Anti-Corruption 2025 Comparisons

Denmark is signed up to multiple international conventions regarding anti-bribery and anti-corruption as detailed below.

The United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC)

Denmark is a part of the UNCAC. It was adopted by the UN General Assembly in October 2003 and entered into force in December 2005. Denmark signed the Convention on 10 December 2003 and ratified it on 26 December 2006. The UNCAC tackles various topics such as bribery, embezzlement and misappropriation (in both public and private sectors), abuse of functions, money laundering and obstruction of justice.

The OECD Anti-Bribery Convention

The OECD Anti-Bribery Convention is legally binding and targets bribery in international business transactions. It requires signatories to criminalise bribery of foreign public officials. It was adopted on 21 November 1997 and entered into force on 15 February 1999. Denmark was one of the 20 founding member countries of the OECD and is one of the current 38 member countries. (See OECD Legal Instruments.)

The Council of Europe: Criminal Law Convention on Corruption – ETS No 173

Denmark is part of the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption which was adopted by the Council of Europe in January 1999. The Convention criminalises various forms of corruption, including bribery of public officials, bribery in the private sector, trading in influence, and money laundering. It also emphasises complementary criminal law measures and improved international co-operation in the prosecution of corruption offences. The implementation of the Convention is monitored by the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO). (See Full list – Treaty Office.)

Additional Protocol to the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption – ETS No 191

The Additional Protocol to the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption supplements the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption by addressing bribery of domestic and foreign arbitrator and jurors. It emphasises the need for complementary criminal law measures and improved international co-operation in the prosecution of corruption offences. Denmark signed the Protocol in May 2003 and ratified it in November 2005. The implementation of the Protocol is also monitored by GRECO, ensuring compliance and effectiveness in combating corruption. (See Full list – Treaty Office.)

The Council of Europe: Civil Law Convention on Corruption – ETS No 174

The Civil Law Convention on Corruption emphasises the importance of civil law measures in the fight against corruption and promotes international co-operation in civil proceedings related to corruption cases. The Convention aims to provide effective remedies for persons who have suffered damage as a result of acts of corruption, enabling them to defend their rights and interests, including the possibility of obtaining compensation for damage. Denmark signed the Convention on 4 November 1999. (See Full list – Treaty Office.)

The main provisions on anti-bribery and anti-corruption are all set out in the Danish Criminal Code (Consolidated Act No 1145 of 5 November 2024, straffeloven) (the “Criminal Code”).

Sections 122 and 144 of the Criminal Code criminalise the act of bribing a public official and the act of accepting a bribe as a public official, respectively. In addition, bribery in the private sector was criminalised in 2013 with the introduction of Section 299 (2).

Sections 278–280 of the Criminal Code provides for the provisions on embezzlement and fraud, including fraud committed by a public official.

In addition to the Criminal Code, requirements for companies specifically in relation to anti-bribery and anti-corruption are set out, eg, in the Danish Bookkeeping Act (Act No 700 of 24 May 2022, bogføringsloven) (the “Bookkeeping Act”), the Danish Financial Statements Act (Consolidated Act No 1057 of 23 September 2024, årsregnskabsloven) (the “Financial Statements Act”) and the Companies Act (Consolidated Act No 1168 of 1 September 2023, selskabsloven) (the “Companies Act”) which set out rules for booking, financial statements, board of directors’ duties, implementation of risk-based analysis and programmes regarding anti-corruption. Furthermore, sector specific regulation is found in the Anti-Money Laundering Act (Consolidated Act No 807 of 21 June 2024, hvidvaskloven) (the “Anti-Money Laundering Act”) which regulates companies in the financial sector and the legal sector. However, in terms of violations, the said acts all refer to the Criminal Code.

There are no official guidelines to supplement the Criminal Code, but case law from the Danish courts of law as well as the preparatory work to the Criminal Code is used for the interpretation of the Criminal Code.

For practitioners, there is a wealth of literature on interpreting the legislation, along with various legal journals focused on, among other things, anti-corruption. The Danish Prosecution Service publishes numerous documents on the Criminal Code, but these are not binding for courts of law.

Anti-corruption guidelines are available to help Danish companies implement compliance programs and detect any possible violations. These guidelines, drafted by the Danish Business Authority and considered best practices, are not considered binding. Refer to 8.2 Compliance Guidelines and Best Practices for further details.

There have been no material changes to the Criminal Code in regards to anti-corruption and anti-bribery in the last 12 months. In terms of relevant case law, refer to 7.5 Recent Landmark Investigations or Decisions.

There is no official definition of bribery in the Criminal Code, but the Criminal Code covers several actions generally considered to constitute criminalised bribery.

Section 122 of the Criminal Code covers the act of bribing (active bribery) and stipulates that any person who unlawfully provides, promises, or offers a gift or other advantage to a person serving in a Danish, foreign, or international public office to induce them to act or refrain from acting in their official duties, shall be punished with a fine or imprisonment for up to six years.

Section 144 of the Criminal Code covers the act of receiving a bribe (passive bribery) and stipulates that any person who, in the exercise of Danish, foreign, or international public service or office, unlawfully receives, demands, or accepts a gift or other advantage, shall be punished with a fine or imprisonment for up to six years.

The definition of serving or exercising public office is wide and includes persons employed in a private company if that company is owned or controlled by the public (and provided that the person is undertaking a public role in the company). Furthermore, foreign public officials in other jurisdictions, including within the EU, are also covered by the provisions.

The definition of a gift or other advantage is also wide and includes both tangible and intangible benefits offered to the public official. However, whether hospitality expenditures and promotional expenditures are covered depends on the specific circumstances of the case, including whether the recipient earns a personal economic gain, whether the recipient is expected to repay or return the hospitality, and whether the given expenditure is greater than what can reasonably be expected, as defined in a judgment from the Supreme Court of Denmark from 1983 (UfR 1983.990 H).

Several public bodies, including Agency for Public Finance and Management – Ministry of Finance, Agency for Modernisation, the Danish Police, the Danish Ministry of Defence Acquisition and Logistics Organisation (DALO) have published guidelines and codices regarding gift or other advantages to public officials.

Attempts of active or passive bribery as well as encouragements of others to actively or passively bribe can also constitute violations of the Criminal Code, regardless of whether the bribe is actually executed or not.

Bribery between private actors is criminalised in Section 299 (2) of the Criminal Code.

There are no separate offences relating to the exchange of influence on decision-making for an undue advantage. In fact, there is hardly any regulation of lobbyism in Denmark as detailed in the Denmark Trends and Developments article for Chambers Anti-Corruption 2025.

Whether influence peddling involving foreign officials is criminalised depends on the specifics of the case. There must be an intent to influence through a gift or other advantage as required under bribery. Influence peddling would thus likely fall under the category of other advantage as detailed in 2.1 Bribery, but it is not separately regulated. To be covered by the Criminal Code, the influence exerted must breach the recipient’s duties or natural influence.

Inaccurate corporate books and records, as well as the dissemination of false information, are penalised under several Danish laws.

As an example, the Bookkeeping Act requires bookkeeping to be conducted in accordance with good bookkeeping practices and in a manner that preserves the bookkeeping material, preventing mistakes or abuse. Non-compliance with the Bookkeeping Act may result in fines pursuant to Section 33. Both physical and legal persons can be fined. A stricter penalty than that prescribed by the Bookkeeping Act may be warranted under Section 302 of the Criminal Code, which typically covers particularly extensive and/or gross offences. If an offence qualifies for a sanction under the Criminal Code, the same offence cannot be punished under the Bookkeeping Act as well due to the observance of the principle of ne bis in idem under Danish law. However, it is possible to punish for different related offences, such as the provisions on defrauding creditors under Section 283 of the Criminal Code, serious tax/fiscal fraud under Section 289, or money laundering under Section 290a, simultaneously with penalties under the bookkeeping provisions.

As another example, the Financial Statements Act mandates that corporate books must provide a true and fair view of the company and its finances. Violations of the act can lead to fines for both physical and legal persons under Section 164. Furthermore, Sections 296 and 392 of the Criminal Code provide for more severe sanctions, including imprisonment, for particularly extensive and/or gross offences. The principle of ne bis in idem applies similarly for such offences.

Additionally, specific areas of bookkeeping are penalised under other Danish laws, such as the Danish Tax Control Act (Consolidated Act No 12 of 8 January 2024, skattekontrolloven), and the Danish VAT Act, (Consolidated Act No 209 of 27 February 2024, momsloven).

The misappropriation of public funds by a public official and the embezzlement of public funds are regulated by Sections 278–280 in the Criminal Code.

The provision on embezzlement penalises any person who, with the intent of obtaining unlawful gain for themselves or others, appropriates movable property that is in their custody, denies receipt of a loan or service for which payment is due, or unlawfully uses entrusted money (Section 278).

The provision on fraud penalises any person who, with the intent of obtaining unlawful gain for themselves or others, induces another person to act or refrain from acting by deceit, thereby causing financial loss to that person or someone else (Section 279).

The provision on criminal breach of trust penalises any person who, with the intent of obtaining unlawful gain for themselves or others, causes financial loss to another by abusing their authority to act on behalf of that person (Section 280).

Unlawful taking of interest by a public official is not in itself criminalised, but it may fall within these provisions depending on the specifics of the case. This would be the case where the unlawful taking of interest results in wrongful personal gain while creating financial loss or the risk thereof.

It should be noted that according to the rules in Section 82(8) of the Criminal Code regarding the severity of the sentence, it is considered an aggravating factor if the crime is committed in the performance of public trade or as an abuse of profession or position. For further details on aggravating and mitigating factors, refer to 5.1 Penalties on Conviction.

The general provisions on active and passive bribery, Sections 122 and 144 of the Criminal Code, also cover the engagement in bribery through an intermediary or third person pursuant to case law. However, the initiator must have the intention of bribery for it to constitute a criminal offence.

In addition to the initiator, the intermediary/third person may be held liable as a complicit to the committed crime, provided that the person is aware of the crime and is seen to have intent to commit the crime.

Save for specific rules, including rules on disclosure, on private contributions to political parties (Consolidated Act No 1188 of 27 September 2023, partiregnskabsloven), lobbying activities are not separately regulated by national legislation in Denmark.

However, it has been heavily debated in academia, the NGO environment and in public decision-making if Denmark ought to introduce regulation of lobbyist organisations. For further information, see the Denmark Trends and Developments article for Chambers Anti-Corruption 2025.

The statute of limitations is outlined in Section 93 of the Criminal Code. The structure of the provision is as follows.

• When no higher penalty than imprisonment for two years is warranted for an offence, the statute of limitations is two years.
• When no higher penalty than imprisonment for four years is warranted for an offence, the statute of limitations is four years.
• When no higher penalty than imprisonment for ten years is warranted for an offence, the statute of limitations is ten years.
• When there is no maximum penalty for an offence, the statute of limitations is 15 years.

This structure applies to all the offences above. For good measure, please see the statute of limitation for each offence in the list below.

• For bribery, either active or passive, as codified in Sections 122 and 144 of the Criminal Code, the maximum penalty is six years of imprisonment. As a result, the statute of limitations is ten years.
• For bribery in the private sector, as codified in Section 299 (2), the maximum penalty is four years of imprisonment. As a result, the statute of limitations is four years.
• For embezzlement, as codified in Section 278, the maximum penalty is 1.5 years of imprisonment. As a result, the statute of limitations is two years.
• For fraud, as codified in Section 279, the maximum penalty is 1.5 years of imprisonment. As a result, the statute of limitations is two years.
• For criminal breach of trust, as codified in Section 280, the maximum penalty is 1.5 years of imprisonment. As a result, the statute of limitations is two years.

If several criminalised acts, each punishable in its own right, have been committed, the statute of limitation is calculated by the longest statute of limitations out of the different offences.

The main rules and principles of territory are outlined in Sections 6–9a of the Criminal Code.

All acts committed in Denmark or on Danish vessels, regardless of where the vessel is, are under Danish jurisdiction. This includes acts of corruption such as bribery, embezzlement and fraud, pursuant to Section 6 of the Criminal Code.

Furthermore, acts committed in a foreign territory by a person who, at the time of the charge, is a Danish citizen, lives in Denmark or is residing in Denmark on a permanent basis (ie, has Danish affiliation), are also subject to Danish jurisdiction, provided that either (i) the act is a criminal offence in the jurisdiction in which the crime is committed (the principle of dual criminality) or (ii) the perpetrator has Danish affiliation not only at the time of the charge, but also at the time of committing the act, and the act either:

• involves sexual exploitation of children, human trafficking, or female genital mutilation; or
• is directed against someone who, at the time of the act, has the mentioned Danish affiliation (Section 7(1) of the Criminal Code).

For good measure, the authors note that the principle of dual criminality does not entail a requirement for the act to be criminalised in both jurisdictions specifically for legal persons as well (Section 7b of the Criminal Code).

In addition to this, Section 7(2) provides for extraterritorial reach for acts committed outside of any jurisdictions by a person who, at the time of the charge, has Danish affiliation as described above, and the committed offence can result in a higher sanction than four months of imprisonment.

The provisions in Sections 7(1) and 7(2) also apply to acts committed by a person which is, at the time of the charge, a citizen of Finland, Iceland, Norway or Sweden, lives in Finland, Iceland, Norway or Sweden and is residing in Denmark.

Regardless of where the perpetrator is a citizen or is residing, actions committed outside of the Danish territory fall within Danish criminal jurisdiction (Section 8) when the action:

• infringes the independence, security, constitution, or public authorities of the Danish state, or a duty towards the state;
• infringes interests whose legal protection in the Danish state requires a special connection to it;
• infringes an obligation that the perpetrator is required by law to observe abroad;
• infringes a duty that the perpetrator has towards a Danish vessel;
• is covered by an international provision under which Denmark is obliged to have criminal jurisdiction; or
• the extradition of the accused for prosecution in another country is refused, and the action, if committed within a foreign jurisdiction, is punishable under the law of the place where it was committed (double criminality) and the action under Danish law can result in a penalty of imprisonment for at least one year.

Lastly, according to Section 9 of the Criminal Code, actions are considered to be carried out where the perpetrator was located at the time of the act. In the case of legal entities, actions are considered to be carried out where the act or acts that result in liability for the legal entity are carried out. If the criminality of an act depends on or is influenced by an actual or intended consequence, the act is also considered to be carried out where the effect has occurred or where the perpetrator intended the effect to occur. When part of an offence is committed in the Danish state, the offence as a whole is considered to be committed in Denmark.

Attempts and acts of complicity are considered to be carried out on Danish territory if the perpetrator was located in Denmark at the time of the act, regardless of whether the offence is completed or intended to be completed outside the Danish territory (Section 9(3)).

All of the principles above apply to the provisions set out in 3.1 Limitation Period, unless otherwise stated.

The relevant provisions on corporate liability are found in Sections 25–27 of the Criminal Code.

Generally, legal entities can only be held responsible and sanctioned with fines when the relevant provisions warrant corporate liability (Section 25 of the Criminal Code).

The rules on corporate liability apply to all legal entities regardless of corporate form unless otherwise stated, including public and private limited companies, partnerships, associations, foundations, estates, municipalities, state authorities, and, in certain cases, one-man businesses (Section 26). However, municipalities and state authorities can only be punished for offences committed in the exercise of activities that correspond to or can be equated with activities carried out by private entities (Section 27 (2)).

Liability for a legal entity requires that an offence has been committed in relation to the legal entity’s operations which can be attributed to one or more persons associated with the legal entity or the legal entity as such. This entails a subjective requirement of intent or negligence (as in personal criminal liability) and can appear in two forms. Either:

• as attribution to individuals associated with the legal entity; or
• as attribution to the legal entity itself.

If it cannot be proven that individuals associated with the company (typically management and/or employees) exhibited culpable behaviour, or if it cannot be blamed on the company as such that the violation occurred, the legal entity cannot be held liable.

Legal entities can be held liable for acts committed by executive employees as well as any other employee. Furthermore, the legal entity can be held liable if it is operated in a way that generates or strengthens the possibility of a violation. In general, executive owners or co-owners of a company are more likely to be held liable along with the legal entity since they have common interests.

Attempts by legal entities can only be sanctioned when the penalty framework of the act allows for imposing a sentence exceeding four months of imprisonment on natural persons (Section 27(1)).

Because the legal entity is a “person” of its own, both entities and persons can be held liable for the same violation. This is particularly relevant if the management or a senior employee has acted intentionally or with gross negligence. In such cases, charges are typically brought against both the company and the leading individuals who can be held responsible. Charges against subordinate employees are generally not pursued unless there are special circumstances, such as a serious offence committed intentionally and possibly on their own initiative. In such cases, however, charges are also brought against the company.

