There is no Danish statutory law or body of rules that specifically deals with asset tracing and recovery. A victim of fraud can pursue a claim through the civil court system or through criminal proceedings handled by the Danish Prosecution Service. The following is a non-exhaustive and general overview of the rules and regulation on fraud cases from both a civil and criminal perspective.
II LEGAL RIGHTS AND REMEDIES
i Civil and criminal remedies
Danish legal system
The Danish court system is a three-tiered judicial system consisting of 24 district courts, the two High Courts (of Eastern and Western Denmark) and the Supreme Court. All courts handle both criminal and civil cases. Additionally, the Maritime and Commercial High Court is a court aligned with the district courts that specialises in and deals only with commercial disputes.2
Usually, the court of first instance will be the competent district court. However, at the request of either party a case can be referred to either the Eastern or Western High Court if the dispute in question is of fundamental legal importance and of general importance to the application and interpretation of the relevant law or has significant societal implications in general.3
The Danish Prosecution Service works together with the police to prosecute crime.4 The police are responsible for investigating crime, while the Danish Prosecution Service is responsible for bringing charges and prosecuting the cases before the courts.
Different types of economic crime are some of the most common criminal offences in Denmark.5 Economic crime includes offences such as fraud, embezzlement, breach of trust and fraudulent preference.6 These offences are punishable by up to one and a half years' imprisonment or, in particularly aggravating circumstances, up to eight years' imprisonment.7
Criminal offences must be reported to the police.8 The offence may be reported by the victim or any other person. For certain offences, criminal prosecution can only be initiated by the victim (private prosecution) or at the victim's request (conditional public prosecution).9 In all other cases, the police can act without the offence first being reported to it, and the police can thus decide to initiate or continue investigations, even if the reporting party withdraws the report.10
In most cases where the criminal offence is an offence against others, eg. fraud, the offence will be reported to the police by the victim, and the police will most often not initiate investigations, unless the offence is reported.11 In other criminal cases involving the Danish Criminal Code or specific statutes, investigations are initiated by the police, sometimes at the request of the relevant regulatory authority (eg. in the area of taxation and money laundering).
On completion of investigations, the police chief will decide whether to bring charges.12 Under section 685 of the Danish Administration of Justice Act, the victim's claim for damages may be heard by the court together with the criminal case subject to certain conditions. At the request of the police, the court may also decide to seize assets, among other things as security for the victim's claim for recovery or damages.13
Action for damages
A victim who has suffered a financial loss due to fraud can pursue his claim in a civil case pursuant to Danish tort law. According to Danish tort law, damages may be awarded if the following cumulative criteria are met:
- there is a legal basis for liability;
- the victim has suffered a financial loss; and
- the loss is a foreseeable consequence of the act or omission constituting the legal basis for liability.
The legal basis for liability includes negligence, wilful misconduct and (in certain instances) strict liability. A violation of statutory provisions, standard business practices or terms of a contract will usually be deemed a negligent act.14
Liability of board of directors and executive board of a limited liability company
The liability of members of the board of directors and the executive board of a limited liability company is codified in Section 361 of the Danish Companies Act,15 which provides that promoters and members of management are liable for damage caused by intentional or negligent acts. Members of management will usually not be held liable for informed decisions made in good faith (a somewhat similar standard as the 'business judgement rule').
There are numerous examples of case law on management liability. This includes cases in which the board of directors or the executive board, or both, sold company assets at less than market price, thus inflicting a loss on the company's creditors, granted funds, issued loans or provided security to shareholders or management itself without complying with Sections 206–212 of the Danish Companies Act or failed to take necessary measures in the event of loss of share capital.16 Members of the management can be held liable by the shareholders, the company, suppliers and creditors and also by the appointed trustee on behalf of the estate (in case of insolvency proceedings).17
Actions for declaratory judgment
A victim having lost an asset as a result of fraud may institute a declaratory action for the defendant to be ordered to acknowledge the victim's ownership of the asset. If the plaintiff prevails in the declaratory action, the asset may be recovered with the assistance of the enforcement court via summary enforcement proceedings.18
Issuance of bankruptcy order
If the victim can be considered a creditor as a result of the fraud, the victim also has the option of petitioning for the debtor's (the offender's) bankruptcy, and the debtor will then lose control of the assets.19 Subject only to a few exceptions, all of the debtor's assets as at the date of bankruptcy will be held by the bankruptcy estate for distribution in accordance with the hierarchy of creditors set out in the Danish Bankruptcy Act.20 However, any assets belonging to third parties (e.g., the victim) must be returned to the relevant party and will not be subject to the bankruptcy distribution rules.21
One advantage of petitioning for the debtor's (the offender's) bankruptcy is that a trustee of the bankruptcy estate will examine the debtor's situation and transactions made prior to bankruptcy. If these investigations show that fraudulent transactions have taken place, the bankruptcy estate may also raise claims against the other parties which have benefited from such transactions.
