Sigrún Davíðsdóttir's Icelog

Acquittals in major cases brought by the Office of the Special Prosecutor have made headlines in Iceland and elsewhere. In addition, it has now surfaced that an expert, called in to be a lay judge in the Aurum case is the brother of Ólafur Ólafsson, one of the four indicted in the al Thani case.  Jón Ásgeir Jóhannesson, at the time Glitnir’s largest shareholder, was indicted in the Aurum case, together with Glitnir’s ex-CEO Lárus Welding and two Glitnir employees. Both were acquitted.

Jóhannesson has however earlier been found guilty in two cases but in both cases the prison sentence was suspended. In February last year, he was sentenced in a tax fraud case to 12 months in prison, suspended, and fined for ISK62m, €400.000. In June 2008 Jóhannesson was sentenced, as part of the long running Baugur case, to three months in prison, also suspended. Following both sentences Jóhannesson is prevented from sitting on boards of companies for some years.

In a nutshell, the Aurum case concerns Glitnir staff indicted for breach of fiduciary duty, i.e. for lending money without necessary collaterals and guarantees. Indeed Glitnir lost the ISK6bn, €40m, that the bank lent in this saga. Jón Ásgeir Jóhannesson, who profited from the loan by getting €6,5m, of the loan (because Fons, the company that got the loan and couldn’t repay it, apparently owed Jóhannesson this sum of money) was charged for aiding in the alleged illegal activities. Numerous emails brought up during the oral hearings showed his direct involvement and severe pressure on finalizing the loan, which he profited from.

Ólafur Ólafsson was indicted on similar grounds in the al Thani case last December. Reykjavík County Court found him guilty and he was sentenced to 3 1/2 years in prison. That case has been appealed to the Supreme Court. In Iceland no one goes to prison until the Supreme Court has ruled in an appealed case.

In addition to two District Court judges Sverrir Ólafsson professor at Reykjavik University was called to be an expert judge in the Aurum case. Over the weekend, Icelandic media pointed out that Ólafsson is the brother of Ólafur Ólafsson. It is still unclear if this will have consequences. (Foreigners sometimes think that everyone must know everyone in Iceland – well, not quite and Ólafsson is a common last name).

Judge Guðjón Marteinsson and Stefán Ólafsson acquitted the four. The third judge, Arngrímur Ísberg, was in minority: in his opinion all four were guilty and should have been sentenced to prison. Theoretically, if a lay judge had sided with Ísberg the outcome would have been different.

From the course taken by the Reykjavík District Court in the al Thani case, where the four indicted were sentenced to 3-5 1/2 years, it is difficult to understand the reasoning of the two judges who chose to acquit in the Aurum case. The al Thani case has been appealed and a Supreme Court decision is expected in autumn or early winter. If the Supreme Court comes to a different conclusion it would not be the first time that an acquittal in a banking-related case is turned around in the Supreme Court.

The other case ruled on last week – called the Ímon case after one of the companies involved – is part of a market manipulation case brought against Landsbanki managers. Here the loan saga is similar to the al Thani case: Landsbanki lent funds to limited liability companies with little or no collaterals, here in order to fund the buying of shares in Landsbanki only days before the bank collapsed. These deals were nothing less than the largest share purchases in Landsbanki that year – these companies were each buying around 2% of Landsbanki shares. Sigurjón Árnason and Sigríður Elín Sigfússdóttir were acquitted but a lower level employee, Steinþór Gunnarsson was sentenced to nine months in prison, of which six are suspended.

So far, all the OSP cases have been appealed and that will most likely be the route with these two recent decisions.

Apart from legalities it is clear that if banking as practiced in the above mentioned cases were applied as a general rule the bank in question would be out of business fairly soon. And who wants to be a shareholder in a bank where funds are leant out in such a way that if something goes wrong the bank can’t recover the funds?

*The verdict in the Aurum case is here and the Landsbanki verdict here (both in Icelandic). 

Follow me on Twitter for running updates.