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

transcript of proceedings — direct examination of thomas krogh, certified public accountant, called by the prosecution.

prosecutor nilsson: mr. krogh, you were retained to examine the financial records of bredahl & møller agricultural supply. when did you begin that work?

krogh: in the days following mr. bredahl’s death. january 16th, i believe. the police brought me the company laptop and asked me to go through the books independently.

prosecutor nilsson: and you had no prior relationship with this company?

krogh: none. i’m based in viborg. i’d never worked with either partner before.

prosecutor nilsson: let’s start with the big picture. what was the financial state of bredahl & møller agricultural supply?

krogh: not good. the company had been losing money for roughly eighteen months. revenue was down thirty-four percent year-over-year. two of their largest clients — farms in the djursland area — had moved to a bigger supplier out of aarhus. the company was carrying approximately 380,000 kroner in debt, primarily equipment loans. liquid assets were around 45,000 kroner.

prosecutor nilsson: who held those equipment loans?

krogh: they were in jens møller’s name. secured against the farm — møllergården.

prosecutor nilsson: so the debt was personally guaranteed by the defendant?

krogh: yes. the company owed 380,000, and if the company couldn’t pay, jens møller was on the hook.

prosecutor nilsson: now, mr. krogh, i’d like you to explain the partnership agreement regarding dissolution. what would happen if one partner wanted out?

krogh: under their agreement, if one partner wanted to dissolve, the other had the right to buy out the departing partner’s share at assessed value. the problem was — given the debt — erik bredahl’s share was worth approximately negative 60,000 kroner.

prosecutor nilsson: meaning erik bredahl would owe money to leave his own company?

krogh: on paper, yes. but that’s not the whole picture. the equipment owned by the company — tractors, sprayers, a combine, various implements — was worth substantially more than the debt. if the company was liquidated and the equipment sold, after settling the loans, each partner would likely walk away with 150,000 to 200,000 kroner.

prosecutor nilsson: and where was this equipment kept?

krogh: on møllergården. jens møller’s farm.

prosecutor nilsson: did mr. møller use this company equipment for his personal farming?

krogh: i can’t speak to usage, but the equipment was housed at his farm. i’d note that the depreciation schedules suggest heavy use, which is consistent with dual-purpose operation — both company business and farm work.

prosecutor nilsson: so if the company was dissolved and the equipment sold, jens møller would lose access to machinery he depended on for his own farm. is that a fair characterization?

defense counsel degn: objection. calls for speculation.

judge thorsen: overruled. the witness may answer as to the financial consequences.

krogh: the financial consequence is clear. dissolution and liquidation would have left mr. møller with roughly 150,000 to 200,000 kroner in cash but no equipment. replacing even a used combine in the current market — you’re looking at 400,000 to 600,000. he’d have come out with cash in pocket but a farm he couldn’t work.

prosecutor nilsson: now let’s turn to the insurance. can you describe the life insurance policy you found in the company’s records?

krogh: there was a key-man insurance policy — 2.4 million kroner — payable upon the death of either partner. in this case, the beneficiary for erik bredahl’s death was jens møller.

prosecutor nilsson: 2.4 million. is that typical for a company this size?

krogh: it’s on the higher end. when it was taken out twelve years ago the company was in better shape and the policy amount reflected projected growth. no one updated it. the premiums were still being paid out of company funds.

prosecutor nilsson: so the company was losing money, carrying 380,000 in debt, had 45,000 in liquid assets — and was still paying premiums on a 2.4 million kroner life insurance policy?

krogh: yes. annual premium was just under 18,000. it’s the kind of line item that gets overlooked in a small operation. no one thinks about it until —

prosecutor nilsson: until someone dies.

defense counsel degn: objection. leading.

judge thorsen: sustained. mr. krogh, please complete your answer without the prosecutor’s assistance.

krogh: i was going to say, until it becomes relevant. which it now has.

prosecutor nilsson: mr. krogh, with erik bredahl dead and jens møller as sole surviving partner and beneficiary — what is jens møller’s financial position?

krogh: he receives the 2.4 million kroner payout. the company debt — 380,000 — can be paid from that. he keeps the equipment, keeps the farm, and has roughly two million kroner free and clear.

prosecutor nilsson: and if erik had lived and dissolved the partnership instead?

krogh: mr. møller would have lost the equipment, kept his farm but with no way to work it, received maybe 175,000 from the liquidation, and still been personally liable for any shortfall on the loans.

prosecutor nilsson: so the difference between erik bredahl living and erik bredahl dying — for jens møller — is roughly two million kroner and his entire livelihood?

krogh: in financial terms, yes. that’s accurate.

prosecutor nilsson: mr. krogh, did erik bredahl contact you in early january?

krogh: he did. january 6th. he emailed me — well, not me specifically, he emailed a general accounting firm and i was assigned — asking for a complete overview of the company’s debts, assets, and individual liabilities.

prosecutor nilsson: you replied on january 9th with a spreadsheet. what did that spreadsheet show him?

krogh: everything i just told you. the debt, the equipment values, the negative share value, the liquidation projections. i also included the insurance policy details as a line item under company assets.

prosecutor nilsson: so as of january 9th, erik bredahl had all of this information in front of him?

krogh: yes.

prosecutor nilsson: including the fact that jens møller stood to receive 2.4 million kroner if erik died?

krogh: it was listed as a company asset. whether he — i don’t know what conclusions he drew from it. i laid out the numbers.

prosecutor nilsson: no further questions.

[end of direct examination — cross-examination to follow]