The primary condition for filing a bankruptcy petition against a debtor is that the debtor must be insolvent, that is, unable to pay his debts as and when due, unless the inability to pay is only temporary.22 The creditor's claim does not have to be established by judgment, but must have such clarity as for some degree of likelihood to exist that the claim is legitimate.23
ii Defences to fraud claims
Criminal limitation period
A criminal offence is no longer punishable once it is barred by limitation.24 The duration of the limitation period depends on the maximum penalty prescribed for the offence. A claim regarding fraud, embezzlement, breach of trust and fraudulent preference is barred after five years.25 In particularly aggravating circumstances, the limitation period is 10 years.26
The limitation period is usually reckoned from the date when the criminal act or omission ceased.27 However, where criminality depends on or is influenced by a current consequence or other subsequent event, the limitation period is reckoned from the date when that consequence or event occurred.28
Civil limitation period
Civil claims are subject to the Danish Limitation Act.29 The general limitation period is three years, unless otherwise specified in other statutory provisions. If the claim is in consequence of a breach of contract, the period is reckoned from time of the breach.30 If the claim is in tort, the period is reckoned from the date when the damage occurred.31 The limitation can be suspended if the victim did not know and should not have known about the claim or the (rightful) debtor.32
Waiver of claims by reason of inaction
In some cases, a civil claim may be waived by reason of the claimant's inaction. If the debtor has reasonable cause to doubt the existence of the claim or the claimant's intention to assert it, the claimant must clarify to his debtor that he intends to assert his claim. Otherwise, he risks waiving his right to do so at a later time.33
Release from liability under company law
In limited liability companies, the general meeting may resolve by a simple majority to release management from liability. This would normally mean that the company will have no claim against them for matters which are known to the general meeting. However, this does not apply if the release from liability was granted on a false or inadequate basis.34 A release from liability will not relieve management of liability to parties other than the company itself.
The money rule
Danish law operates with a general property law principle that a monetary amount that has been paid cannot be recovered from the payee, even if the payor was not authorised to pay the money (the money rule). The historical application of the rule is to cash payments and the extent of the application of the rule to electronic wire transfers is unclear. It is also a condition for the application of the rule that the payment is a genuine transaction and that the payee acts in good faith with regard to the payor not being entitled to the money. Accordingly, a victim of fraud cannot recover money from a third party if the third party received the money in good faith.
III SEIZURE AND EVIDENCE
i Securing assets and proceeds
At the investigation stage and also during the trial, the courts may decide to seize an asset for the purpose of preserving evidence or as security for the victim's claim for recovery of the asset or damages.35 The rule applies to assets, chattels and property controlled by the suspect of a crime and even – although to a lesser extent – assets in the possession of a non-suspect.
A decision to seize will be made by court order, and the order may be sought by the police as well as the victim.36 In some cases, however, the police may bypass the courts and make a summary decision to seize if the purpose would otherwise be lost.
The seizure order will be lifted or terminate, depending on its terms and the outcome of the investigations and any subsequent criminal prosecution. The court's decision-making powers are subject to certain restrictions – for one thing, no decision can be made by the court during the criminal proceedings as to who owns the seized assets.37
Generally, enforcement of a claim can be sought in accordance with Section 478 of the Danish Administration of Justice Act. Court judgments, out-of-court settlements, arbitral awards, debt instruments and mortgages and pledges may serve as the basis for enforcement.
