DENMARK Law and Practice Contributed by: Christian Monberg, Simon Evers Hjelmborg, Ann Sophie Juul Hird and Linn Dyrgaard Stinus, Accura Advokatpartnerselskab
6. Disclosure Processes 6.1 Disclosure Obligations
Below are different factors, and their placement under the Criminal Code. It should be noted that the courts always observe the specifics of the case in connection with the sentenc - ing. Aggravating Circumstances Below, the authors have listed a few examples of cir - cumstances which should generally be considered as aggravating factors in connection with the sentencing pursuant to Section 81 of the Criminal Code. • The perpetrator has previously been sanctioned for acts relevant to the committed crime. • The crime is committed by several persons jointly. • The perpetrator intended for the act to have signifi - cantly more serious consequences than it did. • The act was committed in the performance of pub - lic service or duty, or through the abuse of position or other special trust relationship. • The act is related to the victim’s or their close rela - tives’ performance of public service or duty. Mitigating Circumstances Below the authors have listed a few examples of cir - cumstances which should generally be considered as mitigating factors in connection with the sentencing pursuant to Section 82 of the Criminal Code. • The perpetrator acted in excusable ignorance of or excusable misunderstanding of legal rules that prohibit or mandate the action. • The perpetrator has voluntarily averted or attempt - ed to avert the danger caused by the criminal act. • The perpetrator has confessed. • The perpetrator has provided information crucial for solving criminal acts committed by others. • The perpetrator has repaired or attempted to repair the damage caused by the criminal act. • The act was committed as a result of coercion, fraud, or exploitation of the perpetrator’s young age or significant economic or personal difficul - ties, lack of insight, recklessness, or an existing dependency relationship. • Enough time has passed since the criminal act was committed that applying the usual sanction is unnecessary.
Under Danish law, individuals and/or companies are not per se obligated to report violations of anti-bribery. It is not in itself criminalised to not report on corrup - tion or bribery violations. To be an accomplice to the crime, one must have intent to carry out the crime. This means there is no risk of being an accomplice by failing to report a violation. However, all Danish companies with more than 50 employees are required to establish an internal whis - tle-blower programme as stipulated in Section 9 of The Danish Law of Protection of Whistleblowers (Act No 1436 of 29 June 2021, whistleblowerloven ) (the “Whistleblower Act”). Whistle-blower programmes can urge the disclosure of suspicion or knowledge of a committed violation since they provide for protec - tion and anonymity. See 6.4 Protections Afforded to Whistle-Blowers . Moreover, the Danish Public Procurement Act (Con - solidated Act No 10 of 6 January 2023, udbudsloven ) (the “Public Procurement Act”) entails obligations on disclosure (and to some extent disqualification) for entities participating in public tender procedures. 6.2 Voluntary Disclosure Incentives There are no direct incentive programmes to encour - age self-disclosure of potential violations in relation to anti-bribery and anti-corruption. Self-reporting can, however, affect the sentencing positively as further detailed in 5.2 Guidelines Applicable to the Assess- ment of Penalties . It is possible for individuals as well as companies to anonymously report violations of bribery and/or cor - ruption through the Danish Business Authority’s ( Erh- vervsstyrelsens ) whistle-blower programme, but no
benefits are given to the ones who do. 6.3 Self-Disclosure Procedures
Self-disclosure procedures are not relevant in Den - mark, as detailed in 6.2 Voluntary Disclosure Incen- tives .
74 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook