As I have listed many other place here, creating lies and the manipulation with the truth and cover-up was really what Bagmandspolitiet was very good at – nearly as good, as Stalin’s KGB, DDR’s Stasi and Hitler’s propaganda ministries.

When Bagmandspolitiet was making out to the Danish public that I and my companies was “criminal” by using lawyers offices for companies registered in the respective countries such as Liechtenstein and not employing any staff. That this was “criminal” somewhat showed the political attitude at the time, something which still prevail among many Danes.

It is a well-known fact that so many offshore companies and indeed US, Dutch, Irish and even UK holding companies do not employ any staff and as Bagmandspolitiet claims is just “post-boxes” with no real activity behind.

Major Danish and Scandinavian companies have together many hundreds of such offshore companies today, but many of these companies did also have such offshore entities back in 1980. Børsen newspaper wrote about the Danish banks offshore activity in 1982 in various financial centres (see: Børsen 11th Oktober 1982 Danske Banker offshore)

All the world largest companies use offshore companies for fiscal purposes, companies like Google and Microsoft use companies in Holland, Bermuda and indeed many other places without anyone employed, all just registered at a law office. This has according to the British newspaper Sunday Times (2011) saved Google alone in the last 5 years more than US$5 billion in taxation, all legal. Moreover, international banks and financial institution are the biggest users of offshore locations saving their shareholders lots of money. (see: Britiske Barclays betalte kun 1 pct)

I know of several Scandinavian companies which for many decades has used “post-box” offshore companies to save billions in local taxes. In fact some companies I assisted to establish back more than 35-40 years ago exist today.

Last year Berlingske Tidende reported that the Danish tax authorities were examining the transfer to 50 countries by 20 Danish banks with more than 100,000 companies and individuals in the spotlight. They were looking for hidden assets in offshore places to tax. (see: Skat opsnuser danske formuer i skattely). Just look at the money laundering that Danske Bank has been involved in Estonia, mostly clearing Russian stolen money. 

I recall years (45 years) back that all international banks could move around their profits from one location to another using various financial instruments, likewise for the large multi-national corporations. I will still claim that all international companies have an obligation to their shareholders to maximise their resources including saving taxation from their income. The recent revelation as to Apple’s profits and saving in taxation makes my point that such practise prevail today (see: How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes). Apple paid cash taxes of $3.3 billion around the world on its reported profits of $34.2 billion last year, a tax rate of 9.8 %.

The banking sector has the largest number of tax haven companies

In UK alone the big four UK banks – HSBC, Royal Bank of Scotland, Barclays and Lloyds – having a total of 1,649 offshore subsidiaries (according to the Guardian newspaper November 2011). They have the largest number of companies registered in the Cayman Islands, with Barclays alone registering 174 subsidiaries and ventures there. HSBC has 156 subsidiaries in Delaware, which has limited reporting requirements, compared to 97 in the rest of the USA. Lloyds Group has 97 companies in the Channel Islands.

The 100 largest groups registered on the London Stock Exchange have more than 34,000 subsidiaries and joint ventures between them. A quarter of these, over 8,000, are located in jurisdictions that offer low tax rates or require limited disclosure to other tax authorities.(see Quarter of FTSE 100 subsidiaries located in tax havens).

The British Prime Minister David Cameron’s father ran a network of offshore investment funds to help build the family fortune that paid for the prime minister’s inheritance. Though entirely legal, the funds were set up in tax havens such as Panama City and Geneva, and explicitly boasted of their ability to remain outside UK tax jurisdiction. (see: Cameron family fortune made in tax havens).

Even today, the Danish media at the time makes “stories” as to the use of offshore places and indeed banks giving client fiscal advice. (see: Danske virksomheder strømmer til skattely). Even the Danish states activities go via offshore locations (see: Et skuffeselskab i Mauritius 08.06.2011).

Back in the sixties, I together with partners launched the first comprehensive research into offshore funds for institutional investors and held the first offshore funds’ conference in London (at the Dorchester Hotel). I had previously back in 1966/67 worked with highly respected British barristers, including Justice Parker who drafted the Cayman Island first laws and the foundation to make it offshore heaven for financial institutions in the last forty years.

Offshore funds investments become important in the main investment markets from the mid-sixties and since they were not subject to regulators and in most cases had no reporting requirement (even to their investors) these funds were able to do many things which local institution was prevented from. (see our brochure from 1969: Offshore Funds Analysis)

Our research into the offshore investment funds was used by the Special U.S. Congressional investigation into offshore funds in 1969-1970 and I even received a paycheck from the US. Treasury for the work I did at the time. So I knew everything which was worth knowing about offshore places and their fiscal benefits.

At the time of my arrest, I had been operating M. Hauschildt & Cie in Zurich for six years and my partner Bryan Jeeves was the British Consul in Liechtenstein, also specialising in fiscal matters, fiduciary and corporate services to private and corporate clients. I had originally introduced him to the offshore “business”.

 

Danish Defence Lawyers (1980)

All Danish defence lawyers at the time (1980) took their appointments directly from the Ministry of Justice; they all had to see their fees’ being paid by the same people who they were defending their client against.

What made matters worse was that in each case the judges had to consider the expenses of the defence so that all defence lawyers had to plead with the judges as to being paid for their work.

This ultimately meant that no lawyer, with any respect for himself, wanted to be a criminal defence attorney at that time.

The few defence lawyers were either truly devoted to “the call to defend” with mostly a left (politically) orientation or lawyers who could not survive in commercial practices and had to depend on the state so to say.

One of the defence lawyers who was known to not be able to maintain a “commercial legal” practice was Erik Ninn-Hansen, who at the time was the longest-serving Member of Parliament. That he was not able to maintain a “proper” legal practice, I was told by none other than the leader of the conservative party Poul Schlüter who was later the Prime Minister during my pre-trial detention and punishment. One early weekend morning he and I were driving to a hunt, Schlüter told me that Ninn-Hansen (forgetting about himself) was not able to run a law practice and therefore he had to be a “poor” defence attorney.

Nevertheless, when Schlüter became Prime Minister he appointed Ninn-Hansen to be the minister of justice and later when exposed, Schluter made Ninn-Hansen the Speaker of the parliament until they all had to resign due to a scandal.

When I became a spokesperson for the prisoners in Vestre Fængsel, I used to recommend Ninn-Hansen to defend members of Hells Angels and other such groups since he appeared to the court to be a decent man. Because of his parliamentary status, he came across very sincere and genuine to the courts.

Later when Ninn-Hansen became the Minister of Justice, he conspired with others in unlawful and criminal acts in the so-called Tamil Case. However, as to the use of pre-trial solitary confinement, he had to accept everything the civil servants in the ministry wanted and had no individual say as to the use of solitary confinement.

Despite Ninn-Hansen speaking out against the use pre-trial solitary confinement in  March 1980 mostly being used as mental torture for getting confessions, and even saying it was against the Law, he silently approved the use of this torture – or “confession arrest” as he called it during his term of office.

Erik Ninn-Hansen (former speaker of the parliament and longest-serving member), stated in 1980:

“That solitary confinement today is used less to avoid detainees from communicating with others and more to squeeze out a confession.” Ninn-Hansen observed that “solitary confinement is a commodity” and remand prisoners could free themselves from isolation at the price of a confession (See: Isolation som pressionsmiddel – 23rd March 1980)

Interestingly Ninn-Hansen, later on in life, made a complaint to the European Commission of Human Rights as a victim complaining that the Danish judges in his case were not independent and unbiased; he should have known as a defence lawyer for many years and serving as Minister of Justice. He also complained that his case was not tried within a reasonable amount of time.

My First Defence Lawyers

Immediately after my arrest, I found myself with a lawyer who was a “defence advocate by heart and soul”; attorney Jørgen Jacobsen, who was appointed on the first day to defend me. Appointed is the right word since it was an appointment with all the restrictions and rules of the land at the time; however, the rules were given to him by Bagmandspolitiet.

As a decent person, he had to ultimately surrender and stand aside from my defence. He realised there was truly nothing a defence lawyer could do and perhaps he did not want to spoil his reputation, after all, he and I knew that I was being led to the slaughter.

I had previously heard about Jørgen Jacobsen because he had a good reputation; moreover, he had been an active freedom fighter during the Second World War and a member of the Communist Party for many years.