However, a victim of fraud will usually have no basis for enforcement, and if the victim must wait for a court to decide on the matter, there is a risk that the offender will have disposed of his profits and assets.
Certain interim remedies are available in order to accommodate this risk. A victim of fraud can seek an attachment order against assets belonging to the offender.38 When an attachment order is issued, the owner loses control of the asset affected by the attachment order.
An attachment order does not grant security over the asset. Instead, the purpose of the order is to ensure that the owner does not dispose of the assets so creditors can levy execution. Any creditor can, however, levy execution on the asset and not just the person seeking the order.
An attachment order may be issued if the following cumulative criteria39 are met:
- there is no basis for enforcement of the victims claim under Section 478 of the Danish Administration of Justice Act;
- the prospect of the victim obtaining coverage for his claim will materially deteriorate in the absence of an attachment order against the defendant's assets. The victim bears the burden of proof. The criteria will usually be met if the victim can prove that the defendant's transactions are unusual;40 and
- the defendant cannot prove that the victim's claim most likely does not exist. Usually, the party alleging to have a claim bears the burden of proving its existence. Under this rule, however, the defendant must prove that the claim (most likely) does not exist in order to prevent the attachment order being granted.
An application for an attachment order must be filed in writing to the relevant enforcement court, and must include the necessary information about the circumstances supporting the claim.41 The enforcement court may request the person seeking the attachment order to provide security for damages in respect of the defendant if the order turns out to be unjustified.42
The enforcement court can also decide to physically remove the assets affected by the order from the defendant to make sure that the defendant is not able to dispose of them.43
Having obtained an attachment order, the victim must then file a civil suit against the defendant within seven days of the attachment hearing.44 The court must confirm that the claim on which the order was granted is justified, and confirm the attachment order (this is known as a 'confirmatory action').
Dispossession of assets prior to bankruptcy order
When a bankruptcy order is issued, the debtor loses control of the assets.45 Before issuing a bankruptcy order, however, the probate court may decide at the request of a creditor to dispossess the debtor of his or her assets if there is a risk that the debtor may dispose of the assets to the detriment of the creditors.46
ii Obtaining evidence
The rules on obtaining of evidence are found in the Danish Administration of Justice Act. The common ways of obtaining evidence are through examination of parties, disclosure and expert evidence.
Any person summoned by a party to a current civil case will be under an obligation to appear and give evidence before the relevant court. The person summoned may request to be excused either in part (on certain subjects) or in full – for example, if giving evidence would expose the person or any of his or her connected persons to the penalty of the law or would be detrimental to his or her, or their, safety or welfare.47
A victim of fraud can seek a disclosure order with respect to documents in the defendant's or a third party's possession.48 If so, the victim must specify which documents are requested, which facts the victim seeks to prove with the documents and why the documents are relevant to those facts. The victim must also provide the reasons why the documents are (thought to be) in the other party's possession.49
If the defendant does not comply with the order, the court may conclude in its ruling on the substance that the evidence assumed to be contained in the requested documents prejudices the defendant's case.50 While the court cannot force the disclosure of any documents in the defendant's possession, it does have certain measures to compel a third party to comply with the order of disclosure.51
Expert evidence is mostly used to explain any complicated factual circumstances of a case. The rules governing expert evidence are found in Part 19 of the Danish Administration of Justice Act.
A party may request the court's permission for the taking of evidence even before the issue of proceedings.52 The purpose of taking evidence before a trial is to enable a party to obtain evidence for the purpose of the trial, and it is thus a precondition to the taking of evidence that the claim in question is capable of serving as the basis of a trial.53
In the case of bankruptcy proceedings, the debtor is required to provide the trustee of the bankruptcy estate with all information which is necessary for the administration of the estate.54 The trustee may summon the debtor or others to give evidence before the probate court. In this case, too, the debtor and others may request to be excused.55 With the assistance of the enforcement court, if relevant, the trustee of a bankruptcy estate may seek to recover any documents as well as assets that may be assumed to belong to the bankruptcy estate.
IV FRAUD IN SPECIFIC CONTEXTS
i Banking and money laundering
Act on Measures to Prevent Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism
The Danish Act on Measures to Prevent Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism (the AML Act) implements parts of the EU Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive.56 The AML Act reflects a shift from rule-based towards increasingly risk-based regulation, with an increased anti-money laundering effort in high-risk areas.
The AML Act imposes a number of obligations on financial institutions and other liable parties (including lawyers in some cases). In particular, financial institutions must identify and assess the risk of being misused for money-laundering or terrorist financing purposes, they must perform know-your-customer (KYC) procedures and they must investigate and report any unusual transactions that give rise to suspicions of money laundering or terrorist financing.
The AML Act is intended to safeguard the interests of society in general with regard to ensuring the stability of and confidence in the financial system. It has, therefore, been an important element in Danish AML regulation that effective sanctions are available under the AML Act.57
The Danish Financial Supervisory Authority has been given the central supervisory role.58 Any non-compliance is punishable by a fine or, in particularly aggravating circumstances or in case of intentional non-compliance with specified provisions, up to six months' imprisonment.59 In determining the amount of the fine, weight will be given to the financial situation of the person in question and, for businesses, weight will be given to its net turnover when the non-compliance occurred.60
Denmark has seen an increase in the number of AML reports to the authorities.61 In 2010, a Danish bank was issued with a 12.5 million kroner fine for non-compliance by its Gibraltar branch with Spanish AML regulation. In 2015, a minor exchange bureau in Copenhagen was issued with a 92 million kroner fine, and two persons were sentenced to six months' imprisonment for money laundering worth 184 million kroner from the exchange bureau's basement room without any records being kept of the transactions or notification being made to the authorities.62 Also in 2015, a Swedish (now Finnish) bank was issued with a 50 million kronor fine by the Swedish FSA for non-compliance with its statutory obligations.
Liability of banks
Before the turn of the century, there were several instances in Denmark of 'profit-making companies' that had ceased all operations and only held cash or cash equivalents as well as a current or deferred tax burden being sold. The companies were transferred to the buyers, who in connection with the acquisition (or immediately after) stripped the company of its cash or cash equivalents without paying the relevant taxes, and then the company was declared bankrupt. A number of banks were ordered to pay damages for their assistance in connection with this, as the banks knew or ought to have known that this constituted unlawful self-dealings and that the Danish tax authorities would suffer a loss as a result of the transactions.63
A bankruptcy estate may avoid transactions and payments made in a limited time period leading up to the beginning of an insolvency procedure if the transaction has inflicted a loss on the creditors of the estate.64 The time period will usually be limited to transactions made later than three or six months prior to the reference date (the date when the court received the bankruptcy petition).65 There is, however, one rule on avoidance which is not limited to any specific time frame, but conditioned upon other facts and circumstances.66
Avoidance can take place in respect of any unusual payments to specific creditors, charges or other security granted in favour of specific creditors covering already established debt towards the same parties, unusual gifts granted or other fraudulent transactions that have inflicted a loss on the creditors.67
The Danish Arbitration Act68 is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Disputes concerning legal relationships in respect of which the parties have an unrestricted right of disposition may be submitted to arbitration.69 Accordingly, a criminal case cannot be settled by arbitration.
The parties can agree to submit to arbitration a dispute which has arisen or may arise between them in respect of a defined legal relationship.70 Due to the doctrine of separability, the invalidity of the main contract does not necessarily also render invalid the arbitration clause contained in the contract, and the party can still be bound by the arbitration clause. However, with regard to consumer contracts an arbitration agreement concluded prior to the occurrence of the dispute will not be binding.71
When a valid arbitration agreement is entered into by the parties, the courts do not have jurisdiction to decide the dispute. However, a party can seek an order for an interim measure of protection from the courts, even if the parties have agreed to arbitration.72
iv Fraud's effect on evidentiary rules and legal privilege
Fraud has no express effect on evidentiary rules according to the wording of the law, but the presence and scope of fraud may affect how a court will exercise its free evidentiary discretion in connection with the issues put before the court.
