LEGAL PROCESS

In June 2010, the Swedish Prosecution Authority initiated a preliminary investigation into alleged ‘complicity’ by Lundin in crimes against international humanitarian law committed by the Government of Sudan and associated militias from 1997 to 2003. Lundin and its representatives have continuously and proactively cooperated with the Swedish Prosecutor, including by voluntarily complying with requests for documentation and facilitating interviews with Lundin personnel.

None of Lundin’s representatives committed or were complicit in any violations of international humanitarian law by the Government of Sudan or associated militia and the Company did nothing wrong.

Lundin’s activities in Sudan were ordinary business activities. We first invested in Sudan in 1997 in the lead up to the Khartoum Peace Agreement with a legitimate expectation that we would be operating in a peaceful environment. We were part of an international consortium formed with companies from Austria (OMV), Malaysia (Petronas) and Sudan (Sudapet), which, at all times, operated in compliance with the law. Lundin and the consortium was a responsible, long-term investor, engaging with the Government of Sudan and other stakeholders as an advocate for peace and, when operations were suspended, making a return to operations conditional on a sustained peace settlement.

There were no sanctions in place against European companies throughout Lundin’s time in Sudan. On the contrary, the European Union, and Sweden, had a policy of constructive engagement with Sudan. In 2001, Lundin adopted a Code of Conduct affirming its commitment to the highest corporate responsibility standards. Further, Lundin carried out various community development and humanitarian assistance projects for the benefit of the local population. We actively engaged with the local population to ensure that our operations were having a positive impact on contributing to improve living conditions. Even after Lundin left Block 5A in 2003, we remained committed to peace-building efforts in then southern Sudan.

See “History in Sudan

For these reasons, we totally reject any allegations of wrongdoing by Lundin or its representatives in Sudan. Lundin is also extremely concerned about the fairness and legal basis of the investigation. When allegations about multinational oil companies first came to light in 2001, Lundin invited representatives of the Swedish government to Sudan to investigate for themselves. The invitation was declined. Now, nearly 20 years later, the Swedish Prosecution Authority is attempting to investigate. The circumstances in South Sudan are so unstable that neither the prosecution nor the defence is able to access the alleged crime scene and witnesses are afraid to come forward and speak to the defence out of fear that they will suffer reprisals.

In the absence of a proper factual investigation, the Swedish Prosecution Authority relies on recollections years after the allegations in question, hearsay and secondary evidence contained in NGO reports. This is all the more concerning given that the reliability of such reports has been repeatedly called into question by international criminal tribunals. Time and again, Lundin has brought these issues to the attention of the Swedish Prosecutor. However, they have never been properly or objectively considered.

See further “Case Implications

In 2018, the Swedish Prosecution Authority initiated a second preliminary investigation related to allegations of interference in a judicial matter in the complicity case. We firmly deny any suggestion that Lundin or its representatives sought to interfere with the investigation at any stage. We have made it clear to the Prosecutor that it is right that allegations of this nature must be investigated. All Lundin representatives working to develop our defence act in accordance with the highest standards.

INVESTIGATIONS

Complicity Investigation    /     Interference Investigation

Lundin in Sudan

2020

4 May

The Stockholm District Court rejects, on procedural grounds, Lundin’s submissions from 8 April for the discontinuation of the preliminary investigation and associated court case. The Court did not comment on the substance of the matter.

8 April

Lundin makes submissions to the Stockholm District Court requesting that the court discontinues the preliminary investigation into alleged crimes against international humanitarian law, and the associated court case, given that the Prosecutor’s continuing delay and failure to conclude the investigation within a reasonable time is violating the human rights of those who have been subjected to a decade-long investigation.

3 April

The Stockholm District Court ruled against the Prosecutor’s previous decision (20th November) to refuse us access to the audio recordings of plaintiffs statements, following our appeal.

5 March

The Stockholm District court rejected a request by the Swedish Prosecutor for the production of certain documents, agreeing with the Company that this is not legally possible given our status, corresponding to that of a suspect, in both investigations. Furthermore the Company argued that documents were covered by attorney and defence confidentiality. The court said that the right to a fair trial and effective defence weighed heavily on their decision.

16 January

Stockholm District Court confirms that Final Notice has taken place on 13 November 2018 and that, contrary to the Swedish Prosecutor’s position, Lundin and Lundin’s Defence Counsel have an unconditional right of access to all investigation materials that occurred during the complicity investigation for which Final Notice has been made.