Despite this background, I respected his experience and professionalism as a committed defence advocate – one of the truly great Danish advocates. He realises very early that there was absolutely nothing he could do for me and he hated to be sitting on the side watching all the injustice.

As a professional defence advocate, he was used to winning cases and he knew this case was a dead loss after the authorities had used every possibility to justify their actions in the Danish media. After all he told me in early July 1980. I did appreciate his TRUTH, but I never expected 1492 days of injustices with all the devastation to my family, the companies, clients and staff.

Jørgen Jacobsen spoke out as much as he could and even beyond the call of duty. One day in court he said, “It is just like hitting into a pillow, Bagmandspolitiet has total control of everything together with the Ministry”. He went as far as to tell the Danish media (TV and newspapers) that all defence attorneys in Denmark should go on strike and show their strongest objection to the use of pre-trial solitary confinement, which he considered rightly as mental torture.

Jørgen Jacobsen actively campaigned and told the press that Bagmandspolitiet used psychological torture against me, he also encourage me to complain to the European Commission of Human Rights as to the many aspects of my arrest, the so-called investigation, the lies in the media as well as all of the pre-judicial aspects, the restrictions for the defence and my pre-trial solitary confinement torture.

He rightly predicted that Denmark would have a case to answer to at the European Court of Human Rights. However, at the time he expected that the issue would be my solitary confinement and treatment by Bagmandspolitiet with the arrest and  “made-up” charge of alleged tax evasion.

What he did not know was that for more than nine months, Bagmandspolitiet kept a letter from the European Commission for Human Rights – a total disregard to my rights and Denmark’s commitment to international law. The fact that I did not receive this letter at the time prevented me in getting the European Commission for Human Rights to deal with my pre-trial punishment and the solitary confinement.

Through all the years I had contact with the European Commission of Human Rights, the Special Prosecution opened the letters first to read, despite I had the right to receive such letter un-open and read by the authorities.

During one of the court hearings, Jørgen Jacobsen said to the court: “The prosecution could just as easily hold their “court hearings” at their own offices without the judges, the defence and the accused – the result would be the same.”

When an experienced and highly respected defence attorney makes such a strong statement, one should take note, but the Danish media did not bother because they had a different agenda – helping the authorities to cover up their injustices.

 “The prosecution could just as easily hold their “court hearings” at their own offices without the judges, the defence and the accused – the result would be the same.”

– Advocate Jørgen Jacobsen told the court

Considering Jørgen Jacobsen’s health at the time and the amount of work he had with the case, his colleague Manfred Petersen assisted him in my defence prior to the trial. However, as Jørgen Jacobsen had told me several times, the pre-trial punishment had to be justified by the authorities; leaving me already sentenced before the trial as well as already having been sentenced by the press.

Advocate Jørgen Jacobsen rightly predicted that Denmark would have a case to answer at the European Court of Human Rights one day – however it took more than 9 years.

When I later made my application to the Commission of Human Rights, I had no lawyer or jurist to help me. I asked my defence lawyers (then Folmer Reindel and Korsø-Jensen) and was told that there is not one lawyer in Denmark that really had the experience in the European Convention of Human Rights (despite that the convention had existed for nearly forty years).

Worst of all, there was no lawyer prepared to go up against Denmark (meaning the Ministry of Justice). Moreover, if I could find someone to take on the case, where would he or she get their fees from?

All of my assets in Denmark had been seized by the prosecution and liquidators and I had no access to my assets abroad.  Even if this had been the case Bagmandspolitiet would take any payment to a Danish defence lawyer.

Bagmandspolitiet had no restriction on their expenses and just travelled all over the place, even using criminals to prepare for trips abroad, by making sensational claims about my assets.

Because various people in Bagmandspolitiet wanted a trip to New York a visit to various brokers and banks was arranged in August 1980. Several large headlines were created in the tabloid media to justify such travel. Bagmandspolitiet knew that there were no assets in U.S.nevertheless, they wanted the trip. According to my defence lawyer Jørgen Jacobsen, an interesting event took place at the head office of New York City Bank (now Citibank). When Jens Hald arrived with others at the bank and the large reception, banking hall, the people took them as terrorists, as they looked like a terrorist and the reception porters called the alarm for the whole building, with the police arriving. Sadly, they did not keep them in the arrest.

