DENMARK Law and Practice Contributed by: Simon Evers Hjelmborg, Christian Monberg, Linn Dyrgaard Stinus and Ann Sophie Juul Hird, Accura Advokatpartnerselskab
out in 5.2 Guidelines Applicable to the Assess- ment of Penalties . However, the Danish Prosecution Service may in certain cases suggest an extrajudicial fine which the charged person(s) can either accept or deny (known in Danish as udenretlig bøde- vedtagelse ). This allows persons to accept a fine without going through a formal court process. The system is designed to streamline the han - dling of minor offences and criminal acts where there can be little to no doubt as to the out - come at court, offering a quicker resolution to, eg, professionals and companies not wanting to go through a lengthy and costly legal process at the courts. When a person accepts an extrajudicial fine, they acknowledge the offence and agree to pay the specified amount, thereby avoiding a court appearance and the legal costs related thereto. It is important to note that accepting an extra - judicial fine is considered an admission of guilt which may have consequences in relation to, for example, future compensation claims as a result of the committed act. In accordance with the principle of access to justice, no person can ever be forced into accepting an extrajudicial fine. 7.5 Recent Landmark Investigations or Decisions Case law involving bribery and corruption in Denmark is relatively sparse. Below the authors have listed three of the most exposed cases involving bribery or corruption in Denmark from within the past ten years. The Consultancy Case On 18 January 2024, the Eastern High Court of Denmark delivered a verdict in a significant case involving a former head of department with the
national police and a private consultant. The former head of department and the private con - sultant were accused of engaging in corrupt practices from 2012–2015 during which the consultant made payments to the former head of department under the guise of consulting fees for work allegedly performed by the former head of department for the consultant’s company. The department head was charged with accepting bribes totalling approximately DKK630,000 (approximately EUR85,000) from the consult - ant (passive bribery), who, in turn, was charged with offering these bribes (active bribery). The former head of department was sentenced to eight months in prison, with six months sus - pended, while the private consultant received a six-month suspended sentence. Addition - ally, the department head was ordered to for - feit DKK150,000 (approximately EUR20,000), representing the estimated illicit gains from the corrupt activities. For further details, see the Denmark Trends and Developments article for Chambers Anti-Corruption 2025 . The IT Procurement Case In 2015, it was discovered that employees from several public institutions had received bribes from an IT supplier. The bribes included luxury trips and dinners. Several high-ranking officials were implicated, including the former IT-opera - tions manager of one of the public institutions, who received a prison sentence of one year and six months for bribery and embezzlement in 2018. Other former executives from the IT com - pany and public officials received various sen - tences, ranging from conditional imprisonment to community service. The IT company was fined DKK10 million (approximately EUR1.3 million). Almost all of the charged individuals had funds confiscated. Altogether, around DKK1 million (approximately EUR134,000) were confiscated in the process.
122 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook