Tag archives for Danske Capital Assurance

Summary of Court Questioning of Danske Bank Staff

Share

ERVA has received a summary of the  interrogation of the Danske Bank staff members from an undisclosed source.

Morten Runo Waaben said that he was just the investor and came into the bank in 2006, at a later stage.

Acting lawyers were not too keen on his side of the story because he was merely the investment manager, and was not involved in the signing up of the claimant. However, his version of how the investment was conducted grossly differs from the truth; he stated that it was Euan Armstrong who instructed how the spread of the investments should be allocated and that in fact, against his own advice, Euan wanted a higher risk approach.

Morten also said that he was aware that Euan was an ‚Äėavid‚Äô investor, with substantial experience.

Henrik Hjerrild Hansen went on to deny any involvement in the sale stating that although he had signing the product at the Notary Public, it was all done via Luxembourg. When lawyers confronted him on his knowledge of what he was really signing at the Notary Office, he said he was aware it was a mortgage loan but little else.

In respect of his involvement with the Danske Office in Spain, he said that his role was merely that of general information to the public about the bank and its services, without providing advice. This is hardly consistent with the their own publicity:

When lawyers asked him about Spanish tax matters, he said he had little clue about this as that was not his role or remit, and again referred the matter to Luxembourg. Lawyers strongly confronted this statement appealing to his own LinkedIn profile, which he has now removed, where he seems ‚Äėthe‚Äô expert in Private Banking with Danske, after 40 years of service for this entity.

Finally, the lawyer for the bank, Ole Stenersen, was quite a funny chap although could not help stop lying. In his words, he was no tax expert and could not answer anything about the Capital Assurance Product. He denied knowledge of this set up and referred it to ‚Äėsomeone else‚Äô within bank. Surprisingly, when his counsel starting asking questions about this same matter, he suddenly had the answers in respect to whether a mortgage loan for tax purposes refers not to the mortgage itself, but to the loan and how it gets invested.

He also gave inconsistent answers about the KPMG letter citing just one paragraph of it whilst, barefacedly, denied the other (one where KPMG states that they never authorized the tax benefits of the product).

ERVA is now hoping that other victims of these thieves will wish to join the case; in connection to this.

It is our determination to impede Danske Bank get away with this and we are truly hoping that this matter will go to trial.

We will not finish this post without mentioning a new participant soon to be exposed, Mr. Soren Glente.

‘Spanish Inheritance Tax for Dummies’, by Danske Bank Luxembourg

Share

Danske Bank International S.A. Head of Legal and Compliance claimed in Court that he could not recall if his client- the bank- gave tax advice to property owners abroad, but he thinks they did not.

Also, he was adamant that the bank’s understanding of the Capital Assurance product -in respect to IHT benefits- was that such benefits would be achieved by placing the loan in a Unit-Linked offshore based insurance policy, and never by reducing the value of the property.

The man, Ole Stenersen¬†–whether through lack of sleep or a late heavy (another one) night out- was clearly confused. Firstly, he warned that he was no tax expert on the Capital Assurance scheme only to later dissect the financial product on the basis of its tax avoidance functionality.

Later he said that KPMG had only asked them (DB) to remove their name (KPMG), and confirmed that KPMG never questioned the tax advice that was given by Danske Bank, which according to Ole scrupulously followed KPMGs findings.

Finally, he insisted that their advertising material at no point stated that by taking out a mortgage would the customer reduce -legally- the value of the property.

Not to worry Ole, we are aware the flight from Luxembourg must have been long and the trip to Fuengirola arduous and so, at ERVA, we will lend you a hand with the homework by refreshing your selective memory with an IHT manual that is actually…¬†your own publicity.

We hope you now remember better what was your employer exactly doing in Spain. 

(It defies logic what little respect you show for your own clients’ intelligence, your own banking system and, not the least, the Spanish Court system:¬†if you’d been deposed in the UK you would have automatically been charged with perjury).

