Denmark – A Case to Answer

Justitslig is Danish, a word which literary mean in English, a human corps who had been subject to a miscarriage of justice. In other words, a dead person due to injustice, who can’t be restored to life again. A cadaver can’t be brought back to life To me it represents one of the best words to characterize a miscarriage of justice, as nothing can ever alter the deed of injustice. One can never redo injustice. The Danish word for miscarriage of justice is Justitsmord (from German justizmord). A justitsmord leaves a corps, a justitslig.

These pages are about the justitsmord of Mogens Hauschildt, 38 years ago in Denmark.  This injustice was ultimately judged by the European Court of Human Rights in 1989 when Denmark, was judged to have violated the European Convention of Human Rights. This judgment was the first that Denmark had lost since the accession to the European Court of Human Rights more near forty years earlier.

Denmark’s violation of the foundation of justice – a fair trial

Denmark had violated the foundation of justice, namely the right to a fair trial set out in Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights. This serious violation and judgement did make fundamental changes to the Danish judicial system as to the appointment of judges. However, it came with great cost to Mogens Hauschildt, the defendant, me, with deep mental and physical wounds, from a long solitary confinement, 55 days hunger strike and the longest incarceration in Denmark on remand since 1651. The Danish authorities’ objective was to quash my spirit and break my will.

It may be difficult for some to understand that Denmark in 1980 behaved like China today. Untried prisoners are condemned from day one, starting with the dire conditions they face when they arrive. The aim is to isolate, crush the spirit, break the will. Most crumble quickly. The same treatment was handed to me in 1980 by the Danish authorities, giving me deep mental and psychical scars for life. Moreover, the Danish authorities criminalised my person.

The Danish authorities arrested me on politically-motivated allegations that retroactively and unfairly asserted that I had violated the Danish tax laws. These allegations never become a charge or indictment, since they were based on lies and falsehood.

The victory at the European Court of Human Rights

As to my victory at the European Court of Human Rights, it was not something I could truly celebrate, firstly, my family and I had suffered so much, years of injustice which could never be replaced. Secondly, because the Danish authorities really won, by getting away with the mental torture I suffered. They succeeded in preventing me from having my application as to Article 3, that my total solitary confinement for 309 day, was torture.  After I made this application in August 1980, the Danish prosecution hid all communication with the European Commission of Human Rights, from me and my lawyers, until November 1982. This prevented my complaint as to Article 3, that I had been subjected to torture by my 309 days long total solitary confinement.

The Danish authorities arrested me on politically-motivated allegations that retroactively and unfairly asserted that I had violated the Danish tax laws. These allegations never become a charge or indictment, since they were based on lies and falsehood.

Hundreds, even thousands of newspaper articles was written at the time, mostly dictated by the Special Public Prosecutions at the time, to criminalise me and my companies. The lies and falsehood they created about my person and family could never get out of the public conception.

Ministries have long memories, and 28 years after this injustice, the Danish authorities assisted the British authorities to create totally fictitious criminal indictment, hold an in-absentia trial, with a jury of 12, without the defendant, without defence lawyers, defence documentation and witnesses.

Last November was the 65th anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights.

INFORMATION “Editorial Leader” 24th September 1982 (A political and economic independent newspaper in Denmark). The editorial leader refers to me as “H.”

“H. has not been treated with any decency, respect or proper justice. He was kept incarcerated in solitary confinement for eleven months as well as being kept incarcerated on remand for nearly three years. They, the authorities, destroyed his business with the charge of serious tax evasion; a charge which could not stand up in court and was not based on any real evidence at all.

Due to the police action on the first day, they (The Special Prosecution) created a situation of total financial ruin for him and many of his clients. This, today, is the ground on which the prosecution has created its charges against him. Through those three years which have passed the different authorities in many different ways have pulled the legs away from his defence, in flagrant contempt for the words of the law” (see the whole Editorial Leader in Danish)

I still remained incarcerated in pre-trial detention for another one year and five months after this editorial in the highly respected ‘Independent Danish Newspaper Information’. I continued to receive pre-trial punishment and was held as a hostage to justice; innocent until proven guilty! Moreover, in pre-trial solitary confinement, I remained vulnerable against the unjustifiable parasitic strains of the Danish tabloid press.

I was struck down – the way in which a young healthy tree is chopped down – in the prime of my life; persecuted by the Danish authorities and subjected to one thousand four hundred and ninety two days of restrictive incarceration and pre-trial punishment, starting with 309 days of repressive solitary confinement.

What’s worse is that I received a life sentence, preventing me from working in banking and financial services for the rest of my life. The worst still was living with a ruined family and the deep, mental effects and psychological scars from my solitary confinement and long restrictive incarceration.

I did eventually leave my pre-trial detention and solitary confinement, but the terrible experience has not left me. This is the reality.

Denmark has handed me a life sentence by stealing such important years in my life.


On the 31st January 1980 the Danish public saw, on the state owned television channel evening news, the only TV channel at the time that the Special Prosecution had closed the largest bullion dealer (precious metal dealer) in Scandinavia and arrested its owner for alleged tax evasion and had thrown him in to solitary confinement.

The following day the Danish public learned from all the newspapers that the Special Prosecution (Bagmandspolitiet) had, of their own initiative, taken this action to close the company ‘Scandinavian Capital Exchange’ using a complaint of alleged tax evasion against its owner and director which they received the day before from the fiscal authorities.

This alleged tax evasion never took place and the owner, Mogens Hauschildt (me), was never charged with tax evasion.  It was all a lie, a total fabrication.  Instead, the Danish authorities kept me incarcerated for more than four years during which the authorities conducted their “stories” in the Danish media and then slowly fabricated a case to justify their injustices against the companies, its clientele, the staff, my family and me.

The point had been reached, as Franz Kafka said, from which there was no return. This point had been reached already on the first day, the 31st January 1980 when the authorities closed ‘Scandinavian Capital Exchange’ and placed me in to solitary confinement for an open television screen falsely accusing me of tax evasion. This concerted action by the Danish authorities had already started five years earlier.

Scandinavian Capital Exchange as any other financial company was operating on the bases of truth, when such trust is questioned, even the smallest seed of doubt can totally destroy its foundation.

Five days after my arrest for alleged tax evasion, the Danish state television showed a special forty minute program which was most prejudicial and effectively sealed mine and my companies future; justice had gone out the window with a total disregard for my legal rights. This television program was even repeated five days later just to make sure everybody in Denmark had seen it and the Danish authorities actions had become a fait accompli!

Already after ten months in pre-trial solitary confinement and long before my indictment and being formally charged, I made a proclamation to the Danish public in a press release, which the court then disallowed me to publish.

“I declare that the most flagrant violations of the Danish constitutional rights and lawful interests that have been allowed in relation to my case; including the trial by the media, already at this stage rule out the possibility of a fair examination and trial of the case in court on the strength of the fact that the aggregate of these violations makes impossible the normal administration of justice in this case, including ensuring the right to a fair trial prescribed by Art. 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.”

The European Court of Human Rights agreed with me and later found Denmark guilty of Article 6: not providing me with a fair trial. Unfortunately this was almost another nine years later; nine years too late after so much injustice against my family and me.

My Many Considerations

In making this website I had to think long and hard as I had many considerations to make. Firstly I had to consider the views of my family, my sons, many grandchildren and their children to come. What would they say? Not that my sons were unaware of the case. They felt it in their own bodies and souls and the family’s tragic upheaval at the time caused irrevocable damage to them all.

The flood of lies, misinformation, misrepresentation, distortion and outright falsehood about the case and the events at the time has made it necessary to put the record straight before I leave this world.

What gave me the most weight in deciding to enter cyberspace was the great amount of lies which surrounded my case on the Internet as well as the lies that surrounded the case of closing down healthy operating financial companies in 1980.

Lies which were compounded would ultimately crush the truth and cover up something which should have been exposed a long time ago.

Thousands of newspaper articles were published in Denmark at the time, (I listed more than one thousand five hundred newspaper articles to the European Commission of Human Rights, ECHR in 1983), mostly made up of stories with sensational headings, malicious lies and innuendoes; all very pre-judicial in my case. This was orchestrated by the Special Prosecution in their pursuit of covering up their injustices against my family, clients of the companies, the staff, and the companies themselves and me.

The Danish media ultimately created irrevocable harm to my family and me as you cannot get those lies and innuendoes back from the mind of the public. The media, at the time, totally controlled public opinion and the “truth” by creating their own stories, which become the truth in the public mind. Most people now understand the overwhelming power of media.

My defence lawyers, many clients and I had always hoped that the truth would be printed one day; but no such luck.  After more than thirty eight years, the whole event in Denmark has been swept under the carpet as something the authorities did not wish to go into or revisit; neither did the media which participated actively in the injustices.

Denmark, which always claimed to be a decent democratic country, – “a real virtuous nation, better than the rest of the world’s countries” and claiming to always adhere to the highest standard, certainly found itself “convicted” at the European Court of Human Rights because they did not provide me with a fair trial. A fair trial is the foundation of justice.

This judgement against Denmark is the first case that Denmark lost however it did not, as expected, go down well with the Danish authorities, the academic faculties of law in Denmark and the media.

Many people in Denmark, (including jurists and academics), have, through the years, asked me to write about my case. Even some respected journalists have offered to help. Nevertheless, the events were too depressing and stressful for me to go back to even in writing.  It was a nightmare; a horror story which even today I bare very deep pain from, mental and physical scars from the 309 days long solitary confinement. Consequently I am left telling my story today after all those years.

I had stilled hoped that one day, someone in a senior position in the Danish bureaucracy would have spoken out and told the truth. But that was never to be, at least until now.

I hope that this website and my blog, despite the many years, which have passed, will bring more truth about my case and what really happened at the time to the surface.

“Hauschildt you have been selected – and judged”

In early July 1980, after I had spent more than five months in pre-trial solitary confinement, my defence attorney, Jørgen Jacobsen, came to me and said:

“I know that you have not spoken to anyone for weeks and now I am going on holiday, therefore I wanted to see you. What I am going to tell you now – I cannot do anything about. I am deeply sorry; nevertheless, I still want to tell you. What I am telling you I have been told from the most reliable source and I do not see anything, which can prevent all this from happening.

Hauschildt, you have been selected – and judged. You were selected because you are a ‘foreign Dane’ with no political affiliation or power. You work in a business, which deals daily with Swiss, New York and London banks – with the movement of money in a financial market most people in Denmark do not know and cannot participate in. You controlled your business and did not employ many people, not like a factory owner.

Your clients can even use black money to buy gold and silver over the counter without registration, outside the control of the tax people. You are a bourgeois, when you drink beer you need a glass, Danes drink off the bottle. You even need a knife and fork to eat a sandwich (open Danish sandwich).

The popular press like to write about people like you, your children are at private boarding school. Yes, you are an ideal candidate for Bagmandspolitiet.

It does not matter that you have not done anything criminal; they will find a way to justify all of this since they have no other choice. After all, your business is now closed and you are here in solitary confinement for the fifth month. All the “stories” in the tabloid press cannot get you back out of the public mind. A picture has been painted of you and your companies – you have been judged.”

After five months in solitary confinement, the person that was telling me all of this information was not anyone, but advocate Jørgen Jacobsen.  He was considered one of the best and most experienced defence attorneys in Denmark at the time. He was a freedom fighter during the Second World War and started his law practice in 1951. Although he had always appreciated the better things in life, he was member of the Danish Communist Party for many years.