In Denmark, lawyers are subject to a duty of confidentiality.73 For this reason, lawyers are generally excluded from giving evidence on matters that have come to their knowledge in the course of their professional activities.74 Nor are lawyers generally required to produce any documents that have come into their possession in the course of their professional activities.75
The court may order a lawyer to give evidence or produce documents in his or her possession if this is deemed to be of crucial importance to the outcome of the case and if justified by the nature of the case and its significance to the party in question or society as such.76
Lawyers' duty of confidentiality may also be subject to specific statutory basis.77 By way of example, lawyers are required under the provisions of the AML Act to report any suspicions of money laundering.78 The duty to report does not apply to information received in the course of or in connection with a lawsuit.79
V INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS
i Conflict of law and choice of law in fraud claims
In disputes concerning contractual obligations, Denmark is bound by the 1980 Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations,80 which generally applies to all contracts. Denmark is not bound by the Rome I Regulation or the Rome II Regulation (on non-contractual obligations) due to the Danish EU opt-out with respect to the area of justice and home affairs.
Choice of law regarding contracts for sale of goods is regulated in the 1955 Convention on the Law Applicable to International Sale of Goods and the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods.
Choice of law in tort is based on jurisprudence. Generally, the Danish courts follow the principle of lex loci delecti (place of injury), but may derogate from this principle when deciding upon which rules apply to the merits of the dispute.81
ii Collection of evidence in support of proceedings abroad
Council Regulation (EC) No. 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters does not apply in Denmark due to the Danish opt-out with respect to the area of justice and home affairs. However, Denmark has ratified the Hague Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, which is similar to the Regulation.
Under the Convention, a contracting state may request another contracting state in writing to procure and secure evidence in accordance with the national procedural rules of the latter state.
iii Seizure of assets or proceeds of fraud in support of the victim of fraud
The provisions of the Danish Administration of Justice Act on attachment orders apply irrespective of the nationality and residence of the party seeking the attachment order. However, a plaintiff who does not reside in an EU or EEA country may be required to provide security for the payment of legal costs to the defendant.82
iv Enforcement of judgments granted abroad in relation to fraud claims
Denmark is bound by the Brussels Regulation indirectly through a parallel agreement with the EU due to Denmark's opt-out with respect to the area of justice and home affairs.83
Furthermore, Denmark is bound by the Lugano Convention.84 The Convention is only relevant in matters where the international authority of the court must be decided and the case at hand has connection to both Denmark and an EEA country which is not also a member of the EU.
Regarding enforcement and recognition of foreign arbitral awards, Denmark is bound by the New York Convention.85 The recognition of foreign arbitral awards in Denmark extends beyond arbitral awards from other countries which have ratified the New York Convention.86
v Fraud as a defence to enforcement of judgments granted abroad
In accordance with the Brussels Regulation, Denmark is directly required to recognise and enforce judgments granted in other member states.87 Recognition and enforcement of a judgment may be refused if this would conflict with fundamental principles of law (public policy).
Any fraud committed by a party during the legal proceedings (e.g., by forgery or misrepresentation) will probably only rarely constitute sufficient grounds to refuse recognition and enforcement, particularly if the objection was submitted to the court and rejected by it or if the objection could have been made during the proceedings but was not.88
In addition, recognition and enforcement may be refused if the judgment in question is a default judgment and the defendant did not have sufficient opportunity to safeguard his interests during the proceedings or if the judgment is in conflict with a decision made in Denmark or another EU member state on the same issue and between the same parties.89
Similar rules apply in part to recognition of arbitral awards and derogations therefrom.90
VI CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS
i Implementation of Fourth and Fifth AML Directives
The Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive is implemented into Danish law, and the provisions entered into force on 26 June 2017.91 As a result of the implementation, companies were required to sharpen their customer risk assessment procedures. At the same time, the rules on registration of beneficial owners of companies were tightened.
The Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive is also implemented into Danish law, and the provisions will enter into force on 10 January 2020.92 As a result of the amendments, the scope of the AML Act will be extended to also include virtual currencies and participants in the virtual currency market. Furthermore, a duty to notify will be introduced with regard to inconsistencies in the information on beneficial owners, and stricter requirements will apply in relation to KYC procedures for customers from high-risk countries.
In Denmark, the legislature has elected to over-implement the Directive, which means that in Danish law a specific rule has been adopted which imposes a requirement of notification to the ultimate governing body with regard to whistleblowing disclosures and the like. In addition, the circulation of €500 notes will be banned in Denmark.
ii Money-laundering liability of banks
Recently, there has been an increase in focus in Denmark on banks' AML compliance because of several instances of non-compliance that have been seen; see also above.
