Two construction workers are currently on trial in Glostrup, Denmark, accused of money laundering and VAT fraud in a case that could set a precedent for hundreds of others. The prosecution alleges they used invoices from so-called “invoice factories” to pay employees in cash without declaring the income.
The case centers around the purchase of 20 invoices six years ago from companies identified as CCS Group, Uniqueva, and RR Staffers. These companies are alleged to be part of a larger police investigation, codenamed “Outpay,” which uncovered approximately 350 million kroner laundered through these invoice factories. The prosecution claims the invoices, totaling just over three million kroner, were fictitious and intended to enable the defendants to evade taxes.
The two men, both with backgrounds as bricklayers, deny the charges of money laundering, also referred to as self-laundering in this instance. They also face an additional charge of VAT fraud amounting to 585,000 kroner.
Defense lawyers argue that the prosecution lacks concrete evidence linking their clients to the alleged money laundering scheme. One lawyer, Martin Andersen, characterized the case as a “trial balloon” seeking to establish a new and unacceptable legal precedent with collective punishment. He stated that there is no proof that his client, a co-owner of the construction company, ever saw the invoices in question.
Another defense lawyer, Martin Cumberland, echoed these concerns, describing the prosecution’s approach as “too easy and too cheap,” and suggesting a “resource-based trial balloon” aimed at securing convictions without sufficient evidence. Both lawyers also contend that the indictment is confusing and does not meet the legal requirements of the Administration of Justice Act.
Special prosecutor Stig Paulsen from the National Unit for Special Crime (NSK) argued that the purpose of paying the invoices was to obtain cash back from the invoice factories, allowing the defendants to pay for undeclared work. He emphasized that these factories have been established as money laundering operations for companies like the defendants’ construction company. Paulsen asserts that the money received by the invoice factories from these companies constitutes proceeds from crime, thus making it a case of self-laundering.
The judge and lay judges have adjourned to deliberate on the case, with a judgment expected next week. The outcome of this case is anticipated to have significant implications for numerous similar cases involving invoice factories and individuals accused of using them to evade taxes and launder money.