As a main rule under Danish law, a successor entity can be held liable for the offences by the original entity. In the event of a merger, the principle of universal succession applies meaning that the criminal liability from the transferring company is transferred to the receiving company. Changes to the company’s structure or beneficial owners does not change whether the company can be held criminally liable. In situations where the liable company has been divided after having committed an offence, the placement of responsibility depends on whether one of the new entities can be said to continue the part of the offending company that is relevant to the committed act.

The Criminal Code does not provide for any specific defences in relation to corruption and bribery offences besides the common defences which can be used in relation to almost all criminal offences (self-defence, stress of necessity, being a minor, or being in a mental state of exception).

There are no defences available to the violations under the Criminal Code. As such, there are no exceptions.

There are no formal de minimis exceptions under the Criminal Code and the provisions regarding anti-corruption and anti-bribery, although bribery with offerings worth a very low amount may give rise to doubts as to whether the gift was given with the intention of bribery and thus result in a low or no sanction.

No sectors or industries are exempt from the offences noted previously in this chapter. The Criminal Code applies to all natural and legal persons within the Danish criminal jurisdiction as outlined in 3.2 Geographical Reach of Applicable Legislation.

There are no forms of safe harbour or amnesty programmes based on self-reporting under the Criminal Code.

However, having an effective and updated compliance programme, ensuring regular compliance training of all relevant employees and other initiatives which reduce the risk of an offence being committed will generally be considered a mitigating circumstance in connection with sentencing, although it will not necessarily lead charges being dropped or a penalty being dismissed entirely. Likewise, adequate consultation of legal advice prior to the act at hand, such as a lawyer specialising in the relevant area, and acting in accordance with the advice sought, can also be considered a mitigating circumstance, unless it is obvious that the company itself should have known that the action was illegal. Lastly, self-reporting can be a mitigating factor in connection with sentencing.

The penalty framework for the offences noted in this chapter is set out below.

• If a person is found guilty of active or passive bribery of a public official, they can either be fined or sentenced to up to six years in prison.
• If a person is found guilty of bribery in the private sector, they can either be fined or sentenced to up to four years in prison.
• If a person is found guilty of embezzlement, they can either be fined or sentenced to up to 1.5 years in prison.
• If a person is found guilty of fraud, they can either be fined or sentenced to up to 1.5 years in prison.
• If a person is found guilty of criminal breach of trust, they can either be fined or sentenced to up to 1.5 years in prison.

For embezzlement, fraud and criminal breach of trust, the penalty may be increased to eight years of imprisonment when the committed offence is of a particularly serious nature due to the manner of execution, due to the extent of the obtained or intended gain, because the crime was committed by several people jointly, or when a several offences have been committed.

When determining the size of the fine, the courts may take into account the financial personal gain which the perpetrator has achieved through the committed act.

Sections 81 and 82 of the Criminal Code outlines aggravating and mitigating circumstances which the courts can take into account when determining the appropriate penalty. Refer to 5.2 Guidelines Applicable to the Assessment of Penalties for an overview of these factors.

Individuals, legal entities as well as individuals within the entity can be sanctioned. See 3.3 Corporate Liability.

There are no specific guidelines applicable to the sentencing.

The Criminal Code, chapter 10, generally stipulates the relevant circumstances to be taken into account in connection with sentencing.

Section 81 outlines aggravating circumstances and Section 82 outlines mitigating circumstances. There is no minimum sentence for bribery or embezzlement as it is up to the courts to decide on a proper sentence.

Below are different factors, and their placement under the Criminal Code.

It should be noted that the courts always observe the specifics of the case in connection with the sentencing.

Aggravating Circumstances

Below the authors have listed a few examples of circumstances which should generally be considered as aggravating factors in connection with the sentencing pursuant to Section 81 of the Criminal Code.

• The perpetrator has previously been sanctioned for acts relevant to the committed crime.
• The crime is committed be several persons jointly.
• The perpetrator intended for the act to have significantly more serious consequences than it did.
• The act was committed in the performance of public service or duty, or through the abuse of position or other special trust relationship.
• The act is related to the victim’s or their close relatives’ performance of public service or duty.

Mitigating Circumstances

Below the authors have listed a few examples of circumstances which should generally be considered as mitigating factors in connection with the sentencing pursuant to Section 82 of the Criminal Code.

• The perpetrator acted in excusable ignorance of or excusable misunderstanding of legal rules that prohibit or mandate the action.
• The perpetrator has voluntarily averted or attempted to avert the danger caused by the criminal act.
• The perpetrator has confessed.
• The perpetrator has provided information crucial for solving criminal acts committed by others.
• The perpetrator has repaired or attempted to repair the damage caused by the criminal act
• The act was committed as a result of coercion, fraud, or exploitation of the perpetrator’s young age or significant economic or personal difficulties, lack of insight, recklessness, or an existing dependency relationship
• Enough time has passed since the criminal act was committed that applying the usual sanction is unnecessary.

Under Danish law, individuals and/or companies are not per se obligated to report violations of anti-bribery. It is not in itself criminalised to not report on corruption or bribery violations. To be an accomplice to the crime, one must have intent to carry out the crime. This means there is no risk of being an accomplice by failing to report a violation.

However, all Danish companies with more than 50 employees are required to establish an internal whistle-blower programme as stipulated in Section 9 of The Danish Law of Protection of Whistleblowers (Act No 1436 of 29 June 2021, whistleblowerloven) (the “Whistleblower Act”). Whistle-blower programmes can urge the disclosure of suspicion or knowledge of a committed violation since they provide for protection and anonymity. See 6.4 Protections Afforded to Whistle-Blowers.

Moreover, the Danish Public Procurement Act (Consolidated Act No 10 of 6 January 2023, udbudsloven) (the “Public Procurement Act”) entail obligations on disclosure (and to some extent disqualification) for entities participating in public tender procedures.

There are no direct incentive programmes to encourage self-disclosure of potential violations in relation to anti-bribery and anti-corruption. Self-reporting can however affect the sentencing positively as further detailed under 5.2 Guidelines Applicable to the Assessment of Penalties.

It is possible for individuals as well as companies to anonymously report violations of bribery and/or corruption through the Danish Business Authority’s (Erhvervsstyrelsens) whistle-blower programme, but no benefits are given to the ones who do.

Self-disclosure procedures are not relevant in Denmark, as detailed in 6.2 Voluntary Disclosure Incentives.

Section 5-8 of the Whistleblower Act outlines the protection of whistle-blowers and the requirements an individual must meet to be categorised as a whistle-blower protected under the law.

The law protects whistle-blowers reporting to an internal whistle-blower programme, external whistle-blower programme and whistle-blower programmes within the EU.

The protection is granted on the condition that the whistle-blower had reason to believe that the declared information was correct at the time of the report.

Provided that the whistle-blower meets the necessary conditions and that the report is necessary to expose a serious criminal offence or serious circumstance, they will not breach statutory confidentiality and will not be held liable.

The whistle-blower is not held responsible for the method used to gain access to the information if the method does not in and of itself constitute a criminal offence.

The whistle-blower is not to be met by retaliatory measures due to the report.

There are no formal incentives other than the protection whistle-blowers are granted under the Whistleblower Act.

Under Danish law, enforcement of the anti-corruption provisions of the Criminal Code is a criminal matter and thus handled by the Danish Prosecution Service in accordance with the principles of the Danish Administration of Justice Act (Consolidated Act No 1160 of 5 November 2024, retsplejeloven).

There is no formal civil or administrative enforcement, except for the possibility any individual to file a civil lawsuit in the Danish courts if the individual has been subject to a violation and has suffered a financial loss in connection hereto. Furthermore, professionals committing an offence may be subject to the suspension or revocation of professional licences and disqualification from holding public office.

Finally, the Public Procurement Act entail obligations on disclosure (and to some extent disqualification) for entities participating in public tender procedures having been engaged in criminal activities, including corruption.

All of the relevant provisions as set out in 3.1 Limitation Period and 5.1 Penalties on Conviction are enforced by the Danish Prosecution Service, as it is criminalised in the Criminal Code.

Generally, if the offence committed is of a sufficiently serious or organised nature, the Special Crime Unit (National enhed for Særlig Kriminalitet – NSK) within the Danish Police/the Danish Prosecution Service will handle the matter. The Special Crime Unit has extensive knowledge of and experience with economic crimes.

Danish law enforcement has the authority to investigate and prosecute crimes within the Danish jurisdiction. The principles of territoriality are outlined in 3.2 Geographical Reach of Applicable Legislation.

Danish criminal procedure does not offer a formal system for non-trial resolutions. It generally relies on the courts to decide what mitigating or aggravating factors applies to the case as set out in 5.2 Guidelines Applicable to the Assessment of Penalties.

However, the Danish Prosecution Service may in certain cases suggest an extrajudicial fine which the charged person(s) can either accept or deny (known in Danish as udenretlig bødevedtagelse). This allows persons to accept a fine without going through a formal court process. The system is designed to streamline the handling of minor offences and criminal acts where there can be little to no doubt as to the outcome at court, offering a quicker resolution to, eg, professionals and companies not wanting to go through a lengthy and costly legal process at the courts.

When a person accepts an extrajudicial fine, they acknowledge the offence and agree to pay the specified amount, thereby avoiding a court appearance and the legal costs related thereto. It is important to note that accepting an extrajudicial fine is considered an admission of guilt which may have consequences in relation to, for example, future compensation claims as a result of the committed act. In accordance with the principle of access to justice, no person can ever be forced into accepting an extrajudicial fine.

Case law involving bribery and corruption in Denmark is relatively sparse.

Below the authors have listed three of the most exposed cases involving bribery or corruption in Denmark from within the past ten years.

The Consultancy Case

On 18 January 2024, the Eastern High Court of Denmark delivered a verdict in a significant case involving a former head of department with the national police and a private consultant. The former head of department and the private consultant were accused of engaging in corrupt practices from 2012–2015 during which the consultant made payments to the former head of department under the guise of consulting fees for work allegedly performed by the former head of department for the consultant’s company. The department head was charged with accepting bribes totalling approximately DKK630,000 (approximately EUR85,000) from the consultant (passive bribery), who, in turn, was charged with offering these bribes (active bribery). The former head of department was sentenced to eight months in prison, with six months suspended, while the private consultant received a six-month suspended sentence. Additionally, the department head was ordered to forfeit DKK150,000 (approximately EUR20,000), representing the estimated illicit gains from the corrupt activities. For further details, see the Denmark Trends and Developments article for Chambers Anti-Corruption 2025.

The IT Procurement Case

In 2015, it was discovered that employees from several public institutions had received bribes from an IT supplier. The bribes included luxury trips and dinners. Several high-ranking officials were implicated, including the former IT-operations manager of one of the public institutions, who received a prison sentence of one year and six months for bribery and embezzlement in 2018. Other former executives from the IT company and public officials received various sentences, ranging from conditional imprisonment to community service. The IT company was fined DKK10 million (approximately EUR1.3 million). Almost all of the charged individuals had funds confiscated. Altogether, around DKK1 million (approximately EUR134,000) were confiscated in the process.

The Social Services Case

A former employee of the national social services agency embezzled approximately DKK117 million (around EUR15.7 million) over a span of 25 years. The former employee diverted funds intended for social projects into personal accounts. The fraud was uncovered in 2018, leading to the former employee’s arrest in South Africa, and subsequent extradition to Denmark to face trial. During the trial, the former employee admitted to the embezzlement but claimed to be caught in a “vicious circle” and partly motivated by a desire to improve the lives of their three children, who were also charged with handling stolen goods. In February 2020, the former employee was sentenced to six and a half years in prison for their crimes. The court found them guilty of fraud of a particularly grave nature, abusing a public position, and forgery. In addition to the prison sentence, over DKK113 million (approximately EUR15 million) of the individual’s assets were confiscated.

The level of sanctions differs from case to case depending on the circumstances surrounding the committed offence. As shown in 7.5 Recent Landmark Investigations or Decisions, prison sentences ranging from a few days to several years are not rare when it comes to these offences and the financial gains achieved through the illicit act will often be confiscated. Furthermore, fines will likely be imposed on companies when applicable.

Under Danish law, there are only requirements on the implementation of compliance programmes or procedures on anti-bribery or anti-corruption if the legal person is of a certain form. In the following sections, legislation that binds specific legal persons or sectors is listed.

The authors note that if the company is operating internationally, the company might be subject to the jurisdiction of other countries in which the compliance programme requirements are stricter than in Denmark.

Section 99a of the Financial Statements Act stipulate that public listed companies with more than 500 employees are obligated to report on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). The CSR-directive outlines certain requirements to companies, including reporting on measures taken on anti-bribery and anti-corruption.

Section 115 of the Companies Act specifies if a company has a board of directors, the board of directors must ensure a proper organisation of the company; eg, ensure that the company has established procedures for risk management and internal monitoring programmes. This also relates to programmes revolving around anti-corruption. Refer to 8.2 Compliance Guidelines and Best Practices on guidelines on corporate governance that further outlines best practices.

The Anti-Money Laundering Act obliges companies and persons in certain sectors to establish compliance programmes. The Anti-Money Laundering Act primarily establishes obligations on companies and persons in the financial sector, law firms and other companies that handle funds. The obligations entail the establishment of compliance programmes and internal monitoring of the company’s obligations and risk management (Sections 7 and 8 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act).

Non-compliance with these obligations is usually penalised by fine.

The failure to prevent a bribe is not an offence. An individual can, however, be an accomplice to bribery, if the individual is aware of the crime and has the intent to commit the bribe.

There are several guidelines on corporate governance, including guidelines on risk-management and compliance programmes, available to Danish companies. These guidelines are not legally binding but emphasise what is considered best practice and should as such be adhered to.

The guide “Recommendations on good corporate governance” published by the Committee for good Corporate Governance (Kommitéen for god Selskabsledelse) sorting under the Danish Business Authority (Erhvervsstyrelsen) is the most commonly used and referred to in Denmark. The guide advises that company management should address significant strategic or business-related risks associated with bribery and money laundering. Additionally, it mandates the implementation of whistle-blower programmes. The guidelines provide detailed instructions on establishing compliance programmes aimed at protecting and educating employees in areas where the company is most vulnerable to corruption and bribery.

Additionally, the Disciplinary Board of the Danish Bar and Law Society set out guidelines for Danish law firms on the implementation of compliance programmes and handling of funds.

Further, the Danish Business Authority and the European Commission have set out guidelines on the implementation of the CSR-directive obliging certain companies to report on anti-corruption amongst other things. See also 8.1 Compliance Obligations regarding the Financial Statements Act Section 99a on CSR reporting obligations.

Currently, enforcement bodies do not have the option of seeking a compliance monitor as part of corporate resolutions.

OECD published an evaluation of Denmark in 2023 (the so-called Anti-Bribery Convention Phase 4 report). The Report contains several recommendations pertaining to the legislation and awareness of foreign bribery and a comment on the fact that Denmark have very few cases revolving around corruption and bribery.

The Phase 4 report points to several weaknesses of the Danish anti-corruption and anti-bribery legislation and enforcement, including the following.

• Investigation and legislation regarding bribery from foreign countries is not sufficient.
• There is no clarification on the legal basis for small facilitation payments

The Phase 4 report also points to several strengths of the Danish anti-corruption and anti-bribery legislation and enforcement, including the following.

• The steps taken against anti-money laundering and the greater protection of whistle-blowers.
• Danish Companies usually have well established anti-corruption programmes and are aware of the risk of bribery from foreign counties.

Based on this, the OECD sets out the following recommendations for Denmark.

• Develop a comprehensive national policy or strategy to fight foreign bribery.
• Proactively detect, investigate and prosecute foreign bribery.
• Clarify the legal basis for the small facilitation payments.
• Adopt a clear and transparent framework for non-trial resolutions.
• Increase sanctions for false accounting and foreign bribery-related money laundering offences.
• Further raise awareness of foreign bribery.
• Take proactive steps to extend the OECD Convention to Greenland and the Faroe Islands.

Furthermore, Denmark is ranked number one as the least corrupt country in the world in the Corruption Perceptions Index 2023.

Although there is plenty of public debate on, eg, the regulation of lobbying activities and the revolving door phenomenon (see 2.2 Influence-Peddling and 2.6 Lobbyists and the Denmark Trends and Developments article for Chambers Anti-Corruption 2025), there are no scheduled changes to the current legislation and enforcement body.