Jørgen Jacobsen hated to lose a case, and he knew he had already lost mine, even before an indictment had been served. The power of the Danish authorities was just too overwhelming for him; therefore, he resigned as my defence lawyer a few months later, using his health as an excuse.

It is Difficult to Accept Injustice

It is so very difficult to accept injustice, especially when it has been a deliberate injustice from authorities of a country like Denmark.

Injustices do take place all over the world; however, this injustice did not take place in Russia, China or Chile but in my home country: Denmark. Denmark is a well respected democratic country but Bagmandspolitiet (the Special Prosecution) epitomises the abuse of a system, which happens when politicians give power to ordinary people and civil servants – such power will always be misused sooner or later.

A friend of mine, Anthony Marreco (now deceased), who was the co-founder of Amnesty International and the youngest prosecutor at the Nurnberg Trial, taught me a lot about injustice in every corner of the world. He later engaged me with Amnesty International’s work for some years after the event in Denmark. I was fortunate enough to work for several years with Tony (Anthony Marreco) in London on other issues, but I am well aware of the terrible injustices which take place all over the world every day. However, other injustices do not excuse the injustices which happened to me. To have been subjected to such serious injustice is one of the worst pains for any human being to suffer through.

The fact that fewer injustices take place in Denmark (in proportion to the population) than in most other countries does not rectify the injustices, which do take place.

Some countries have the greatness to admit when injustices are discovered. Unfortunately, I do not believe that Denmark has such strength and greatness. Denmark is a small society which prides itself on being better than others, a place where injustices do not exist.

Some Changes in Denmark

Many things have changed in Denmark, including the legal system and the procedures in the trials with the judges’ involvement and the cases in front of them. The Ministry of Justice does not have the same control over everything as they did in 1980; judges are appointed by a different body and they now also have a restriction on many of their additional employments.

My case would not happen in Denmark today, that I am certain about, especially with the Internet and a more transparent society.

Most of all, Bagmandspolitiet would not be allowed to keep someone in solitary confinement for ten months and in the meantime feed the media with lies. A friend put it differently, she said: “That Bagmandspolitiet treated the Danish public like mushrooms – kept them in the dark and fed them with shit.”

The Tamil Case – Ninn Hansen

With the exposure of the Tamil case initially by the Danish Ombudsman Gammeltoft-Hansen and Judge Mogens Hornslet twenty years ago, and later with the trial at the Court of Impeachment, the Danes witnessed how power could corrupt so much so that the Minister of Justice Ninn-Hansen had acted unlawfully. Moreover, the Ministry of Justice’s senior civil servants unlawful and indeed, criminal, acts came to light including how they regularly lied to parliament. The Tamil case showed some aspects of the borders between the law and politic. Today we know all government is active in felony activities. Government is active in felony activities


“I always considered myself as to “Systemfange”, a Prisoner of conscience; the case against me and my Companies were entirely political.”

 Mogens Hauschildt

Interestingly, Professor Hans Gammeltoft-Hansen, Mogens Hornslet and Erik Ninn-Hansen were somewhat all involved in my case. Ninn-Hansen was one of the three serving justice ministers during my long pre-trial punishment. Professor Gammeltoft-Hansen advised my defence attorneys on important legal points which both the Courts and the Ministry of Justice totally ignored at the time, including my rights to a re-trial. Mogens Hornslet was involved in making a judgment in the High Court in 1980 on my pre-trial detention; at least he had more fibre and objectivity when he reported on the Tamil case.

The irony of seeing Ninn-Hansen complaining to the European Commission of Human Rights as to Article 6., (exactly the same Article that I had won my case against Denmark on) that the Danish judges were not independent and impartial, made me smile at the time.  After all, he should know, having worked with the courts all his life as a defence attorney and later as the Minister of Justice.

His complaint that his case was not tried within a reasonable amount of time was absurd when looking at my trial especially with regards to  how after more than four years of pre-trial punishment I was kept as a hostage even for my high court appeal and I could have walked free prior to this appeal. I had the choice between being hanged or burned according to what my defence attorney Folmer Reindel said to the press.

Ninn-Hansen also complained that the media had entertained a consistent and negative press campaign against him which had in fact determined his guilt prior to the trial and had influenced the participating judges. If anyone had a negative media campaign against them it was me, the Danish tabloid press denied me a fair trial and determined my guilt prior to the indictment and trial. Bagmandspolitiet used the tabloid press exclusively for lies and innuendoes about me when I was locked up in solitary confinement (see The Prejudicial Trial by Newspapers).

Ninn-Hansen complained about his health, that he was not fit to stand trial.  This was even more ridiculous when considering my mental state during the trial, caused entirely by the long solitary confinement torture and the trauma of seeing everything destroyed, my family, my reputation and even myself after the 1492 days of pre-trail detention.

Finally, Ninn-Hansen’s complaint that witnesses were not heard and that to omit the transcripts from the court violated his right to a fair trial in that it in fact prevented the witnesses appearing before the Court to give testimony unbound of the testimony they gave. Absolutely crazy and absurd when considering that I was refused the right to have hundreds of clients cross questioned in court who were supposed to have been defrauded.

Further, I had to accept totally fabricated transcripts made up by a judge, the transcripts of which had no relevance to what took place in the court. Worst of all, these made up transcripts were used in the High Court and were read by witnesses before entering the court. So years after their testimony, they could read a dictated story with mostly little relevance to what took place. Despite that my defence and I were specifically asked by the court at the start of the trial to take either verbatim dictation or an electronic recording of the proceedings, this was refused, so that the judge could just write what he wanted days and even weeks later.

Even the European Commission for Human Rights and later the Court did not wish to see these court transcripts, as they knew well, that such transcripts were created for justifying the authority’s case against me.

