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. In 2023, the Swedish Prosecutor decided to close the preliminary investigation of alleged interference, due to insufficient evidence that a crime had been committed.
The trial started at the Stockholm District Court on 5 September 2023, and is expected to go on until mid-February 2026.
LEGAL CASE TIMELINE
Indictment / 
Interference Investigation
Lundin in Sudan
2023
5 September
The trial started in the Stockholm District Court
29 August
The Prosecutor’s claim is increased and now amounts to SEK 2,381,300,000. The Company, which strongly disputes both the methodology used by the Prosecutor and the amount of the claimed forfeiture, does not see any circumstances in which the claim for forfeiture could become payable as there is no legal basis for this claim and no grounds for allegations of wrongdoing by any former Company representative.
12 April
The Swedish Prosecutor announced the decision to close the preliminary investigation in relation to allegations of interference in a judicial matter, due to insufficient evidence that a crime had been committed.
11 January
Decision received from the District Court that the trial is planned to start on 5 September 2023.
2022
10 November
The Supreme Court of Sweden (Högsta domstolen) rejects the appeal by the Defence Counsel of Alex Schneiter in relation to the universal jurisdiction challenge.
9 November
The district court orders the prosecutor to provide more details around the alleged crime that form the basis for the prosecution against Ian H. Lundin. The prosecutor is also ordered to provide more detailed information about the provisions of international humanitarian law that are invoked. Response from the prosecutor must be submitted to the district court no later than 30 November 2022.
13 June
The Supreme Court of Sweden (Högsta domstolen) decides to grant leave to appeal to the request by the Defence councels for Alex Schneiter in relation to the universal jurisdiction challenge.
3 June
The Svea Court of Appeals rejects prosecutor Henrik Attorp’s appeal made on May 30.
30 May
The prosecutor appeals to the Svea Court of Appeals to overrule the Stockholm District Courts decision of May 4, 2002 with regards to the taking of evidence with a plaintiff and the witness for which the taking of evidence was rejected by the court.
19 May
The prosecutor files a request with the Stockholm District Court to allow for the taking of evidence outside of the main hearing with another plaintiff from South Sudan due to health related reasons. The court subsequently denies the request.
6 May
The prosecutor files a request with the Stockholm District Court to allow for the taking of evidence outside of the main hearing with an additional witness. The court subsequently denies the request.
4 May
The Stockholm District Court decides to allow for the taking of evidence outside of the main hearing due to the high age of the specific witness, after a request from the prosecutor. However, the court denies the request with regards to a second witness and a plaintiff.
10 February
The Stockholm District Court grants a request from the prosecutor for the taking of evidence outside the main hearing of a named witness, due to the deteriorating health situation of the witness.
2021
11 November
The Swedish Prosecution Authority (“Svenska Åklagarmyndigheten”) has today brought criminal charges against Chairman of the Board Ian H. Lundin and Director Alex Schneiter in relation to past operations in Sudan from 1999-2003 and 2000-2003, respectively. The charges also include claims against the Company for a corporate fine (“Företagsbot”) of SEK 3,000,000 and forfeiture of economic benefits (“Förverkande av ekonomiska fördelar”) of SEK 1,391,791,000, which according to the Swedish Prosecution Authority represents the value of the gain of SEK 720,098,000 that the Company made on the sale of the business in 2003. Following the bringing of charges, Ian H. Lundin has chosen not to stand for re-election as Chairman of the Board at the Company’s 2022 Annual General Meeting. The Company refutes that there are any grounds for allegations of wrongdoing by any of its representatives and does not foresee any impact on the operational and financial guidance that the Company has set out previously.
29 July
The Supreme Court of Sweden (Högsta domstolen) has decided not to grant leave to appeal to the request of the Defence Counsels of Alex Schneiter, Ian Lundin and Lundin Energy in regards to the Svea Court of Appeal’s (Svea hovrätt) decision not to sustain, due to a lack of available legal remedy, the Defence’s demand to discontinue the preliminary investigation based on a violation of the suspects’ human rights in respect of the right to a judicial review within a reasonable time.
25 May
Following a request made by the Defence Counsels for Alex Schneiter, the Swedish Prosecution Authority (“Svenska Åklagarmyndigheten”) issues an extended deadline of 4 June 2021 at 12:00 CEST for any further comments on the preliminary investigation.
19 May
The Swedish Prosecutor issues a deadline of 2 June 2021 for any further comments on the preliminary investigation.
10 May
The Defence Counsels for Alex Schneiter and Lundin Energy on 7 May and Ian Lundin on 10 May 2021, request that the Supreme Court of Sweden (Högsta domstolen) grants leave to appeal in regards to the Svea Court of Appeal’s (Svea hovrätt) decision not to sustain, due to a lack of available legal remedy, the Defence’s demand to discontinue the preliminary investigation based on a violation of the suspects’ human rights in respect of the right to a judicial review within a reasonable time.
10 May
The Defence Counsels for Alex Schneiter request that the Stockholm District Court (Stockholms tingsrätt) order the Swedish Prosecutor to supplement the revised suspicion sheet (justerad gärningsbeskrivning) notified to the defence on 1 March 2021 or alternatively to supplement the preliminary investigation with any draft statement of evidence. They maintain that Alex Schneiter cannot prepare his defence in an adequate way and is deprived of the opportunity to avoid unjust prosecution as the Swedish Prosecutor has not yet presented an acceptable suspicion sheet (“gärningsbeskrivning”) that fulfils the legal requirements.
