Lundin Sudan Legal Case

Lundin denies the allegations, saying that “there is no basis for the allegations of misconduct by any of his representatives” and that “he sees no circumstance in which a corporate penalty or forfeiture could be due.” The company also argues that its operations in Sudan were conducted through a separate entity that was part of a project with Malaysian, Austrian and Sudanese companies, and that “there is simply no link between the activities of [Lundin`s Sudanese unit] and the alleged major crimes in this case.” Lundin also claims that its operations were governed by an agreement consistent with international treaty practice, UN General Assembly declarations and Sudanese law. Elsewhere, Lundin wrote that his “firm belief is that Lundin was a force for development in Sudan and did everything in his power to work peacefully for peace in the country.” On July 29, 2021, the Supreme Court did not grant the company leave to appeal, ruling that there was no legal basis for the courts to drop a war crimes investigation. “What constitutes complicity in the criminal sense is that they made these demands even though they understood or are indifferent in any case to the military and militias who wage war in a manner prohibited by international humanitarian law,” the prosecutor`s office said in a statement. Members of the Lundin Consortium allegedly knew that such crimes had been committed, facilitated their incarceration, failed to take effective measures to stop them, and cooperated with the perpetrators. It has been claimed, for example, that Sudanese security personnel employed by the consortium have reported atrocities to national security and military authorities. Communities were reportedly forcibly evicted from areas where the consortium wanted to operate. The evidence in this case is exhaustive and consists of different parts. Part of it concerns evidence of the main crime – serious war crimes – committed by unknown persons within the Sudanese government as well as by the army and militias allied to the regime. During the indictment, the court is likely to address several new legal issues, such as: the level of involvement required for complicity in international crimes and the level of knowledge and intent required to establish responsibility for these charges. The defense has already argued that the prosecution must prove direct intent, to which the prosecution responded that it only had to prove “reckless intent.” Ebba Lekvall and Dennis Martinsson, in a recent article, examined the contrast between these states and other mens rea states and suggested that general principles of Swedish law should determine the mens rea that prosecutors must prove, concluding that Swedish law only requires recklessness. In the United States, courts in another case related to oil exploration in South Sudan have suggested that plaintiffs who are complicit in war crimes under the Alien Tort Claims Act must prove both substantial support and intent.

The company said the amount of the confiscation was lower than that announced by the SPA in 2018, believing that “there is no legal basis for such a claim.” The dispute against Lundin Energy in Sweden does not directly affect the members of the Petronas and OMV consortium. However, the evidence presented in the Lundin trial could ultimately force them to face their past and take responsibility for their role in the Sudanese oil war. Lundin Energy pointed out that the SPA`s decision to file charges is another step in a lengthy legal process that could take “many years” to reach a conclusion. Lundin and his officials have cooperated continuously and proactively with the investigation since the investigation began in 2010, and we continue to have significant concerns about the fairness and legal basis of this matter. The Financial Times says the indictment is the first indictment against business executives for complicity in war crimes since the Nuremberg trials after World War II. In fact, since Nuremberg, business executives have been prosecuted for complicity in war crimes. In 2005, Frans Cornelis Adrianus van Anraat was convicted in The Hague of complicity in war crimes after selling mustard gas ingredients to Saddam Hussein`s government from 1984 to 1988. Nevertheless, Nuremberg is a well-known example and therefore serves as a useful comparison. At Nuremberg, executives of companies such as IG Farben, Krupp and Siemens were charged with war crimes resulting from war deals such as the employment of concentration camp prisoners. Unlike Nuremberg, which prosecuted companies complicit in war crimes committed by a national government, the charges against Ian Lundin and Alex Schneiter allege complicity in war crimes committed by a foreign government and are therefore more akin to the case of Frans von Anraat. -Lundin Energy questions the legal basis of the Swedish Public Prosecutor`s Office`s criminal complaints in relation to the company`s previous activities in Sudan, 12.

November 2021 In November 2021, the Swedish Public Prosecutor`s Office initiated criminal proceedings against Ian H. Lundin, who was Chairman of the Board at the time, and Alex Schneiter, who was then Director of Lundin Energy, in relation to previous activities in Sudan from 1999 to 2003. In the company`s view, there is no evidence linking a representative to the alleged primary crimes. The company is convinced that Lundin has been a positive force for development in Sudan, acting responsibly as part of an international consortium and in full compliance with the policy of constructive engagement supported at the time by the United Nations, the EU and Sweden. For more details on the Swedish prosecutor`s decision to lay charges, see Lundin Energy`s press release dated 11 November 2021, which can be found here. Press release from Lundin Energy dated 12. November 2021 on the challenge of the legal basis of the decision of the Swedish prosecutor`s office can be found here. In October 2018, the Swedish Public Prosecutor`s Office received approval in principle from the Swedish Ministry of Justice for a possible indictment against Alex Schneiter, CEO of Lundin Energy, and Ian Lundin, CEO of Lundin, in connection with allegations of complicity in war crimes committed in Sudan (now South Sudan) between 1999 and 2003. Both deny the allegations and the Swedish prosecutor`s office has yet to file charges in the case.