Interestingly enough, when Ninn-Hansen made his application to the European Commission of Human Rights, he could have copied most of the complaints from my initial application to the ECHR. However, the seriousness of the complaints was not to be compared on any scale. Furthermore, I made my complaints and application myself from the restrictive pre-trial detention cell, whereas Ninn-Hansen is a lawyer and I am sure that a string of other lawyers helped him, including loyal civil servants from the ministry and the party.

According to one of my defence attorneys advocate Folmer Reindel, Ninn-Hansen just shook his head and smiled when my lawyer mentioned that he believed my case would end up with a judgement against Denmark. I was pleased to see that the Commission found Ninn-Hansen’s application inadmissible and his reputation was left shattered. Erik Ninn-Hansen had the ability to corrupt and manipulate the civil servants in the Ministry of Justice as to the Tamils, but did not have the strength to speak out as to my case and all the injustices which I had to endure.

Finally, I did agree with Ninn-Hansen and other Danes who claimed that Denmark has had a too liberal policy towards immigration. Denmark has chosen to destroy itself with a cancerous policy which ultimately would not only mean that hundreds of thousands of immigrants and their families would live on the hard working Danes tax money. Denmark’s culture and traditional values would be destroyed by people coming to exploit others and at the same time have no intention to adapt to their host country.

The Danish Small-Mindedness

There has been an important change in Denmark as to the whole general attitude towards money and making money since my case. The small- mindedness, (små borgelighed), which existed at the time (37 years plus ago) has somewhat gone away with many other socialistic attitudes to life and society. Danes know that we now live in a different world.

These webpage’s are only the start; there will be many pages added when all the documentations have been published. This may bring out some protests, but it may also bring something positive with regards to the people of influence who kept quiet and passive when witnessing all the injustices at the time, making them also responsible.

I personally have never experienced any bad reaction towards me by the Danish public. Immediately after my more than four year ordeal, when walking in Copenhagen, people came up to me in the street and wanted to greet me, some even expressed very positive remarks towards me and gave me presents.

Later on, after the judgment from Strasbourg, I received many positive gestures from Danes both living in Denmark and abroad. Nevertheless, the popular press in Denmark has always continued to attack me and even negated the importance of the European Court’s verdict; I suppose it is difficult to admit mistakes for monopolies.

“Er De Hauschildt?”

In February 2006, I sat in the British Airways hospitality lounge in Heathrow Airport enjoying a light snack and a glass of champagne together with my life-partner. Our flight to Nice had been called but we decided to have another glass of champagne since we always went late to the plane.

Just as a stewardess came to us to ask us to board since we had a long walk to the plane, a man came over to me and said: “Sorry” in English, and then asked in Danish “Er De Hauschildt?” (Are you Hauschildt?). In answering yes to the question, the man continued to tell me that his wife recognised me, but he was not quite sure. Since my partner started to pull me away to go to the plane, he said to me: “My wife wants me to tell you that some of us in the Ministry did not like what we did to you.” (nogle af os i ministeriet kunne ikke lide hvad vi gjorde i mod Dem). Hearing this, I immediately asked for his name and card. He lightly shook his head and said: “Even on a senior civil servants pension I have to go quietly through the doors” (gå stille med dørene). At that moment I started walking away since my partner had left for the airplane and we did have a long walk to the boarding gate.

During my walk to the plane I thought that he might not have necessary referred to the Ministry of Justice, in fact it could have been the Ministry of Finance or the Ministry of Trade and Industry, not to forget the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

On the plane, I told my partner what had happened, despite that she always told me to “let sleeping dogs lie” she said that I should produce something on the Internet. To publish a website and to at least put out the truth about what had happened and the injustices, hoping that someone would possibly come forward with the truth. We tried to continue our beautiful life but this would prove to be impossible due to a lot of other developments in the years to follow.

In the past years, I have faced the death of my life-partner, my soul mate-in-life. I am also getting a lot older and am coming to the end of the road in my journey through life.  Lately I have walked the long hard road of sorrow deep in the valley of despair.

I was fortunate enough in life to have had much love, what’s more, enjoyed true love for many years after the terrible events in Denmark. Love is the most important thing in life.

Life for me today has come to a stage where almost everything – all external expectations, all pride, all fear for embarrassment or failure – falls away in the face of death, leaving what is truly important.

I have never been the same human being again since being in solitary confinement for three hundred and nine days. This solitary confinement affected me very badly; after more than thirty years I still suffer badly on most days from this torture. My life stopped during that solitary confinement and consequently I have since lived my life as a totally different person.

Speculation Accepted Today – Even in Denmark

All forms of speculation is generally accepted today as well as making a profit of money, this was not the case in 1980 where ‘speculations’ and ‘profit’ were dirty words. I still recall people shouting after me back in 1977: “Capitalist Pig” (getting out from my Daimler in a dark blue striped suit).

The fact is that the investors and the general public in Denmark are far more informed about the financial markets, including people working for the authorities and in the banks, and this would in itself make my case impossible today.

The general public and even wealthy individuals in Denmark did not know much about the international financial market in 1980 and their sophistications with regards to trading. This allowed the Special Prosecution to make up mysterious and clouded allegations about my companies operations. Moreover the Danish media, with their malicious lies, took advantage of public ignorance with regards to investing and their knowledge with regards to the international financial market and sold them sensational stories – as always.

My Final Decision to publish this website

In the last few years, I have sporadically followed some of the Danish media for the first time since the finishing of my ordeal more than 27 years ago. I have, from time to time, been reading some of the financial newspapers in Denmark on the Internet.

What really made my final decision to publish this web blog was an article in Børsen on the 11 October 2010, “Klapjagt åbner for guld som skattely”, (A hunt for gold as a tax heaven). This was about the European and Danish fiscal authorities concern as to investors buying and investing in precious metal (gold, silver, platinum and palladium). Something I have known about for more than forty years and which politicians and their fiscal authorities all agree on.

