district court of ravnkær case no. 2026-r-0041 the state v. jens møller

transcript of proceedings — cross-examination of thomas krogh, certified public accountant, by defense counsel degn.

counsel degn: mr. krogh, you testified that this key-man insurance policy was taken out twelve years ago. is that correct?

krogh: yes. when the company was founded in 2014.

counsel degn: and in those twelve years, was the policy ever modified? the beneficiary changed, the amount adjusted, anything?

krogh: no. nothing was changed.

counsel degn: so this was a set-it-and-forget-it arrangement?

krogh: essentially, yes. that’s common with small partnerships. the policy gets created alongside the company formation paperwork and then nobody thinks about it again.

counsel degn: you said the annual premium was just under 18,000 kroner. was there any indication in the books that either partner actively managed this policy? reviewed it, discussed it, even acknowledged it?

krogh: no. it was a recurring debit. auto-paid. there were no notes, no correspondence about it in the company records — apart from the payment entries.

counsel degn: now, you told the prosecution that my client stood to gain roughly two million kroner from erik bredahl’s death. but that assumes he was thinking about insurance at all. in your professional experience, how often do small business partners know the details of a twelve-year-old key-man policy off the top of their heads?

prosecutor nilsson: objection. calls for speculation about the defendant’s state of mind.

counsel degn: i’m asking about mr. krogh’s professional experience with small business clients generally.

judge thorsen: i’ll allow it. answer the question, mr. krogh.

krogh: in my experience… most small business owners couldn’t tell you the amount of their key-man policy without looking it up. sometimes they’ve forgotten they have one at all. it’s — it’s not something people think about day to day.

counsel degn: thank you. now, let’s talk about dissolution. you testified that if erik dissolved the partnership, jens would lose access to equipment. but isn’t it also true that jens could have simply bought the equipment at auction himself?

krogh: in theory, yes. but he would have needed capital. the major items — the combine alone — we’re talking 400,000 to 600,000 on the used market. he’d have received maybe 175,000 from his share of the liquidation. so there’d be a significant shortfall.

counsel degn: could he have financed the purchase? taken a loan?

krogh: i suppose. he owns the farm outright. there would be collateral. but i can’t speak to his creditworthiness beyond what’s in the company books.

counsel degn: so dissolution was a problem, certainly. but not necessarily a catastrophe. a man with a paid-off farm has options.

krogh: he has some options, yes.

counsel degn: let me shift to something else. you examined the company’s books thoroughly — every line item, every transaction?

krogh: i reviewed them comprehensively, yes.

counsel degn: and the prosecution asked you about the insurance, the debt, the equipment. they painted a very specific picture of jens møller’s financial motive. but you examined both partners’ financial activity through the company, didn’t you?

krogh: i did.

counsel degn: were there any irregularities on erik bredahl’s side of the ledger?

krogh: i — what do you mean by irregularities?

counsel degn: anything unusual. unexplained transactions. expenses without documentation.

krogh: [pause] there were… some cash withdrawals that i noted.

counsel degn: how much?

krogh: approximately 15,000 kroner over the past six months.

counsel degn: and these were recorded as what?

krogh: miscellaneous expenses. but there were no receipts attached. no documentation.

counsel degn: and who made these withdrawals?

krogh: they were made by erik bredahl.

counsel degn: 15,000 kroner in undocumented cash withdrawals by the deceased. did you report this to either legal team?

krogh: i — no. i considered it relatively minor in the context of the overall financial picture. the company was dealing with 380,000 in debt. 15,000 in —

counsel degn: you were asked to examine the books independently and thoroughly, were you not?

krogh: i was.

counsel degn: and you found 15,000 kroner in cash withdrawals with no receipts, made by the deceased partner of a failing company, and you didn’t think it was worth mentioning?

krogh: it’s not — look, in a company this size, some informality with petty cash isn’t uncommon. farmers don’t always keep receipts for every bag of feed or —

counsel degn: 15,000 kroner is not petty cash, mr. krogh.

krogh: it’s spread over six months. roughly 2,500 a month.

counsel degn: do you have any idea what those withdrawals were for?

krogh: no. i don’t.

counsel degn: could they have been for personal expenses run through the business?

krogh: possibly.

counsel degn: gambling debts?

krogh: i have no way of knowing.

counsel degn: payments to someone?

krogh: i can’t speculate.

counsel degn: but you can confirm that erik bredahl was pulling undocumented cash from a company that was already drowning in debt?

krogh: [pause] the withdrawals are in the records. yes.

counsel degn: let me turn to the spreadsheet you sent erik on january 9th. you included the insurance policy as a line item. how was it listed?

krogh: it was under company assets. listed as “key-man life insurance, alm. brand, policy lf-2014-88231, death benefit 2,400,000 dkk, beneficiary: jens møller.”

counsel degn: so erik saw that. he saw that his business partner was the beneficiary of a 2.4 million kroner policy on his life.

krogh: it was in the spreadsheet, yes.

counsel degn: and five days later he was dead.

prosecutor nilsson: objection. counsel is implying —

counsel degn: i’m stating a timeline, your honor.

judge thorsen: the timeline speaks for itself. move on, counsel.

counsel degn: mr. krogh, one more question. the notes app entry from erik’s laptop — “42 procent til ham, resten til banken, og hvad til mig? intet. 12 år og intet.” you’ve seen the company books. does that 42 percent figure correspond to anything?

krogh: [considers] 42 percent… if you look at the equipment liquidation value, jens’s share — factoring in his larger initial capital contribution twelve years ago — would be approximately 42 percent of the gross asset value before debt service. so yes. it tracks.

counsel degn: so erik had done the math. he knew exactly what the numbers looked like.

krogh: it appears so.

counsel degn: and his conclusion was — in his own words — “nothing. twelve years and nothing.”

krogh: that’s what the note says.

counsel degn: no further questions.

[end of cross-examination]