Denmark

The Danish legal framework governing white-collar crime can be divided in two main categories.

The first category comprises the laws defining which acts entail criminal liability. The Danish Penal Code (DPC) is the main law including the general regulation on criminal liability for legal entities. The EU-sanctions are covered by the DPC.

This category also covers the so-called special legislation (særlovgivning) which covers the sector-specific law entailing criminal liability that is not penalised in the DPC. The sector-specific areas include tax law, company law, environmental law, and compliance-related laws, including the Danish Anti Money Laundering Act and the Danish Export Control Act.

The second category comprises the Danish Administration of Justice Act (DAJA) which regulates the criminal procedure from start to end. This act covers the rules on police investigation of crimes, including boundaries for the police’s use of coercive measures such as searches and wiretapping.

The Danish legal framework governing white-collar crime is shaped, to some extent, by international obligations that stem from Denmark’s EU membership and from international conventions to which Denmark is bound.

EU law and its application in Denmark

As a member of the EU, Denmark is subject to EU legislation except for areas with an opt-out, including justice and home affairs. EU regulation has a significant impact on Danish legislation, and many white-collar crime cases arise from areas with detailed EU regulation, such as anti-money laundering, dual-use goods, and sanctions. Consequently, the white-collar crime cases in these areas are affected by the fundamental EU legal principles, including the principle of proportionality as well as the rights enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The European Convention on Human Rights

Denmark is a party to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The right to a fair trial in Article 6 of the ECHR is of central importance in Danish criminal proceedings. This protection applies to both individuals and legal entities and ensures procedural safeguards throughout investigations and criminal trials.

International conventions on white-collar crime

Denmark has also ratified various international treaties and conventions specifically addressing white-collar crime and related offences, including:

• OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (1997);
• UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (2000); and
• UN Convention against Corruption (2003).

Both natural persons (individuals) and legal entities can be held criminally liable under Danish law.

In Danish criminal law, an identification doctrine applies, whereby the knowledge and conduct of employees may be attributed to the legal entity itself. This raises complex questions about which employees’ actions can trigger criminal liability, whether the company can avoid liability by demonstrating that an individual acted contrary to corporate policy, and how the necessary criminal intent is proved if the police have not charged any individuals involved.

Criminal cases involving legal entities also give rise to complex procedural issues. The DAJA is to a broad extent drafted with criminal procedures against individuals in mind, and certain provisions therefore raise fundamental questions when applied in the context of criminal proceedings against legal entities. This includes questions relating to access to the case file and the defence counsel’s ability to contact witnesses, who may also be employees of the indicted legal entity.

As a starting point, Danish criminal jurisdiction covers acts committed within the Danish territory. This applies to both Danish and foreign individuals and legal entities.

In certain circumstances, Danish criminal jurisdiction extends to acts committed abroad. This includes cases where the act is directed against Danish interests, or where the act is committed by Danish nationals or other individuals domiciled in Denmark, or by legal entities domiciled in Denmark or incorporated under Danish law, provided that certain conditions are met, including, in some cases, a requirement of dual criminality.

Where a Danish company exercises control or influence over a foreign subsidiary, the conduct of that subsidiary abroad may trigger Danish criminal liability for the parent company. This has, in recent years, proved particularly pertinent in the context of sanctions violations, an area in which the EU has, in our view, introduced a form of extra-territoriality via a best-efforts obligation.

The principal white-collar crime offences are set out in the DPC and include fraud, embezzlement, and breach of trust. These are closely related property offences involving misappropriation, deception, or abuse of authority for financial gain. All three carry a maximum penalty of a fine or imprisonment of one year and six months, rising to eight years in aggravated cases.

As mentioned in Question 1, above, the number of white-collar crime cases in Denmark has increased in recent years.

One area where this is evident is in compliance-related fields such as money laundering. Money laundering cases often involve financial institutions and typically centre around potentially inadequate systems or procedures to prevent money laundering, including Know Your Customer (KYC) procedures and transaction monitoring. The penalty for legal entities is a fine.

In recent years Denmark has seen an ongoing discussion of the applicable fining methodology, along with a noticeable legislative trend toward harsher penalties as part of a wider “tough on crime” approach. This trend also means that future white collar crime cases will be shaped not just by legislative initiatives, but also by how regulators respond in practice, and what the courts ultimately establish as the applicable legal standard.

As a white-collar crime case puts a massive pressure on the company, a solid defence depends on an effective crisis management team capable of handling the various stakeholders. A robust defence strategy must address both external pressure from stakeholders, including those from the press, and internal pressure from stakeholders in the company facing criminal allegations. Furthermore, a defence strategy should include patience, as white-collar crime investigations are complex and time-consuming, as the pace of the investigation can be frustrating.