27 April
The appeal made to the Svea Court of Appeal (Svea hovrätt) on 11 December 2020 by the Defence Counsels for Ian Lundin, Alex Schneiter and Lundin Energy on the Defence’s demand to discontinue the preliminary investigation based on a violation of the suspects’ human rights to a judicial review within a reasonable time has been rejected. The court noted , as the Stockholm District Court (Stockholms tingsrätt) noted in its ruling on 2 December 2020, that it should be the task of the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) to monitor that the Swedish remedy system is in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights.
12 March
The Swedish Prosecution Authority (“Svenska Åklagarmyndigheten”) notifies Ian Lundin and Alex Schneiter of a revised suspicion sheet (justerad gärningsbeskrivning).
24 February
The Defence Counsels for Alex Schneiter submit to the Svea Court of Appeal (Svea hovrätt) that the Prosecutor has not yet presented an acceptable suspicion sheet (“Gärningsbeskrivningen”) after 11 years, and the preliminary investigation should be discontinued immediately.
4 January
The previously extended Final Notice (“Slutdelgivningen”) deadline for the Defence Counsels of Ian Lundin, Alex Schneiter, and Lundin Energy to comment on the preliminary investigation is reached, with the Defence Counsels requesting completions from the Swedish Prosecution Authority (“Svenska Åklagarmyndigheten”) as part of the review of the preliminary investigation materials.
2020
11 December
The Defence Counsels for Ian Lundin, Alex Schneiter and Lundin Energy appeal to the Svea Court of Appeal (Svea hovrätt) as a result of the Stockholm District Court’s (Stockholms tingsrätt) decision not to sustain, due to a lack of available legal remedy, the Defence’s demand to discontinue the preliminary investigation based on a violation of the suspects’ human rights to a judicial review within a reasonable time.
2 December
The Stockholm District Court (Stockholms tingsrätt) rejected the Defence’s request as it found no legal remedies in Swedish law for approving the claims for discontinuation of the preliminary investigation, based on a violation of the suspects’ human rights to a judicial review within a reasonable time, noting however that it should be the task of the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) to ensure that Swedish law respects the European Convention on Human Rights.
10 November
Following Defence Counsels’ request, the Swedish Prosecution Authority (“Svenska Åklagarmyndigheten”) issues an extended deadline of 4 January 2021 for Defence Counsels to comment on the preliminary investigation.
2 November
The Defence Counsels for Ian Lundin, Alex Schneiter, and Lundin Energy submit comments on the preliminary investigation to the Swedish Prosecution Authority (“Svenska Åklagarmyndigheten”).
30 September
The Defence Counsels for Ian Lundin submit their comments on the preliminary investigation to the Swedish Prosecution Authority (“Svenska Åklagarmyndigheten”).
29 September
The Swedish Prosecution Authority (“Svenska Åklagarmyndigheten”) issues a new deadline of 2 November 2020 for Defence Counsels to comment on the preliminary investigation and the supplementary notification of suspicion (“kompletterande gärningsbeskrivning”).
28 September
Lundin’s Defence Counsel receive a supplementary notification of suspicion (“kompletterande gärningsbeskrivning”) from the Swedish Prosecution Authority (“Svenska Åklagarmyndigheten”), two days before the 30 September 2020 deadline to comment on the preliminary investigation. The supplementary notification of suspicions includes material adjustments to the allegations. Alex Schneiter’s Defence Counsel submit on this day a request to extend the final notice deadline to allow for further consultations in advance of submitting their comments on the preliminary investigation.
30 July
The Svea Court of Appeal (Svea hovrätt) set aside the 4 May 2020 Stockholm District Court (Stockholms tingsrätt) decision to reject, on procedural grounds, Lundin’s submissions of 8 April. They referred the case back to the Stockholm District Court for handling.
10 July
The Swedish Prosecution Authority (“Svenska Åklagarmyndigheten”) issues a new deadline of 30 September 2020 for Lundin’s Defence Counsel to comment on the preliminary investigation.
9 June
The Swedish Prosecution Authority (“Svenska Åklagarmyndigheten”) issues a new deadline of 30 August 2020 for Lundin’s Defence Counsel to comment on the preliminary investigation.
4 May
The Stockholm District Court (”Stockholms tingsrätt”) rejects, on procedural grounds, Lundin’s submissions from 8 April 2020 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 (“Stockholms tingsrätt”) 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 (”Stockholms tingsrätt”) ruled against the Prosecutor’s previous decision (20th November 2019) to refuse access to the audio recordings of plaintiffs statements, following the 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 Lundin’s 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 (”Stockholms tingsrätt”) confirms that Final Notice (“Slutdelgivning”) 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 (”Stockholms tingsrätt”) 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 (”Justitieombudsmannen”) 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 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.
8 February
Alex Schneiter was interviewed in relation to allegations of interference in a judicial matter, and was notified of the suspicions that form the basis for that preliminary investigation.
24 January
Ian Lundin was interviewed in relation to allegations of interference in a judicial matter, and was notified of the suspicions that form the basis for that preliminary investigation.
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 (”Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen”), 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 (“Riksåklagarens”) 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 (”Utvecklingscentrum”) 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 (“Riksåklagarens”) 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 (“Riksåklagarens”) 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:
- “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?” - “In that case, were persons with Swedish connections
aware of these crimes?” - “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 (“Svenska Åklagarmyndigheten”) 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.