A major Danish bank had a customer portfolio in a foreign branch, which for many years received payments from external parties, and the customers also made payments to recipients who were not a part of the portfolio. In 2014, the bank received reports that the branch's measures to prevent money laundering were deficient. Initiatives were then implemented to address the deficiencies, but even so, administrative sanctions were imposed on the bank by the authorities in 2015.
In the autumn of 2017, the bank initiated its own investigations of the branch's practices. The report showed that the branch generally had inadequate focus on the risk of money laundering and that, at group level, the bank had not taken adequate measures to redress the deficiencies.
In the period since the report was issued, the authorities have reopened their investigations into the matter, and a number of shareholders have issued or are in the process of issuing legal proceedings. So far, there are no publicly known instances of a bank's management having been held liable for AML non-compliance.
1 Anders Hauge Gløde is a partner at Bech-Bruun Advokatpartnerselskab.
2 Section 225 of the Danish Administration of Justice Act.
3 Section 226(1) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act.
4 Section 96 of the Danish Administration of Justice Act.
5 Knud Waaben and Bo Langsted: Strafferettens specielle del, 6th edition, 2014, p. 107.
6 Sections 278, 279, 280 and 283 of the Danish Criminal Code.
7 Section 286(1) and (2) of the Danish Criminal Code.
8 Section 742 of the Danish Administration of Justice Act.
9 Cases involving, for example, violations of the Danish Marketing Practices Act and certain instances of industrial espionage are subject to private prosecution, while criminal offences under Sections 291(1) and (3), 293(2), 298 and 299 of the Danish Criminal Code are subject to conditional public prosecution, see Section 305(5) of the Danish Criminal Code.
10 Gorm Toftegaard Nielsen: Straffesagens gang, 6th edition, 2016, p. 38.
11 Gorm Toftegaard Nielsen: Straffesagens gang, 6th edition, 2016, p. 38.
12 Section 719 of the Danish Administration of Justice Act.
13 Section 801(1)(iii) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act; see also Section 806(2).
14 Bo Von Eyben and Helle Isager: Lærebog i erstatningsret, 8th edition, 2015, chapter 4.3.
15 Act no. 1089 of 14 September 2015 – the Danish Companies Act.
16 See the Supreme Court judgments as reported in the Danish weekly law reports: UfR 2018.1435 H, UfR 2011.963 H and UfR 2007.497 H.
17 See the Supreme Court judgment as reported in the Danish weekly law reports for 2015: UfR 2015.2219 H: The transfer of FC Nordsjælland Holding A/S was effected at undervalue and was voidable. The members of the board of directors were ordered to pay DKK 10 million in damages.
18 Ulrik Rammeskow Bang-Pedersen, Lasse Højlund Christensen and Clement Salung Petersen: Den Civile Retspleje, 5th edition, 2017, p. 125.
19 Section 29 of the Danish Bankruptcy Act.
20 Part 10 of the Danish Bankruptcy Act.
21 Section 82 of the Danish Bankruptcy Act.
22 Section 17(2) of the Danish Bankruptcy Act.
23 Lars Lindencrone Petersen and Torben Kuld Hansen: Insolvensprocesret, 3rd edition, 2014, p. 131.
24 Section 92 of the Danish Criminal Code.
25 Section 93(1) of the Danish Criminal Code.
26 Section 93(2) of the Danish Criminal Code.
27 Section 94(1) of the Danish Criminal Code.
28 Section 94(2) of the Danish Criminal Code.
29 Consolidated Act No. 1238 of 9 November 2015 – the Danish Limitation Act.
30 Section 2(3) of the Danish Limitation Act.
31 Section 2(4) of the Danish Limitation Act.
32 Section 3(2) of the Danish Limitation Act.
33 Bernhard Gomard and Torsten Iversen: Obligationsret 3. del, 2nd edition, 2018, p. 266.
34 Section 364(2) of the Danish Companies Act.
35 Section 801 of the Danish Administration of Justice Act.
36 Section 806 of the Danish Administration of Justice Act.
37 Section 807d of the Danish Administration of Justice Act.
38 Section 627 of the Danish Administration of Justice Act.
39 Section 627(1)(i) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act.
40 Anders Ørgaard: Eksekutionsret, 2nd edition, 2016, p. 46.
41 Section 631(1) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act.
42 Section 629(1) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act.
43 Section 633 of the Danish Administration of Justice Act.
44 Section 634(1) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act.
45 Section 29 of the Danish Bankruptcy Act.
46 Section 26(1)-(4) of the Danish Bankruptcy Act.
47 Section 171 of the Danish Administration of Justice Act.
48 Sections 298 and 299 of the Danish Administration of Justice Act.
49 Sections 300 and 341 of the Danish Administration of Justice Act.
50 Section 298(2) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act; see Section 344(2).
51 Section 299(2) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act; see Section 178.
52 Section 343(1) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act.
53 Ulrik Rammeskow Bang-Pedersen, Lasse Højlund Christensen and Clement Salung Petersen: Den Civile Retspleje, 5th edition, 2017, p. 506.
54 Section 100 of the Danish Bankruptcy Act.
55 See the Supreme Court judgment as reported in the Danish weekly law reports for 2000 (UfR 2000.1201 H).
56 Act No. 651 of 8 June 2017 on Measures to Prevent Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism – the Danish AML Act.
57 Political agreement of 21 June 2017 on further initiatives to strengthen efforts to combat money laundering and terrorist financing.
58 Section 47 of the Danish AML Act.
59 Sections 78–80 of the Danish AML Act.
60 Section 78(3) of the Danish AML Act.
61 In 2010, the State Prosecutor for Serious Economic and International Crime received fewer than 2,000 reports. In 2015, the number had increased to some 15,000 reports, and the number had further increased to 36,000 in 2018.
62 See also the High Court judgment as reported in the Journal of Criminal Law for 2015 (TfK 2015.1110 Ø), where the company was issued with a 1 million kroner fine and the CEO a 100,000 kroner fine for non-compliance with a number of provisions of the AML Act in connection with currency exchange.
63 Several examples can be found, eg. the two Supreme Court judgments as reported in the Danish weekly law reports: UfR 2000.365/2 H, UfR 2011.1064 H.
64 All rules are contained in Part 8 of the Danish Bankruptcy Act.
65 Section 1 of the Danish Bankruptcy Act.
66 Section 74 of the Danish Bankruptcy Act.
67 Sections 64, 67, 70 and 74 of the Danish Bankruptcy Act.
68 Act No. 553 of 24 June 2005 – the Danish Arbitration Act.
69 Section 6 of the Danish Arbitration Act.
70 Section 7(1) of the Danish Arbitration Act.
71 Section 7(2) of the Danish Arbitration Act.
72 Section 9 of the Danish Arbitration Act.
73 Section 129 of the Danish Administration of Justice Act.
74 Section 170(1) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act.
75 Section 299 of the Danish Administration of Justice Act; see Section 169.
76 Section 170(2) of Danish Administration of Justice Act.
77 See the Supreme Court judgment as reported in the Danish weekly law reports for 2002 (U 2002.1531 H), which held that Section 152e of the Danish Criminal Code also applies to lawyers' disclosure of information.
78 Sections 25-26 of the Danish AML Act.
79 Section 27 of the Danish AML Act.
80 Implemented in Danish law by Act No. 188 of 9 May 1984.
81 Joseph Lookofsky and Ketilbjørn Hertz: International privatret på formuerettens område, 5th edition, 2015, pp. 113–114.
82 Section 321(1) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act.
83 Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the 'Brussels I Regulation').
84 Convention of 16 September 1988 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the 'Lugano Convention').
85 The New York Convention 1958 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the 'New York Convention').
86 Section 38 of the Danish Arbitration Act.
87 Sections 36 and 39 of the Brussels I Regulation.
88 Section 52 of the Brussels I Regulation.
89 Sections 45 and 46 of the Brussels I Regulation.
90 Section 39 of the Danish Arbitration Act
91 Act No. 651 of 8 June 2017 on Measures to Prevent Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism – the Danish AML Act.
92 Act No. 553 of 7 May 2019, which will enter into force on 10 January 2020.