White-collar crime offences that arise in a domestic context are equally prevalent in relation to foreign conduct, provided Danish criminal jurisdiction is established.

In fact, some offences are international or foreign by nature. Sanctions violations constitute a particularly significant category of foreign-related white-collar crime. These are primarily regulated by EU law as implemented into Danish law. Sanctions offences include prohibited transactions, circumvention of restrictive measures, or dealings with sanctioned persons or entities.

Under section 110(c)(3) of the DPC, violations of EU sanctions may result in a fine or imprisonment for up to five years, rising to eight years in particularly aggravated cases. Sanctions violations are often prosecuted against both the legal entity and the relevant individuals, including members of executive management.

Export control violations, particularly in relation to dual-use goods, represent another area of increasing enforcement focus. Dual-use goods are products, software, and technology capable of being used for both civilian and military purposes, and their export is subject to strict licensing requirements under EU law. As the geopolitical landscape has shifted in recent years, enforcement activity in this area has intensified considerably. Violations of export control rules may result in a fine or imprisonment of up to two years, rising to eight years in particularly aggravated cases.

The principle of double jeopardy (ne bis in idem) may limit Danish prosecution where the defendant has already been prosecuted abroad for the same conduct.

Enforcement responsibility is allocated between the police and Prosecution Service on the one hand, and regulatory authorities with subject-matter expertise on the other.

In most cases, the regulatory authorities handle a case at the outset. Depending on the subject matter, the relevant authority may include the Danish Business Authority, the Danish Maritime Authority, or the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority, among others.

A case may arise from an ordinary inspection conducted by the regulatory authority, from the processing of a specific matter before the authority, such as a licence application, or following a notification from a third party. Such a notification may, for example, come from a whistleblower, but there are also several examples of cases where investigative journalism has been the catalyst for a regulatory inspection.

The regulatory authority will often ask questions to gather information about the case and decide whether it should be reported to the police. It is important to be aware that any information disclosed to the authority may subsequently feed into a criminal investigation.

If the regulatory authority chooses to report a white-collar matter to the police, the case will typically be investigated further and dealt with by a specialised unit called the National Special Crime Unit (National enhed for Særlig Kriminalitet) and the State Prosecutor for Special Crime (Statsadvokaten for Særlig Kriminalitet).

This relationship between regulatory and criminal proceedings prompts important strategic considerations for the defence counsel. Information provided during regulatory investigations may later be used in criminal proceedings, yet failure to cooperate with regulatory inquiries may itself constitute an offence or aggravating factor. This creates important strategic considerations about cooperation strategies and the extent to which companies should voluntarily disclose information.

White-collar crime cases that do not give rise to imprisonment may be settled with a fine notice. Most regulatory authorities are open to dialogue, and a company’s willingness to cooperate may reflect positively on the outcome.

The Prosecution Service may resolve cases with a fine notice (bødeforelæg). This process often involves a dialogue with the police regarding the nature and extent of the offence and enables cases to be resolved without a full court trial. Furthermore, certain regulatory authorities have been granted statutory competence to resolve cases by issuing administrative fine notices, meaning that a case may be concluded before it reaches the police and the Prosecution Service. The Danish Financial Supervisory Authority has such competence in relation to certain anti-money laundering breaches. This includes, inter alia, cases concerning insufficient KYC procedures.

The possibility of a fine notice is advantageous where an agreement is reached, as it limits media exposure and makes reputational risk easier to manage. Furthermore, it may lead to a reduction of the fine, as cooperation with the authorities constitutes a mitigating circumstance. In competition law matters, a formal leniency programme exists for cartel cases, under which undertakings that report their participation in a cartel and cooperate with the investigation may have their fines reduced or, in certain cases, waived entirely.

Should the case proceed to court, the company’s confession or cooperation with the authorities will constitute mitigating circumstances that may lead to leniency.

The structure and scope of an internal investigation will depend on the nature of the matter. As a general framework, the investigation may be organised around whether the objective and subjective elements of the relevant criminal provisions are satisfied.

The investigation must be conducted in a manner that is proportionate and does not cause unnecessary disruption to the company’s operations. Furthermore, the rights of employees involved must be respected throughout the process.

A critical structural consideration is whether the work product and other documents generated from the investigation are covered by legal privilege. Where an investigation is conducted internally, the material produced is generally not privileged, meaning that internal reports, interview notes, and working documents may be accessible to the police in the event of a search.

Where the investigation is conducted by an external attorney, the work product is in principle protected by legal privilege under the DAJA. This prevents the police from accessing or relying on privileged material in a criminal investigation or prosecution. It is therefore generally advisable to instruct an external attorney from the outset.

Nevertheless, as the question of whether a document is covered by legal privilege cannot be resolved without examining its content, the police may inadvertently gain access to privileged material. Best practice in sensitive matters therefore requires careful consideration of how the investigation is structured, including the form in which its findings are documented.

The rules on whistleblower protection are governed by the Danish Whistleblower Protection Act (DWPA), which implements the EU Whistleblowing Directive and applies to both the public and private sectors.

The DWPA protects whistleblowers who, in good faith, report violations of law, subject to certain exceptions, including in respect of legal privilege. Employers with 50 or more employees are required to establish an internal reporting scheme and several external reporting authorities have also been designated, including the Danish Data Protection Agency. Different requirements apply to internal and external schemes respectively, including obligations as to confidentiality and the timely handling of reports.

A whistleblower is protected against reprisals, including termination. If reprisals occur, the whistleblower is entitled to compensation, and the burden of proof is reversed so that the employer must demonstrate that any adverse treatment was not a consequence of the report.

Companies in specific areas are required to have a whistleblower scheme, regardless of their number of employees. This applies to, inter alia, financial institutions under section 75a of the Danish Financial Business Act.

The enforcement of white-collar crime in Denmark has evolved significantly in recent years, with a considerable increase in the number of cases. This reflects a broader political priority to combat financial crime and a recognition that such crime poses significant risks to the integrity of markets and public institutions.

Stricter penalties and regulatory developments

Regulation is becoming more complex and is evolving rapidly, with regulators taking a more stringent approach to enforcement.

The authorities’ focus on white-collar crime reflects the recent political focus in this area. For many years, there has been a general trend in Denmark that politicians have expressed a wish to be “tough on crime”, especially gang-related offences and crimes against life. This trend has now expanded to the sanctions area, leading to an amendment to the DPC in June 2025 introducing stricter penalties for sanctions violations.

Enforcement in practice

Cases against companies are often resolved with fine notices rather than in-court prosecution. This limits the extent to which a body of published case law has developed in the areas.

Nonetheless, several significant white-collar crime cases are currently being heard by the Danish courts, including a case against a bank concerning its compliance with the Danish Anti-Money Laundering Act during 2012–2015. The case commenced with a police report filed in June 2016, the bank was indicted in June 2024, and the main hearing started in May 2025. The proceedings are scheduled to last until the end of June 2026, with the final judgment expected later in that year. The case illustrates both the scale and the duration of complex white-collar crime proceedings in Denmark.

White-collar crime cases are becoming larger and more complex, and they often extend over long periods, putting considerable pressure on the companies and individuals involved.

The police and prosecution have limited capacity to handle the increasing number of complex white-collar crime cases. Furthermore, the authorities may not be familiar with the ways in which companies are structured and operated. This can hinder their assessment of the boundaries between lawful commercial conduct and criminal behaviour.

These factors combined may lead to lengthy investigations, which give rise to several concerns. It increases the risk of cases becoming time-barred if charges are not brought in time. Evidentiary problems may arise as witnesses’ recollections fade and documents may be lost. Finally, the resources devoted to processing long-standing cases may often reduce the capacity available for prevention and the investigation of new matters.

Recent developments point towards an intensified focus on white-collar crime in Denmark in the coming years.

Increased resources for the police and Prosecution Service

In December 2025, the government presented a new agreement concerning the police and the Prosecution Service that significantly strengthens efforts against financial crime, with more than DKK 1 billion over a five-year period. Furthermore, in February 2026, the newly appointed Director of Public Prosecutions sent a clear signal by emphasising financial crime as a key priority for the Prosecution Service in the years ahead.

Continued trend towards stricter penalties

The recent trend of stricter penalties for white-collar offences is expected to continue. For many years, it has been a general political trend in Denmark to adopt a tough approach to crime, and this has now expanded to financial and economic offences, as illustrated by the introduction of stricter penalties for sanctions violations.

New EU legislation

EU legislation covering white-collar crime is also continuously evolving. In December 2025, the European Council, the European Commission, and the European Parliament reached an agreement on a new anti-corruption directive. Although Denmark is not formally obliged to implement this framework by virtue of its opt-out from EU justice and home affairs cooperation, it has in practice consistently chosen to align its legislation with EU developments in this area. It is therefore expected that Denmark will nonetheless implement the directive.

Companies operating in Denmark should therefore be attentive to the evolving EU regulatory landscape, which is likely to give rise to further legislative changes at the national level.