The Court sets aside the Swedish Prosecutor’s decision and refers the matter back to the Prosecutor to carry out the required examination, including any legitimate secrecy requirements that need to be upheld, prior to granting Lundin and its Defence Counsel access to the materials.

2019

12 December

Swedish Bar Association’s Disciplinary Committee rules in favour of Alex Schneiter’s Defence Counsel in the complaint filed by the Swedish Prosecutor.

5 December

Lundin Petroleum submits appeal to Stockholm District Court regarding the Swedish Prosecutor’s decision to deny Lundin access to certain documents collected during the course of the complicity investigation.

20 November

Prosecutor refuses access to copies of audio recordings of plaintiffs’ interviews requested by Ian Lundin on 19 November.

23 September

Lundin submits complaint to Parliamentary Ombudsman in respect of the Swedish Prosecutor’s disclosure of materials to the plaintiffs’ counsel.

Prosecutor files complaint with the Swedish Bar Association requesting that the Bar reviews two of Alex Schneiter’s Defence Counsel.

10 September

Swedish Prosecutor publishes decision to withdraw the Final Notice (“Slutdelgivningen”) deadline of 30 September 2019.

No new Final Notice (“Slutdelgivning”) deadline is set, but the Swedish Prosecutor indicates that a decision on next steps will be made by 15 December 2019.

24 May

Swedish Prosecutor extends the Final Notice (“Slutdelgivningen”) deadline to 30 September 2019

14 March

Swedish Prosecutor notifies Lundin Petroleum that the Final Notice (“Slutdelgivningen”) deadline is being extended until 14 June 2019.

26 February

Following an application by Lundin, the Stockholm District Court (“Stockholms tingsrätt”) dismisses plaintiff confidentiality restrictions in the complicity investigation.

25 February

Supreme Administrative Court (“Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen”) issues ruling in the Swedish Ministry of Justice (“Justitiedepartementet”) appeal case — the decision is not overturned, and the Court states that the ruling does not include an examination of Chairman Ian Lundin’s and CEO Alex Schneiter’s civil rights or obligations.

No assessment is made by the Court of whether the Minister had a conflict of interest.

2018

19 December

Lundin Petroleum’s Stockholm office is raided by police as part of the complicity investigation.

21 November

Swedish Prosecution Authority (“Svenska Åklagarmyndigheten”) confirms the review period deadline as 15 March 2019.

15 November

Lundin Petroleum issues an open letter from Ian Lundin, Chairman, and Alex Schneiter, CEO.

1 November

Swedish Prosecutor issues notice of potential corporate fine (“Företagsbot”) and forfeiture of economic benefits (“Förverkande av ekonomiska fördelar”) – Press Release.

18 October

Swedish Ministry of Justice’s (“Justitiedepartementet”) decision to authorise the prosecution is made public. Lundin subsequently appeals this decision to the Supreme Administrative Court, including on the basis that Minister Morgan Johannsson had a conflict of interest and should have recused himself from the decision.

11 October

Parliamentary Ombudsman (“Justitieombudsmannen”) informs Lundin Petroleum of its decision not to take any action regarding the sharing of material from the complicity investigation with the plaintiffs’ counsels.

24 September

Lundin Petroleum makes a submission to the Swedish Ministry of Justice (“Justitiedepartementet”) regarding the Prosecutor General’s application for authorisation to prosecute extra-territorial crimes.

5 September

Submission to the Parliamentary Ombudsman (“Justitieombudsmannen”) requesting that it review the Prosecutor’s decision to share material from the complicity investigation with the plaintiffs’ counsels.

June

Swedish Prosecution Authority (“Svenska Åklagarmyndigheten”) initiates a second investigation related to allegations of interference in a judicial matter (“interference investigation”). Lundin Petroleum is not informed of this investigation until 23 August.

22 March

Prosecutor General (“Riksåklagaren”) informs Lundin Petroleum Defence Counsel that it has decided to terminate the investigation against Ashley Heppenstall, former CEO of Lundin Petroleum and Magnus Nordin, former Lundin Petroleum Deputy Managing Director.

19 February

Lundin Petroleum Defence Counsel notifies the Prosecution Development Centre (“Brottsmisstanken”) of a crime in light of Prosecutor Elving’s unlawful disclosure of information and attaches (1) Lundin’s request for the Prosecutor to be dismissed, and (2) the decision of the Prosecutor General (“Riksåklagaren”) to retain Prosecutor Elving as the Director of Prosecution.

13 February

Swedish Prosecution Authority (“Svenska Åklagarmyndigheten”) informs Lundin Petroleum Defence Counsel and Prosecutor Elving of the Prosecutor General’s acknowledgement that the sharing of information was unlawful but declines to remove Prosecutor Elving as the Director of Prosecution.

16 January

Swedish investigators raid Lundin Petroleum’s offices in Stockholm and Geneva as part of the complicity investigation.

2017

9 October

Lundin Petroleum Defence Counsel petitions the Prosecutor General (“Riksåklagaren”) for the removal of Prosecutor Elving from the complicity investigation due to unlawful sharing of information to counsels of the alleged plaintiffs.

4 September

Ashley Heppenstall, former CEO of Lundin Petroleum, is named as a suspect in the complicity investigation.

23 August

Magnus Nordin, former Lundin Petroleum Deputy Managing Director, is named as a suspect in the complicity investigation.

9 February

Prosecutor General (“Riksåklagaren”) issues a ruling rejecting Lundin Petroleum’s request for a review of the investigation.

11 January

Lundin Petroleum submits an appeal against the Prosecutor General’s rejection of a request for further information about the suspicion sheet (“Gärningsbeskrivningen”).

2016

6 December

Prosecutor General (“Riksåklagaren”) rejects Lundin’s request for further information about the suspicion sheet (“Gärningsbeskrivningen”).

28 November

Lundin Petroleum sends an open letter to shareholders providing an update on the complicity investigation.

23 November

Lundin Petroleum submits letters to the Swedish Prosecution Authority (“Svenska Åklagarmyndigheten”) highlighting the vagueness and inaccuracy of the suspicion sheet (“Gärningsbeskrivningen”) and requesting further information.

15 November

Swedish Prosecution Authority (“Svenska Åklagarmyndigheten”) names Ian Lundin, Chairman, and Alex Schneiter, CEO, as suspects in the complicity investigation.

Ian Lundin and Alex Schneiter both subsequently voluntarily attended interviews with the Prosecution.

2015

August

The Prosecutor unlawfully discloses information from the complicity investigation to counsels of the alleged plaintiffs.

7 July

Prosecutor General (“Riksåklagaren”) rejects Lundin Petroleum’s appeal, filed in February 2015, on the correct applicable law for complicit liability in a crime under international law and notes that no further avenue of appeal is possible.

6 February

Lundin Petroleum submits an appeal to the Swedish Prosecution Authority (“Svenska Åklagarmyndigheten”) in relation to the ongoing complicity investigation, requesting that a Superior Prosecutor and the Prosecutor General (“Riksåklagaren”) re-examine the Prosecutor’s decision on correct applicable law for complicit liability in a crime under international law.

2014

26 December

Swedish Prosecution Authority (“Svenska Åklagarmyndigheten”) rejects Lundin’s position on the correct applicable law for complicit liability in a crime under international law.

22 March

Swedish Prosecution Authority (“Svenska Åklagarmyndigheten”) defines the three key issues for the complicity investigation:

  1. “Is it possible to prove that the alleged crimes by military
    and militia loyal to the government in Block 5A have taken
    place during the concerned timeframe?”
  2. “In that case, were persons with Swedish connections
    aware of these crimes?”
  3. “Have these persons in any way facilitated crimes through
    ‘advice or action,’ i.e. have they through concrete actions, decisions, psychological influence or in some other way supported the perpetrators in their decision to commit criminal acts?”

18 March

Lundin Petroleum submits a written submission to the Swedish Prosecution Authority (“Svenska Åklagarmyndigheten”) in relation to the complicity investigation issues of fairness and the correct applicable law for complicit liability in a crime under international law.

2010

23 June

Lundin Petroleum publishes a statement about its operations in Sudan.

Between 2012 and 2016, Lundin voluntarily produced documents in response to the Prosecution’s requests.

21 June

Swedish Prosecution Authority in Sweden initiates a preliminary investigation of Lundin Petroleum’s historic operations in Sudan (“complicity investigation”).

8 June

European Coalition on Oil in Sudan (ECOS) releases allegations against certain companies, including Lundin Petroleum, about their operations in Sudan from 1997 to 2003.

Lundin Petroleum publishes an open letter to stakeholders in response to the allegations.