By decision of 22 April 2026, the Eastern High Court held that the seizure carried out of our client’s assets was unjustified, as the conditions in Section 802(2) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act were not considered to have been met.
Our client – who is represented by attorney Ann Rask Vang – has prevailed on a comprehensive and principled part of the criminal case, in which the High Court set aside the District Court’s decision on seizure.
The charge concerns alleged evasion of a substantial amount of VAT exceeding DKK 100 million. Based on the charge and the material available in the case, the prosecution assessed that the conditions for seizure were met.
By decision of 22 December 2025, the District Court found that there was a basis for carrying out the seizure. The seizure was enforced against our client personally and just before the Christmas holidays, where our client suddenly, from one day to the next, was left without any ability to pay bills, etc. In addition, there was no possibility of contacting anyone from the relevant authorities or the bank, as everyone had gone on Christmas leave – a course of action that, naturally, pulled the rug out from under our client.
Fortunately, a unanimous High Court has now concluded that the conditions for seizure under Section 802(2) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act were not met, and the High Court therefore set aside the District Court’s decision.
In its decision, the High Court expresses criticism of the authorities’ handling of the case and notes, among other things, that on the present basis it is “questionable” to conclude that there is reasonable suspicion that our client committed the alleged offence.
The High Court states in particular:
The circumstances relevant to assessing the case as a criminal matter are, at the present stage of the proceedings, not sufficiently clarified in the material submitted to the High Court. On several occasions, deadlines have been set for the prosecution to provide comments, but the prosecution has only to a limited extent addressed the series of specific objections raised by our client in relation to the charges forming the basis of the request for seizure. Instead, a memorandum has been submitted by the Danish Tax Agency which largely concerns entirely different matters than the charges brought against our client, and the High Court cannot consider these other matters in the present case.
In our view, the decision raises serious questions about the authorities’ handling of the entire case.
Such a far-reaching measure as seizure presupposes that the criminal law conditions are independently and sufficiently substantiated. When a seizure is upheld on the basis of administrative decisions and material which the High Court finds insufficiently clarified – and where the prosecution repeatedly fails to address key objections in a concrete manner – it undermines legal certainty. In that respect, it is reassuring that the High Court judges “remind” the prosecution and the Danish Tax Agency of this.
If you have questions about your legal position, or if you are in a similar situation, please feel free to contact:
Ann Rask Vang på tlf. 20947821 / ava@bachmann-partners.dk
Regardless of your situation, we can help you create the most advantageous solution. We have Denmark’s best
team of lawyers and experts, so you can be confident you are receiving the best advice.
We have offices in Copenhagen, Aarhus, and Aalborg, so you always have access to tax advice near you.
Contact us today
Or fill out the form to learn more about how we can help you or to book a meeting with us.
Then fill out the contact form below. Then a lawyer will contact you within the area you need help with.