This fact was one of the main motives of the Danish authorities for everything that happened against my companies and me in 1980. Most politicians and the tax authorities like to tax people, but the fiscal authorities find it difficult when a citizen buys a gold bar or a coin and then just puts it away for a rainy day. The authorities much prefer their people to buy their bonds and debts or invest through the banks, where everything is recorded. This allows the politicians and the civil servants to tax such investments however they like.

As a pioneer of investing in precious metal for more than fifty years, I have indeed always been well aware that this type of investment did not suit the tax happy politician and civil servants since the investor acquired transportable assets out of reach of taxation. Therefore, under communism and in many dictatorships, holding precious metal was strictly illegal and even punishable, as it was in China and Russia, with the death penalty imposed.

As to taxation, we now live in a time where fiscal authorities in Germany and other European countries have been paying criminals for stealing data from Swiss and Liechtenstein banks in order to find out whom of their citizens have not paid tax. Germany even provided these criminals with new identities.

When Countries Act as Criminals

When countries act unlawfully as criminals, (which they have always done when the truth is told, just read WikiLeaks) the citizen should take note, especially when we are fortunate enough to live in Europe or the Western world.

The question is: should government be allowed to do unlawful acts and consequently be allowed to cover this up?

All governments and their departments do commit acts, which are against the current laws of the land. They also seem to be able to cover up such acts, by “adjusting the law” by making new laws and directives – always able to cover their tracks. However, all these politically elected and public civil servants believe that they have the legitimacy to decide what is best, even when they take unlawful actions.

We allow government and civil servants this right to “do what is best for us” like they have the moral and legitimate right, not forgetting the intelligence and know-how to take such actions.

In my own experience, we do allow this; I ran a “democratic” elected organisation and know that when something comes up, you just deal with it. The last thing you do is to ask hundreds or thousands of people, you will simply not be able to act. If you have made a mistake, one tries to sweep it under the carpet or justify it by changing “the rules”.

No doubt that the Danish government was “allowed” to decide that they had to take action against something which partly would affect the established banks, the National Banks directives and currency rules at the time. Moreover, this was a legitimate way for people to hide their black money and possibly take these assets abroad without the control of the authorities, since all the rules were not defined at the time. Furthermore, since the fiscal authorities had not seen the consequence of tax laws with regards to investing in commodities and currencies, they had to show that the arm of the law and tax man reaches out to every corner, draws in the land.  Hundreds of tax investigations and successful cases came about as a result of the closing SCE and my arrest.

I have no difficulty in accepting the above information; my difficulty is partly personal (for all the suffering my family and I had to endure) and on behalf of all the investors which lost out because of the authorities’ unlawful action.

Firstly, authorities “should” try to play by the rules, which is after all, what they themselves are responsible for. Secondly, when injustices have been done and exposed, at some point the government should admit to such errors and call a spade a spade. Practically always, authorities do not have the spine to do so, partly because it will always mean that they have to admit to their own mistakes made by individual civil servants. With their power domain they do not tolerate this, since it will almost always effect their reputation, the spirit of the system and collegial loyalty. Worst of all, for the politician, their electability is at stake – so they cover-up, and in most cases succeed, unless the opposition finds out. Just take the Tamil case in Denmark, what really happened to the top civil servants from the Ministry of Justice who had acted unlawfully and criminally – I am sure they enjoy their fat pensions today?

I told the court that I would go on a hunger strike in August 1980; I wanted to release a statement to the press. Judge Claus Larsen did not want this to happen. Part of this statement informed the public about a meeting in the Danish Law Society in the spring of 1980, where the chief for Bagmandspolitiet, Finn Meilby, proudly told an exclusive audience of a few lawyers that Bagmandspolitiet used the same methods against my companies as the police did in Chicago in the 1930’s case (wiretapping, disinformation and agent provocateurs).

The head of the US Supreme Court Chief Judges Louis Brandeis said about such methods: “If the state uses illegal and unlawful methods, it allows the citizens to be contemptuous of the law and take the law in to their own hands”.

The Responsibility of the Free Press

The free media should be a guarantor for the citizen for exposing obvious injustices and wrongdoings by government and their civil servants. This responsibility of the “free” press should not be taken lightly.

The Danish media failed miserably with this responsibility in my case. Instead of seeing it through the authorities’ eye with true concerted intention, they went along as a lap dog and swallowed all the lies and misinformation that Bagmandspolitiet created to justify their actions. Moreover, the tabloid press livened up all the “stories” from false gold bars to black market trading – all which committed them editorially to make a pre-judicial public trial; rubbing me with the right to be treated as guilty until proven guilty or innocent. According to Article 6 of the European Convention, the Danish media violated my right to a fair unprejudiced trial.

The European Court of Human Rights held an open court hearing on the 26th September 1988 on my case, in front of the full court of judges. The German, French, Belgian and Dutch television stations were there, but not the Danish State Television which had been used by the Danish authorities to create this trial by the media.

Other events made me take note such as the previous year’s impact after the “Icelandic Banking Saga” of Kaupthing Bank and IceSave, Lehman Brothers and the Bear Stern Bank bankruptcies. Lately the criminal charges against Goldman Sachs and several Hedge Funds for insider trading exposed what really happens “behind” the scenes in banking and the financial world. The clever people try to outsmart the lesser, something which has always taken place and is nothing new. Even the respected JP Morgan bank was recently fined £33m by the U.K. Financial Services Authority for basic compliance failures. These compliance failures meant that the bank had not protected twenty-three billion dollars’ worth of clients’ money by segregating it from its own funds over a seven-year period.  One may ask where the auditors were as well as all the lawyers to monitor the accounts!

The recent debate in Denmark about all the money, which has been made by the banks on people’s pension funds through the many years, confirms my point. The banks are there to make money first and foremost from other people’s money – that is their business.

Janteloven Still Reign in Denmark

Denmark still seems to kill off the people who have put their heads above the mass and show greatness of creativity in specific businesses. People such as Klaus Riskjær, Jan Bonde Nielsen, Brask-Thomsen, Mogens Glistrup, Kay Wilhelsen, Jeppe, Morten, Søren V. Petersen and so many others are an example of the “Danish” way to treat people who have talent over and above the average person. “De skal kanølfles” (they must be punished) that is Janteloven. What is interesting about all the above mentioned people is that they have all been through the grinder of Bagmandspolitiet, some were crushed, some granulated and a few came out as powder.

In writing the above, I have to point out that I have not followed people or the developments in Denmark during the last thirty years and so I do not know the many people who may also have been through the grinder of Bagmandspolitiet. Although I do believe that many must have been guilty, I am more concerned about the not so guilty people and worst, where they were directly subjected to injustices by Bagmandspolitiet’s misuse and abuse of power.

I see that two other companies that Denmark should be proud of are Novo Nordisk and Grundfos. They also had to suffer the humiliation of Bagmandspolitiet as did Kay Wilhelsen, Midtbank, Hafnia, VKR and Carl Bro who all at least won against Bagmandspolitiet. They were lucky that they did not have to endure being arrested, locked up in solitary confinement and presented live on the prime time television news screen as well as a more than four years pre-trial punishment.

The so-called Jyde brother’s case had to be dropped because of my judgment against Denmark at the Court of Human Rights. I know that the brothers received millions in compensation for their pre-trial detention; although nothing can compensate such an ordeal. Worse still, this money was taken by the liquidators of their estates – there is no justice. I should like to hear from the brothers as to their experience and ordeal.

Bagmandspolitiet should be called The Jante Law Prosecution and Police. After all, they were the creation of the Social Democratic Party who epitomised Janteloven, now in government again. As described in other places on this website, I am sure that so many of Bagmandspolitiet staff spend all day working by scanning newspapers and magazines and today, the Internet, looking for their next prey. They act when someone appears to be successful and have made money; we must punish these achievers.

Interestingly, there seem to be a political consensus in Denmark as to Bagmandspolitiets need for more resources, see “Skærpet jagt på banditter i habitter” (Increased hunt on criminals in suits) Berlingske Tidende 25th January 2011. Sadly the socialist is back in power promoting mediocrity.

Some of the Press still working at the sewer level

More than forty years ago I did forbade my staff to have the popular tabloid press around in my offices. Sadly I see that this press still makes a living in today’s Denmark on peoples’ miseries without editorial morality and ethic regulations. This is not just a Danish phenomenon, but I am afraid it is the case in most of the Western world. We have recently witnessed that a British tabloid newspaper had, for years, been using unlawful telephone recordings which taped the conversations of hundreds of people. More broadly, both in Denmark and U.K., tabloid newspapers and police departments routinely rely on one another: The tabloids want good stories and the police want good coverage.

Recently the highly respected journalist and Pulitzer Prize winner Carl Bernstein (Watergate) spoke out about the tabloid press, said that the tabloid press works at the sewer level, and pollute by bringing everything into the gutter. The tabloid intrusion has no accountability and is corrupt and criminal.

Some Improvements to the Legal System

There have been some great improvements to the Danish legal system and how Bagmandspolitiet treat people. Stein Bagger is a good and recent example for that, possibly for having special positive treatment (positiv særbehandling), I do wonder why?

Despite that, he had a six-year prison sentence in an open prison and home visits practically right away; hundreds of millions of kroner has still not been found from his crimes. He deliberately carried out these crimes, but worse still, he misused the trust of the banking establishment.

I am not one to judge others, moreover, I do not know the details of his case, but it appears to me that big changes have taken place in the Danish judicial system when Stein Bagger can be treated in such a nice and considerate way and then only be subjected to a sentence of six years with most of the money still not accounted for – who says that crime does not pay?

Even Klaus Riskjær Pedersen who has a six year sentence being served in an open prison is allowed regular visits home and to even go abroad to London and Ibiza. In writing this, I am not criticising the Danish treatment of prisoners today, but solely comparing my restrictive and harsh treatment thirty years ago to that of today. I understand that Klaus has Internet, a laptop computer and a mobile telephone; I only had a television.

Even if I had been given a five year sentence (which the High Court rubberstamp gave me), under normal circumstances I would be subjected to serving only 2.5 years in an open prison and not receiving more than four years pre-trial punishment. Moreover, Klaus was free to defend himself using all his resources, I was never allowed this and this alone provides you with more of an equal position to the prosecution, especially since they did not have to justify any pre-trial incarceration.

Prior to my arrest, I used to meet regularly with Klaus Riskjær. In fact, we had regular lunches in the last year before SCE was closed. SCE supplied weekly reports to Børsinformationen, Klaus’s company, sometimes on a daily basis with regards to the financial markets in general and specifically with regards to commodities and their prices. Since SCE had the latest screen and information services from Reuters, we were able to provide Børsinformationen with this service which we did for free. Interestingly, Klaus never spoke out against the injustices against me at the time and in fact benefited in many ways financially, including buying my property in the country, Kirsebærgården, for less than half the price from the liquidators.

I Served More Than an 8 Years Sentence in My Pre-trial Detention and Solitary Confinement

The six year sentence of Klaus Riskjær should be compared in relation to my five year sentence.

During the more than four years in my pre-trial detention, my wife and I never had any privacy. My family had to be without me for four Christmases’ and Easters, as well as all of our birthdays: my sons’, my wife’s, my mother’s and indeed my own from the thirty-ninth to my forty-second birthday.

I was never allowed any home visits and despite been given a final sentence of five years, (the Bagmandspolitiet asked the Court for a 12 years sentence), I served more than an eight years sentence as I was kept as a pre-trial prisoner with all the restrictions and for months I was not able to see my wife, sons and my very ill mother and stepfather. What made it so much harder was that every day I expected that I would be released and that the real truth would come out and something would happen. I truly believed that I would walk free; this made all my incarceration so much worse.

The truth never did come out and I therefore had to live every day with great disappointment and a sense of hopelessness. To lose hope is terrible, hope is so important to us. My prolonged uncertainty had a disorganising effect on me; I had considerable anxiety and was psychiatrically unstable, which still affects me badly today.

The Danish Authorities did not want me to appeal to the lower court’s verdict and even put pressure on me by keeping me incarcerated during the so-called appeal (there was no appeal process only a rubberstamping of the lower court’s trial). I would have been released seven month earlier if I had accepted the lower court’s unjust verdict. As to my case at the High Court, I had, as an advocate, Folmer Reindel who told the press that I had a choice of being hanged or burned.

I was locked-up on pre-trial detention for one thousand four hundred and ninety-two days with three hundred and nine days spent in solitary confinement.

I never, according to the Danish Prison Authority “Kriminalforsorgen”, was a prisoner – e.g. serving a sentence for a criminal offence, I had only been on remand in pre-trial custody.

White Had to be Black

Because of the action by Bagmandspolitiet in Denmark, the Swedish Prosecution had to instigate a case in Sweden against my Swedish company: Scandinavian Capital Exchange AB.

In order to make a case, the Swedish Prosecution asked two respected law professors in Sweden to look at SCE’s Deferred Delivery Contract’s terms of condition. One of the law professors was the highly respected Professor Wallen from Lund’s University. The Swedish SCE contract was an exact copy of the Danish contract that SCE used in Denmark, just translated into Swedish and approved by Swedish lawyers.

The two Swedish law professors concluded the following concerning the standard conditions of SCE’s Deferred Delivery Contract and the companies’ obligation to purchase precious metal:

“That such obligation did not exist and that MH as the companies Managing Director had acted in accordance with the contractual agreement entered into with the clients.”

In other words, I as the Managing Director did not have any obligation to buy or hedge our sale of silver, platinum and gold.

Something is Rotten in the State of Denmark

That “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark” surely was obvious, at least it should have been for everyone. Bagmandspolitiet charged me with fraud and that such legal obligation existed. So where there was a clear legal contract which did not provide any obligation on me as the companies managing director to buy or hedge according to the sale of the companies, Bagmandspolitiet was able to just blatantly disregard this and get both courts, judge Claus Larsen in the lower court and later the High Court judges, to follow and rubberstamp their abuse of power.

Both Judge Claus Larsen and the high court judges took the opposite view to the Swedish law professor’s legal opinions and judged that such obligations did exist, reading the same contract – they had to – in order to justify everything.

Without this liability in the contract with our clients, the Special Prosecution had no case against me. They simply had no other choice. White had to be black, just think of the consequences if I was declared not guilty. This could simply not be tolerated by the authorities after more than four years in restrictive pre-trial detention and solitary confinement.

Hundreds of investors had lost large amounts due entirely to the actions by the Danish authorities. My whole case cost tens of millions for the Danish tax payers with members of Bagmandspolitiet travelling all over the world.

The fact that Bagmandspolitiet and the Danish authorities had no choice as to their “interpretation” of the companies (SCE) standard business terms with regards to these deferred margin sales of precious metal and that that interpretation had had nothing to do with the law, was abundantly clear.

When I instructed our business terms to be legally drafted a few years earlier, it was a pre-requisite that SCE did not have a legal obligation to hedge or buy at any time, since this would have prevented us from making a big profit when the opportunity came. Such opportunity did come along in the months before and after my arrest.

It is a fact that SCE acted as principal in all transaction with clients and had at no time any obligation to balance its books (match the sale by buying), nor buy precious metal or any other commodities according to the sales on margin. Neither did we have any obligations with regards to our stock. We did have an obligation to deliver such purchases when the clients gave us notice and we then had up to six weeks to deliver after the clients had paid all the outstanding amounts (principal, interest and sales tax).

All the clients who had left precious metals with the companies (uncollected) could, by giving us forty-eight hours’, notice collect their precious metal or coins.

Most precious metal and commodity companies are, at any given time, short or long in the market. This is really how they make money; selling high and buying low. Knowing that the market in precious metals would crash, no professional trader would go in and buy with the view of selling at a higher price.

When a commodity like precious metal doubles and trebles in price, dealers will always await a reaction (the so-called technical reaction) before they would consider going into the market and buying. After September 1979, most professional traders expected such reaction – and quite rightly. The floor brokers at Comex (New York Commodity Exchange) were short by more than seven thousand contracts of silver when I was arrested. These floor brokers had the power to change the rules of the game to their advantage; which they did.

With regards to the lies that SCE (the companies) were giving advice to clients, telling them when to buy and sell in the month prior to my arrest, we stopped sending out our SCE Market Report many months before the raid on the companies since we did not want to show any subjective advice. We let the media do the talking, after all, the media (from television to newspapers), showed images of investors all over the world standing in long lines trying to buy gold and silver. The media did the selling for us and we just had to sit back and take orders from keen buyers who were greedy to buy gold, platinum and silver.

When I was interviewed by radio or on television, I was careful not to tell people to buy precious metal, only making references to the many experts that had predicted higher prices in precious metals – which were, after all, a fact.

As to bankers giving advice, we have seen recently that respected investment banks such as Goldman Sachs told their clients to buy something when they in fact themselves were selling it; nothing wrong in that. Investment consideration can also relate to time, if you want to take a short or long term view. Many times I have sold something, even though I believe the price will go up in the long-term, with the view to buy it cheaper in the short-term. Moreover, no one has a crystal ball; this is how the investment industry operates.

My defence lawyer Korsø-Jensen, a respected business lawyer, said to the Court,”All the clients losses were created by the closing of the companies and the actions by the Special Prosecution, they are responsible for all the clients economical suffering thereafter.” (Børsen 18th June 1981).

