Supreme court must look at whether The high Court has committed legal error when it chose to judge for breach of mandate.
Two men have been given permission for the country’s top court must judge the biggest bestikkelsessag, the so-called Atea-case.
This was stated by the men’s lawyers, Kåre Pihlmann and Naja Wærness Larsen.
the Men were 12. July, along with three other convicted in The high Court in the case.
It is about public employees in Region Zealand, and other places, which received more donations from employees of the it supplier Atea. Among other things, an expensive Formula 1 trip to Dubai.
Kåre Pihlmanns client, the former executive vice president in Atea Peter Trans, were in court sentenced to three months suspended prison sentence. He was acquitted of the charges of bribery and embezzlement.
instead, he was convicted for aiding and abetting the breach of mandate.
– In the four years the case has lasted, is the provision on the mandate never mentioned. So the question is whether one can be convicted of breach of mandate, when a man is prosecuted for it, says Kåre Pihlmann.
– the Question is also whether the court can judge of it, when the prosecutor does not even have mentioned the mandate in his remarks. And when we have not had the opportunity to comment on it, he says.
He will have his client acquitted. But according to the lawyer can Supreme court also take a more far-reaching decision.
– It is possible that the Supreme court finds that there has been committed such serious errors, that the case be Venüsbet sent back to the high court. It will say that the case must start all over again by the high court with new judges, says Kåre Pihlmann.
For anyone other than the attorneys is the difference between embezzlement and breach of mandate enough to overlook.
Embezzlement is to compare with the theft, but where you have legitimate access to the stolen – for example, if you take of the box.
the Mandate is a little more complex. Here, you use a mandate – a mandate – to rage to himself.
It can be, for example, a person who manages someone else’s assets – or as in this case – a person who by virtue of his position has access to manage an account.
Naja Wærness Larsen representing a former it manager of development in Region Zealand, as in court, was sentenced to four months suspended prison sentence with community service.
Her client was in court sentenced to 40 days imprisonment with community service for having received the three restaurants, but was acquitted of the trip to Dubai.
In the court of appeal was the previous it development manager called for one of the restaurants. In return, he was convicted of breach of mandate in connection with the trip to Dubai.
If he was not found guilty of breach of mandate, should the high court have reached a more lenient sentence, pointing out Naja Wærness Larsen, who also believe that a case for breach of mandate is outdated.
– breach of Mandate was never mentioned during the proceedings. It did it first by the delivery of the judgment in the court of appeal, says Naja Wærness Larsen.
It is not yet known when the case goes to the Supreme court.
/ritzau/
