevej 15, 2620 Albertslund
37 HM & SN jointly Sonofon 174,041.11 Skelagervej 1, 9000 Aalborg
38 HM & SN jointly Canon Business Center 80,288.75 Knud Højgaards Vej 1 2860 Søborg
39 HMJ, HM & BM Xerox Partner City A/S 68,175.00 jointly Kornmarksvej 6 2605 Brøndby
40 HMJ, HM & BM Bondo Kontormøbler A/S 121,280.00
jointly Smedeholm 16 2730 Herlev
41 HMJ, HM & BM Abena A/S 38,957.50 jointly Egelund 35 6200 Aabenraa
42 HM & SN jointly Estate of HT Defta A/S 70,833.56 v/Birgit Skovbo Jørgensen Olinemindesvej 30 8722 Hedensted and
Hermes Kreditforsikring Nyropsgade 45, 5th
1504 Copenhagen V
45 HMJ, HM & BM Semaphor v/T. Fonsmark 91,284.38 jointly Trekronergade 147B 2500 Valby
46 HMJ, HM & BM Papyrex A/S 98,837.32 jointly Rugvænget 8-14 6100 Ringsted
47 HMJ, HM & BM Trico Firmatøj A/S 169,643.13 jointly Sjællandsgade 21 7100 Vejle
49 HM & BM jointly GSV Materialudlejning A/S 107,985.38 Industrialkrogen 18 2635 Ishøj
51 HM & BM jointly Værktøjssalget v/Ame C. 1,156.26 Bredgade 165 9700 Brønderslev
52 HMJ, HM & BM Johnson Diversey 150,093.13 jointly (formerly Diversey Lever A/S) Teglbuen 10 2990 Nivå
53 HMJ & HM jointly Servial CC ApS 6,375.00 Ramløsevej 59 3200 Helsinge
55 HM & SN jointly Per Aarsleff A/S, Åbybro 61,620.71 Lokesvej 5 8230 Åbybro
57 HMJ & HM jointly Vognmand Erik F. Nielsen 763.75 Svalebo 22A 2750 Ballerup
58 HMJ & HM jointly Novodan Center N. ApS 38,873.56 Gydevang 18 3450 Allerød
59 HM Hotel Skuldelev Kro 8,738.00
60 HM Unik Frederikssund Farver 3,397,73 w/Leif Hedegaard Jernbanegade 13a 3600 Frederikssund
61 HMJ & HM jointly Radisson SAS 13,471.66 Limfjord Hotel Ved Stranden 14-16 9000 Aalborg
62 HM & SN jointly Gundsø Beton ApS 30,986.25 Holmevej 41 Gundsømagle, 3670 Veksø
63 HM & SN jointly Hotel Hillerød 14,650.00 Milnersvej 41 3400 Hillerød
64 HM & SN jointly Hotel Orø Kro 2,512.00 Bygaden 57, Orø 4300 Holbæk
66 HMJ & HM jointly Lynæs Kro w/Horst Wolff 2,172.00
67 SHS Hewlett Packard A/S 261,406.75
Attorney Jens Anker Rasmussen,
Gl. Mønt 4
1117 Copenhagen K
The compensations concerning point 24, 26 and 41 bear interest with process interest starting 25 August 2009.
The sentenced compensations must be paid within 14 days.