Until Bagmandspolitiet closed the companies and my pre-trial punishment in solitary confinement, the companies had fulfilled all their obligations. Moreover, my companies and I were all solvent. The clear evidence of this can be seen when M.Hauschildt & Cie in Zurich came out of the protected bankruptcy with millions in assets.

A Few Questions to Ask

The question is: should the government be allowed to set about to commit an illegal act and allowed to cover this up afterwards?

All governments and their departments do commit acts, which are against the current laws of the land.  All government is active in felony activities. They also seem to be able to cover up such acts by “adjusting the law” and by making new laws and directives – always able to cover their tracks. However, all of these political elected and public civil servants always believe that they have the legitimacy to decide what is best.

We allow government and civil servant the right to “do what is best for us” like they have the moral and legitimate right, not forgetting the intelligence and know-how.

In my own experience, we do allow this. I did run a “democratic” elected organisation and knew that when something comes up you just simply deal with it. The last thing you do is ask hundreds or thousands of people, you will simply not be able to act. If you have made a mistake, one tries to sweep it under the carpet or to justify it.


All the clients’ losses were created by the closing of the companies and the action by the Special Prosecution, they are responsible for all the clients economic suffering thereafter.”

(See Børsen 18 June 1981) –  Advocate John Korsø-Jensen

No doubt that the Danish government was “allowed” to decide that they had to take action against something which partly would affect the established banks, the National Banks directives and currency rules at the time. Moreover, this was a legitimate way for people to hide their black money and possibly to take these assets abroad without the control by the authorities, since all the rules were not defined. Furthermore, since the fiscal authorities had not seen the consequence of tax laws as to investing in commodities, currencies and precious metals, they had to show that the arm of the revenue reaches out to every corner in the land.

Firstly, the authorities “should” try to play by the rules, which after all they themselves are responsible for.

So many hundreds of tax investigations and cases came about because of the closing of SCE.

I have no difficulty in accepting the above; my difficulty is partly personal (for all the suffering my family and I had to go through) as well as on behalf of all the investors who lost out because of the authorities “illegal” action.

Secondly, when injustices have been done and exposed, at some point the government should admit to such and call a spade a spade. Practically, authorities do not always have the spine to do so, partly because it will always mean that they admit mistakes and individual civil servants with their power to dominate will not tolerate this, since it always will affect their reputation which is worse for the politician and for their electability.

This is where the free press have a responsibility; the free media should give a guarantee for the citizen to the exposing of obvious injustices and wrongdoings by the government and their civil servants.

The Danish media failed miserably in this responsibility in my case. Instead of seeing through the authorities’ true intention, they went along as a lap dog and swallowed all the lies and misinformation that Bagmandspolitiet created to justify their actions. Moreover, the tabloid press livened up all the “stories” from false gold bars to black market trading and even murder; all completely untrue.

As to the last, murder, this was even mentioned in the headlines the day after I walked free out of the High Court after more than four years of pre-trial detention. A story which was fabricated four years earlier and had no truth in it, only the big headlines (read more).

Advocate Folmer Reindel told the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg – September 1988:

“It is clear that the Danish authorities had, for a long time, the objective to close down Hauschildt’s successful and profitable business, irrespective that the companies acted correctly and within the Danish law.  From the first day of action against Hauschildt and his companies, it has been the objective of the Danish authorities, at any cost, to justify their illegal acts, including keeping Hauschildt in solitary confinement and pre-trial detention for more than four years as a hostage to justice. The Danish authorities acted within total contempt of the Danish law and justice and the European Human Rights Convention.”

It appears that the Danish press is more responsible today, well at least some of the press. I have read about all the mistakes that Bagmandspolitiet has done with regards to the case against Stein Bagger (see article).

As previously mentioned, we live in an age where even the German fiscal authorities saw it fit to pay criminals to steal computer disks from a Liechtenstein Bank and provide these criminals with a new identity and money.

The questions should be asked: how far should we allow authorities to go beyond the current law and take illegal steps without justifying themselves, even when they do this for the betterment of society?

In an interview with Berlingske Tidende in 1981, Finn Meilby, the chief of Bagmandspolitiet said that some “observations” could go on for years, other go fast. “In the current case of the gold and silver speculations, Bagmandspolitiet worked hectically for thirty days. The market was so overheated that they got our interest and quickly received information confirming our suspicion of law breaking activities. We foresaw that large and small savers were running a risk – and hit” (They raided the companies on an open TV screen). In the same article, Finn Meilby proudly state their results of fifty-seven cases won and “only one” lost. One should ask how Bagmandspolitiet can be so successful and infallible. Only the prosecution in Russia, Iran or China today can show the same results.

When Bagmandspolitiets first chief, Hervert Grell, left his office in 1978 he claimed to have said: “Bagmandspolitiet is a complete hypocrisy”. I totally agree with him, but for different reasons than what Hervert Grell meant at the time of leaving and slamming the door.

According the Danish press, at the time of my case coming to the finishing of the trial in the lower court, it had cost more than 20 million. One of my defence attorneys estimated that the case had cost more than 47 million in total at the time and of this money, my defence received less than 1.4%. Despite that, the tax authorities could recover some of this money from the hundreds of cases they had as a result of the closing of the companies (with access to the companies’ files). I maintain that Denmark lost far more than money with the judgement in Strasbourg.

Many Danes left Denmark in the period of 1980 – 1990 including many entrepreneurs – all Danes who could have contributed greatly to the Danish society. I was told that more than 20,000 Danes moved to the United Kingdom alone in the period of 1980 – 1990. I personally have met several successful Danish business people abroad who have told me, “we saw the writing on the wall with your case; we witnessed Janteloven and got out.” and got out.”

Pin It on Pinterest