DENMARK Trends and Developments Contributed by: Rikke Sonne, Jakob Skov Bundgaard and Tilde Nielsen Weidinger, Accura
received Royal Assent, effecting a fundamental recali - bration of the penalty regime for sanctions offences under the Danish Criminal Code Section 110c. The amendment voluntarily aligns Denmark’s penalty regime with Directive (EU) 2024/1226 on criminal offences and penalties for violations of Union restric - tive measures. Denmark’s decision to legislate ahead of, and beyond, its EU obligations situates Danish sanctions enforcement squarely within a European framework in which violations are treated not merely as regulatory infractions but as offences against the international legal and security order. The centrepiece of the reform is the increase in the penalty ceiling under Section 110c. Prior to the amend - ment, the ordinary maximum penalty for breaching sanctions regulations was four months’ imprisonment; where particularly aggravating circumstances were present, the maximum was four years. The new pro - vision raises these ceilings to five years’ imprisonment for ordinary violations and eight years’ imprisonment under particularly aggravating circumstances. The magnitude of the increase – from four months to five years at the ordinary level – signals an unambigu - ous legislative intent to reclassify sanctions violations from minor regulatory offences to serious criminal conduct. The Alfa Laval Case: Denmark’s First Criminal Enforcement of Russia Sanctions In October 2025, and thus before the increase in the maximum penalty, Alfa Laval Denmark, the Danish subsidiary of the Swedish Alfa Laval group, accepted a penalty of DKK100,000 in respect of two agreed sales of centrifuge spare parts to a sister company in Russia, concluded between 3 June and 2 August 2022, with a combined value of just over DKK500,000. The case marks the first Russia sanctions enforce - ment action made public. What makes this case significant – beyond its modest financial scale and the fact that it is the first of its kind – is the fact that the goods were never actually shipped and no payment was received. The case in question appears to have been treated as an attempted, but uncompleted, supply of sanctioned goods that none - theless founded the aforementioned penalty; as the
matter was resolved through an accepted fine rather than a reasoned court judgment, the precise legal basis for liability has not been authoritatively settled. While the case was resolved through an accepted fine ( bødeforelæg ) and therefore does not establish bind - ing legal precedent, it nonetheless suggests that the prosecution takes the position that the mere agree - ment to supply restricted goods may trigger criminal liability, and that actual delivery of the goods may not be a requirement for liability for breaching the sanc - tions regulations. This establishes an important cau - tionary marker: companies cannot assume that an incomplete transaction insulates them from prosecu - tion. Whether liability in such cases is grounded in the general attempt provisions of the Danish Criminal Code (Section 21) or in the broad prohibition language of Regulation 833/2014 itself remains to be authori - tatively determined, but internal compliance failures that allow sanctioned sales to be agreed – even where they are subsequently intercepted – may carry legal consequences. This emphasises the importance of an adequate due diligence set-up, as well as other measures performed by the companies, to ensure compliance with the regulations. Legislation Proposed to Shield Danish Companies in the Event of Sanctioned Ownership The Danish government has proposed an act that requires companies to implement appropriate safe - guards where an owner or controlling party, whether a natural or legal person, becomes subject to restrictive measures adopted under Article 29 Treaty on Europe - an Union (TEU) and implemented pursuant to Article 215 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Specifically, a company that is directly or indi - rectly owned or controlled by a sanctioned person or entity must introduce “necessary measures” to restrict that person’s ability to exercise control over the com - pany. The objective is twofold: to ensure the contin - ued operation of the business and the preservation of jobs, while simultaneously preventing the sanctioned individual or entity from exercising any control over, or deriving any economic benefit from, the company. Under the existing rules, the prohibition on making funds or economic resources available to designated persons has been interpreted as effectively prevent -
112 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook