Morten W. Langer
Apr 2, 2025
NSK, the Danish Anti-Corruption Police, has recently questioned even more people with current or former connections to Pandora. According to the information, the original statute of limitations of ten years was exceeded last week. However, the Anti-Corruption Police has chosen to continue the investigation after an extension of the statute of limitations.
Journalist Lars Abild explains what it takes to get the statute of limitations extended
The Kasi case immediately hit a ten-year statute of limitations wall last week, which could have closed the case once and for all. But apparently, the NSK, the Danish Criminal Police, believes that the investigation should continue in order to turn over all the stones in the case.
According to what has been reported, the statute of limitations has now been extended, reports Økonomisk Ugebrev, meaning that the police investigation continues.
Økonomisk Ugebrev is in possession of a memo from EY, dated March 27, 2015, in which the accounting firm commented on the calculated additional payment to the now bankrupt company Kasi A/S, which was owned by the Kasi family. Until last week, the date on this memo was seen as a guideline for the legal limitation period of ten years, which applies in potential criminal cases with a minimum sentence of four years in prison.
Økonomisk Ugebrev has received confirmation from several sources close to the case that the statute of limitations has now been extended. However, it has not been stated, not even by NSK, what the legal justification is for the extension of the statute of limitations.
There are several options.
One of them – and probably the most likely – is the so-called “suspension” of limitation periods, which is based on the fact that the starting point of the limitation period can also be calculated from the time when the injured party discovered the “case”, i.e. at a later time.
Senior advisor, Lars Krull, Aalborg University Business School says: "It is not known how NSK has screwed up their work. I can hardly imagine that they do not have control of their affairs, and then they must have ensured that the statute of limitations has been broken or extended. How is difficult to say. At this point, that knowledge is only with NSK."
Another possibility is that NSK has questioned people with the rights of a suspect or a court order has been issued for wiretapping. This would then trigger new deadlines. Økonomisk Ugebrev has no information that this is the case.
As previously described, the case concerns whether the bankruptcy estate Kasi a/s, which was owned by Jesper Kasi Nielsen and family, was defrauded of a three-digit million amount by the listed Pandora when the family sold their half share in the subsidiary Pandora CWE (PCWE) – the European company – to Pandora A/S.
In the first instance, the family received DKK 400 million from the company Kasi ApS – in the second instance, an earn-out had to be paid to the limited liability company.
It is this earn-out that is the core of the dispute. The Kasiernes were expecting several hundred million, but did not receive a single krone, as the profit in PCWE in 2014 was too low. The question, however, is whether Pandora has been very creative in having the profit written down.
According to information from Økonomisk Ugebrev, NSK has recently questioned several former senior Pandora employees to find out what happened in PCWE with the results for 2014. That is, whether there were adjustments to the calculation basis that was to be used in the spring of 2015 to calculate earn-out payments to Kasi a/s. Previously, Kasi-Jesper, among others, has been questioned at NSK in Glostrup.
Økonomisk Ugebrev has previously described that Jesper Kasi Nielsen's lawyer believes that the result in PCWE was allegedly written down by Pandora buying returned goods from Pandora all over the world – and not just in Europe. This resulted in write-downs in the accounts – to the detriment of PCWE.
Similarly, Økonomisk Ugebrev has internal Pandora papers that show a significantly higher result in PCWE than the officially announced one. The high result was, among other things, used to pay bonuses to senior employees in the subsidiary. Pandora does not wish to comment on these matters.
Suspension of a limitation period of 10 years can have very serious consequences for those involved if a case is processed in court following an indictment. SKAT writes: “The limitation period is 10 years when the penalty is imprisonment for more than 4 years and up to 10 years. This means that matters covered by Section 289 of the Danish Penal Code have a limitation period of 10 years.”