Interestingly, the reception porters were correct, that members of bagmandspolitiet looked like a terrorist and acted as criminals. They must have learned to dress by Stasi in DDR.  

My Second Defence Team

The two defence lawyers I ended up with had lots of experience in commercial and civil matters but very little in criminal law at the time. Folmer Reindel, a real Dane, whom I had met privately some years earlier, was a person with strong ideals and convictions.

Folmer Reindel only took the case because he believed I was innocent and that he could win – yet he had only had a few dealings with Bagmandspolitiet.

It was extremely difficult for him to witness what took place in the courts and to see how the Bagmandspolitiet, the Ministry of Justice and the tabloid media could manipulate the court and justice; this was something he really could not stomach, he had to speak out.

He many times complained to the Minister of Justice and the Ministry but without any positive responses.

One day in court – just before the end of the trial in the lower court – Folmer Reindel said,

“I feel that I have been reduced to a defence counsel in a Russian Military Court.”

Folmer Reindel had to speak out as to the injustices and what he witnessed in Denmark; he fought on years after my case. Sadly too few bothered to take note and he died too soon. A good human being, friend and advocate in need.

Folmer took an active part in exposing the bad parts of the Danish justice system and the fact that the Ministry of Justice controlled everything including the judges. All judges had to show their loyalty to the Ministry and could therefore not be independent and unbiased. (See an article by Advokat Folmer Reindel om Retssikkerheden )

At the beginning of the High Court trial, Folmer Reindel told Berlingske Tidende newspaper that “I faced the choice between being hanged or burned as to the appeal”, confirming that I could have been a free man prior to this so-called appeal process and not kept incarcerated for another year in pre-trial detention.

As to my other defence lawyer John Korsø-Jensen, he had a considerable reputation and experience in academic and commercial business. I had never felt that Korsø-Jensen could become truly surprised by the Special Prosecutions ability to manipulate the courts and their treatment of me. He had already seen how Bagmandspolitiet “worked” as a defence attorney for Jan Bonde-Nielsen.

Nevertheless, Korsø-Jensen did fight for my innocence and went into everything with a critical mind and the experience of a business lawyer and academic. If the truth is told he never did get paid for his time and work as he already than enjoyed a high reputation as a business lawyer.

In addition to many other restrictions, considerable restrictions were put upon Korsø-Jensen’s engagement as my defence lawyer by the fact that he did not get paid much for defending me through all these years.

“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 daily deals with Swiss banks, New York and London – movement of money and in a financial market most people in Denmark do not know and can’t participate in, you controlled your business and do not employ many people, not like a factory owner.”

–         Advocate Jørgen Jacobsen

I did consider a change of defence lawyers before the High Court appeal, but the truth is, there was no experienced criminal lawyer in Denmark who would take the case. The money was too little and they knew this as well as that the many years of pre-trial detention and punishment had to be justified – “You can’t fight City Hall”

The Special Prosecution spent tens of millions on the case, including more than D.Kr. 4 Million to an accountancy firm. My defence lawyers received less than D.Kr. 300,000 each for their one hundred and forty-seven court hearings in the Lower Court and each time they wanted to be paid for their work, they had to fight for their fees and expenses, even going to the High Court and the Supreme Court – just to get paid from time to time.

Bagmandspolitiet’s Propaganda Machine

Even prior to my arrest, Bagmandspolitiet had seen to create fake news and propaganda in the media.  Some of this must have been coordinated with the fiscal authority, the National Bank and the government at the time. It was first and foremost a question about the survival of this political prosecution’s office.

The head of Bagmandspolitiet Finn Mejlby held regular press conferences advertising “the success” of this Jantelov prosecution. My case was made to be associated with others in order to criminalise the parties, ranging from Mogens Glistrup to Bonde Nielsen. Large newspaper articles, specific in the weekend press shouted out the great success of this gutter prosecution at the time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The tabloid media acted as a public relation-advertising firm, and ultimately the henchmen for Bagmandspolitiet selling itself to the public, mostly with fake news, claims and lies.