Economy. The indictment for the HQ crash ended in the complete defeat of the Economic Crimes Bureau. Mats Qviberg and all other defendants acquitted. According to the district court followed the bank regulatory environment.
“An incredible awaited decision,” the financier Mats Qviberg on Twitter commenting on the District Court’s acquittal.
At HQ Bank’s collapse in 2010, he was chairman of the parent company HQ. Together with the bank’s chairman Stefan Dahlbo, CEO Mikael König and Board member Curt Lönnström he has since the beginning of last year stood accused of serious racketeering. A crime which, according to the Economic Crimes Bureau (EBM) would have committed with the help of accountant Johan Dyrefors.
The court bought but not the Agency’s basic claim that the bank had violated the applicable accounting rules for the valuation of the Bank’s trading activities. Therefore freed all indicted. Although the indictment of aggravated accounting offenses against the three HQ Bank representatives had failed.
“Should not have indicted”
The news was welcomed by Hans Strandberg, one of Mats Qviberg’s defense during the trial. He believes that the judgment is well written and it is clear that the Court has understood the issues.
TT: Would Prosecutor have indictments in the first place?
– I think not that. Is the judgment motivated so that there has been no misalignment, then it is remarkable that goes to prosecution without their own expert opinions and only refers to the FSA.
The assessment of the district court regarding the scam part is completely focused on the accounting rules . The court stated that there have been “minor deviations” from the rules, but they are not so severe that it can lead to a conviction.
– We have not looked at whether there have been an unacceptable risk, it lacked capital or the big trading loss it did. We have only tried an international framework, the judge says Carl Rosenmüller.
Pressed by the defense
EBM’s Chief Prosecutor Martin Ages, which brought charges against HQ peaks, dismisses criticism that he should not have been prosecuted. He believes that he had reason to expect a conviction.
At the same time he testifies pressure from the accused’s defense counsel – a large, but for him unknown, number of lawyers.
– We have to discuss how climate talks both in and outside right should be between prosecutors and lawyers. The consequences, if we can not curb this, can of course be that we will have a hard time finding prosecutors who want to set up in such matters
TT: Do you already have a sense of whether you plan to appeal?
– No. I do not speculate in it. I must give the district court a proper reading.