2 Danske Bank executives to appear in a Fuengirola Court over fraud allegations

Share

 

 

Henrik Hjerrild Hansen & John Lundskov Larsen på kontoret i Fuengirola

According to Sur Newspaper, two executives of the largest Danish bank, Danske Bank, have been ordered to appear before the Criminal Court 1 in Fuengirola to be deposed in relation to two charges of swindle and misleading publicity, brought by Euan Armstrong, a Briton who was sold an equity release mortgage.

 

The bank’s employees (Henrik Hjerrild Hansen -above left- and Morten Runo Waaben), currently working from the Luxembourg branch office,  are due to appear in Court on the 23rd of January and are to be questioned by the Judge and the claimant’s legal representatives, Lawbird Legal Services.

 

The Court ruling has also ordered the legal representatives for Danske Bank International S.A. to appear in Court, on the same day, in a capacity of ‚Äėcivilly responsible party‚Äô, inasmuch as corporations did not have criminal responsibility when the alleged fraud took place.

 

According to the writ filed by the claimant in 2011, Danske Bank convinced him in 2005 to mortgage his retirement home in Alhaurin El Grande (M√°laga) to guarantee a loan that was directly invested in financial speculative investment transactions, in Luxembourg, without the capital ever coming to Spain. The financial product, called ‚ÄúCapital Assurance‚ÄĚ, promised interesting tax benefits compliant with Spanish laws in respect to Inheritance and Wealth Taxes by reducing or eliminating the taxable value of the property, once the mortgage was registered against it.

 

According to Lawbird’s representative, Danske Bank even falsified the content of a tax report on the product prepared by KPMG, one of the largest professional services company, by interpreting its conclusions in an unlawful manner with the purpose of facilitating sales.

 

The news release points out that KPMG has deemed ‚Äėfalse‚Äô a statement made by Danske Bank in their promotional marketing whereby the former had approved the tax benefits, as well as a formal request by KPM to Danske Bank to cease the use of their name and the removal of any reference to them having given their blessing to the financial product.

 

The text makes reference to a recent ruling by the Spanish Tax Office that concluded that the so called Equity Release on Spanish property is not a valid scheme for lawful tax mitigation but tax fraud, and a criminal offence where the defrauded sum exceeds ‚ā¨120,000 per tax year.

 

An indictment has also been brought against Peter Staarup, former Danske Bank CEO, as head of the Danish company that is believed to have sold in Spain over 100 ‚ÄúCapital Assurance‚ÄĚ Equity Release mortgage loans worth tens of millions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Danske Bank Luxembourg to be Deposed

Share

 

Following a recent visit by Euan A. lawyers to the Criminal Court 1 in Fuengirola, it has been established that Danske Bank Luxembourg is now to be finally deposed via the European Judicial Network in criminal matters (EJN), in Luxembourg.

Danske Bank lawyers have been¬†persistent in attempting to avoid, at all cost, the interrogation of the defendant parties. The tactics have so far been unsuccessful save for achieving a delay of a few months; the implications, however, could be expensive to its perpetrators for Court officials are of the opinion that there is a clearly defined strategy to maliciously prevent the normal progress of the proceedings and hamper the efforts of the claimant to obtain, via the Spanish Courts, a defendant’s statement within a criminal case.

Notably, Danske Bank insists that this is a purely civil dispute that should be conveniently ventilated by Civil Courts and yet, cannot and willl not explain why is their publicity false, fraudulent and proposes tax evasion openly. Surely, if they had nothing to worry about they would sooner be giving a clarifying statement than hiding behind slow EU cross-border plaintiff interrogation mechanisms.

Finally, it is worth noting that ¬†the claimant’s counsel has indicated that both Mr.¬†Morten Runo¬†Waaben and Mr. Henrik Hjerrild Hansen should be deposed via the appropriate channels but that, if they felt a compelling desire to come out clean they could, through their advisors, request an appointment with the Fuengirola Court to give their statements.

 

Skip to toolbar