Skip to content

2016: Danish police obscured precise reason of internal chief-sacking

February 16, 2017

On July 20, 2016 Danish media reported, that a chief at the National police was sacked at the beginning of 2016. The real reason for the him being sacked was not told.
According to Serious Fraud Office the sacked police chief received in the autumn of 2012 a trip to Dubai without justification.
The trip was paid by IT vendor Atea and lasted one week. The police, the sacked police-chief and Serious Fraud Office have all of them declined commenting on this matter.
In June 2015 another chief was expelled from the police. He was being kept in custody in the case and was sacked a few days later.
According to the news items published on July 20, 2016, the two police-chiefs seemingly ran a professional partnership: With only few breaks they had for years been employed at the same public institutions, most lately the national Danish police!
The police abstained from commenting on the two chiefs.


With the added informations about the trip to Dubai in 2012, two trips to the oil state are currently figuring in the great bribery case. Since the start of this case a luxury trip to Dubai during the spring of 2014 was a pivotal point. That trip was also paid by Atea.

Six persons participated: Two from Atea, two from the competitor 3A-it, a chief from Region Zealand, while the last one was the cief from the police, that was expelled in the summer of 2015.
According to the news items posted on July 20, 2016, the most recent sacking of a chief at the police is revealing, that the police is more involved in the great bribery case than it was supposed.

Furthermore the charge is revealing that Atea, according to Serious Fraud Office, was accompanied by publicly employed chiefs on seemingly private trips to Dubai more than once.
For the Danish police the case got worse in June 2016, when further five persons were charged in the case, because they allegedly had received it-equipment from Atea.
At the same time further 27 other publicly employed persons were charged in the case.

— — —


By Ulla Danielsen,

The Danish police have been compelled to sacking two chiefs, because they are charged with receiving bribes. This was reported in the media during Juli 2016.
The persons in question were protected by namebans. This means that the press is not allowed to report their names.
Could anything be less correct taking the public’s sense of justice into consideration?

Would Jacob Mchangama, director at the think tank Justititia, or any other distinguished persons within the legal field kindly enable a public debate about the authorities’s seemingly never ending abusive use of namebans, please! It is more than due time.

Is the Danish constitution with its democratic ruling, that legal exercise must be carried out in public and with oral proccedings ‘nur ein Fetzen Papier’?

Why are the public being denied knowledge about who the two charged former chiefs at the Danish police are?
Is it not an aggravating fact, that this case is about charged and sacked police chiefs?
Why are people being denied the right of knowing what areas of responsibility they are charged with having failed?

The first of the two sacked chiefs at the police was sacked in 2015, the other at the beginning of 2016. It has been stated, that they ran a professional partnership. Were those two guys also running a professional partnership concerning the matter, that they are currently being charged with?

— — —


A chief at the Danish police was charged and sacked at the beginning of 2016. But the public was told nothing for 7 months. The extraordinary case was not reported until July of that year.
During the summer of 2016 the somewhat delayed reporting was explained by the fact, that the police chief complained to the Ministry of Justice about being sacked. The ministry dismissed his complaint in the month of June 2016.
Not until the dismissal of the complaint was it possible for news outlets to access the documents in the case through the Danish freedom of information act.
But when that finally happened, the papers revealed, that the police chief had indeed been sacked and did not stop at the police “for personal reasons” as boasted otherwhere.

Altogether 2 chiefs at the Danish police have left their employments and have been charged as a consequence of the case known as the Atea bribery case. The first of the 2 police chiefs left his occupation in 2015.
— — —

For news readers it might be of interest to be told, why the charged police chief complained to the Ministry of Justice about being sacked?
Did he only do so as a delaying tactic?
What advantage could the charged former police chief eventually gain by a delayal?

Or had the charged and sacked police chief eventually a justifyable expectation about support from the Ministry of Justice?

What area in the police did the chief reside over until he was finally getting charged and sacked?

Why did the Ministry of Justice need 6 months to deal with the complaint?

Is the substance of the complaint complicated?


From → Uncategorized

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: