Swedish Court Decision Re Telia Execs

1
STOCKHOLM DISTRICT COURT JUDGEMENT Case no: B 12201-17

Part 4 15.02.2019
delivered in B 12203-17
Stockholm
PARTIES
Defendant
TERO Erkki Kivisaari, 19721221-6951
Hakunintie 16
00420 Helsinki
Finland
Citizen of Finland
Defence:
Lawyer Staffan Bergqvist
Advokatgruppen i Stockholm AB
PO Box 5153
102 44 Stockholm SWEDEN
Defence:
Lawyer Leif Gustafson
Advokatgruppen i Stockholm AB
PO Box 5153
Prosecution:
Additional prosecutor Gunnar Stetler and District Prosecutor Berndt Berger
Swedish Prosecution Authority (Åklagarmyndigheten)
National Unit Against Corruption (Riksenheten mot korruption)
PO Box 57
__________________________________
ULTIMATE ORDER OF THE COURT
Prosecution from which the Defendant is being acquitted

Bribery, gross breach, Chapter 17, Section 7, Subsection 2 of the Criminal Code (brottsbalken) in its
wording prior to 1 July 2012
01.01.2007 -- 16.12.2010 (5 occasions)
Compensation
Tero Kivisaari is awarded compensation from public funds for legal costs of SEK 14,337,
511. Of this amount, SEK 14,207.074 relates to defence costs of which SEK 11,138,560 relates to
representative fee, SEK 227,099 expenses and SEK 2,841,415 Value Added Tax; and SEK 130,437
relates to
compensation for attendance of which SEK 78,873 is travel compensation and SEK 51,564 subsistence
allowance.
___________________________________
Postal address Visiting address Telephone Telefax Office hours

PO Box 8307 Scheelegatan 7 +46 (0)8 561 654 10 Monday - Friday
104 20 Stockholm Sweden E-mail: stockholms.tingsratt.avdelning4@dom.se 08:00-16:00
www.stockholmstingsratt.se
2
Part 4 15.02.2019
Stockholm
Defendant
OLLI Teppo Tuohimaa, 19640130-1855
Al Naeem Building, flat no. 1105
Dafan, Ras Al Khaimah
P.O. Box RAK 86086 Al Jazeera Al
Hamra
United Arab Emirates
Citizen of Finland
Defence:
Lawyer Olof Kullinger
The law firm NORDIA KB
PO PO Box 70389
107 24 Stockholm Sweden
Defence:
Lawyer Hans Strandberg
The law firm NORDIA KB
PO PO Box 70389
Prosecution:
PO Box 57
___________________________________

Bribery, gross breach, Chapter 17, Section 7, Subsection 2 of the Criminal Code (brottsbalken) in its wording
prior to 1 July 2012
01.01.2007 -- 16.12.2010 (5 occasions)
Compensation
Olli Tuohimaa is awarded compensation from public funds for legal costs of SEK 11,884,
570. Of this amount, SEK 11,744.965 relates to defence costs of which SEK 11,732,488 relates to
representative fee, SEK 12,477 expenses and SEK 139.606 relates to attendance costs of which SEK
67,837 is travel compensation and SEK 71,769 subsistence allowance.
___________________________________
3
Part 4 15.02.2019
Stockholm
Defendant
LARS Gunnar Nyberg, 19511207-0213
Avenida da Republica 1910
Quinta Patino, lote 68
2645-143 Alcabideche
Portugal
Defence:
Lawyer Cristina Bergner
The law firm NOVA AB
PO PO Box 55996
Defence:
Lawyer Stephane Pleijel
The law firm NOVA AB
PO PO Box 55996
Prosecution:
PO Box 57
___________________________________

Bribery, gross breach, Chapter 17, Section 7, Subsection 2 of the Criminal Code (brottsbalken) in its wording
prior to 1 July 2012
01.01.2007 -- 16.12.2010 (5 occasions)
Compensation
Lars Nyberg is awarded compensation from public funds for legal costs of SEK 11,067,511
. Of this amount, SEK 10.949,054 relates to defence costs of which SEK 8,759,243 relates to
representative fee, SEK 2,189,811 VAT; and SEK 118.457 relates to travel costs for
attendance.
___________________________________
4
Part 4 15.02.2019
Stockholm
Counterparty
Telia Company AB, 556103-4249
Stjärntorget 1
169 94 Solna Sweden
Representative:
Lisa Ejelöv LLB
Mannheimer Swartling Advokatbyrå AB
PO PO Box 1711
Representative:
Lawyer Johan Skog
PO PO Box 1711
Representative:
Lawyer Andreas Steen
PO PO Box 1711
Prosecution:
PO Box 57
___________________________________
Forfeiture and seizure

The claim for forfeiture of USD 208,500,000 is dismissed on its merits.
Compensation
Telia Company AB is awarded compensation from public funds for legal costs of
SEK 954,190. This amount relates to the representative fee.
5
JUDGEMENT B 12201-17
STOCKHOLM DISTRICT COURT 15.02.2019 B 12203-17
Part 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 SUMMARY..................................................................................................7
2 BACKGROUND.....................................................................................................10
2.1 Uzbekistan ...................................................10
2.2 Telia’s acquisition of MCT and the working relationship with a Uzbek partner ........12
2.3 Subsequent review of the working relationship with the Uzbek partner...... 16
3 JURISDICTION OF THE SWEDISH COURTS..............................................................................17
4 THE PROSECUTION AND LEGAL ACTION FOR FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY.....................18
4.1 Demands for the acknowledgement of liability in Case B 12201-17 ...................................18
4.2 Demand for the forfeiture of property in Case B 12203-17 ................................23
4.3 Posture in regards to the demand for the acknowledgement of liability in Case B 12201-17
............................18
4.3.1 Tero Kivisaari ...........................................................................26
4.3.2 Olli Tuohimaa...........................................................27
4.3.3 Lars Nyberg..........................................................................27
4.4 Posture in regards to the demand for the forfeiture of property in Case B 12203-
17............................................28
5 THE INVESTIGATION IN THE CASE.........................................................................30
5.1 The Public Prosecutor’s verbal evidence.............................................30
5.2 The Public Prosecutor’s documentary evidence ......................................30
5.3 Written evidence of the accused.....................................................31
5.4 The defendant’s information.....................................................................31
5.4.1 Tero Kivisaari ..............................................31
5.4.2 Olli Tuohimaa.....................................................................32
5.4.3 Lars Nyberg................................................................................33
5.5 Abstract Record from the questioning sessions.................................34
6 GROUNDS FOR THE DECISION..................................................................34
6.1 The Criminal liability in Case B 12201-17..................................34
6.1.1 Applicable criminal law provisions......................................................34
6.1.2 Generally about evidence ............................................38
6.1.2.1 Evidentiary requirements (the requirement of proof)....................................... 38
6.1.2.2 The robustness of the investigation............................. 38
6.1.2.3 The Identity of the criminal offence and perpetrator(s)... 39
6.1.2.4 Assessment and evaluation of the probative value of the evidence.. 40
6
STOCKHOLM DISTRICT COURT JUDGEMENT B 12201-17

Part 4 15.02.2019 B 12203-17
6.1.3 The course of events of the transactions with the Uzbek partner
during 2007 and 2010............................41
6.1.3.1 Indictment Counts 1–5......................................... 41
6.1.3.2 Gulnara Karimova’s connection to Takilant and Zeromax............ 48
6.1.3.3 Conclusion........................................................................................ 49
6.1.4 General remarks on the prosecution .......................50
6.1.4.1 Weak identity of the criminal offence and perpetrator(s), and deficiencies in the
investigation’s robustness....... 50
6.1.4.2 The principle of legality and the external framework of the legal
proceedings............................. 53
6.1.5 Active bribery of Gulnara Karimova as an employee or
contractor in a position of trust......................................................................54
6.1.5.1 What the District Court is to examine.................................. 54
6.1.5.2 The legal framework............................................................. 56
6.1.5.3 Undetermined governmental employment or assignment in a position of trust within the
telecom sector...................... 60
6.1.5.4 Specific public employment or assignments within the Uzbek foreign service/foreign
affairs administration.................................... 77
6.1.6 Bribery, as the alternative charge or second alternative charge, by a civil servant or Bekhzod
Akhmedov with “another” as the recipient......................................................83
6.1.6.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 83
6.1.6.2 Legal regulation - Other concept ............................. 84
6.1.6.3 Beneficial link in this case.............................................. 84
6.1.6.4 Summary.......................................................................... 85
6.1.6.5 Conclusion........................................................................................ 86
6.1.7 Overall criminal law assessment.......................................................86
6.1.8 The dropped part of the indictment......................................................87
6.2 Forfeiture of property in Case B 12203-17...................................................87
6.3 Legal fees, court costs, and other litigation costs..............................87
6.3.1 Introduction ......................................................87
6.3.2 Tero Kivisaari ..............................................................90
6.3.3 Olli Tuohimaa................................................................91
6.3.4 Lars Nyberg..................................................................93
6.3.5 Telia...........................................................................93
HOW TO APPEAL,...............................................................................93
7

Part 4 15.02.2019 B 12203-17
1 SUMMARY
The prosecution concerns verbal allegations between the years 2007and2010 in relation to the
agreements and transactions with an Uzbek partner as a consequence of TeliaSonera’s (Telia)
establishment in Uzbekistan. The District Court has considered the criminal law liability for gross
bribery pursuant with the prosecution directed at the then head of the business area Eurosia within
Telia, Tero Kivisaari, Telia;s then CEO Lars Nyberg and the then chief legal adviser for Telia’s Dutch
subsidiary Fintur Holdings B.V., Olli Tuohimaa. The District Court has also considered the forfeiture
action directed against Telia for MUSD 208.5 constituting dividends or benefits
from alleged crime.
The course of events regarding the transactions that the Public Prosecutor has cited in relation to
agreements and associated payments to accounts belonging to
primarily Takilant Ltd., a company with connections with the then Uzbek
president Islam Karimov’s daughter, Gulnara Karimova, have objectively be considered as having been
investigated in the case.
According to the prosecution, the transactions would have included bribes. In order for the legislation
pertaining to bribery to be applicable at all, it is supposed that the alleged beneficiaries are susceptible
to bribery, i.e. the must fall in under the limited circle of people who are susceptible to bribery that was
applicable under the then Swedish legislation. The Prosecutor’s statement of the criminal offence as
charged has been considered unclear in a number of respects, including regarding the circle of people.
As regards what has been initially cited by the Public Prosecutor,
the assertion that Gulnara Karimova held a position or was engaged on an assignment within the
telecommunications sector as an employee or contractor in
a position of trust has not been made more specific. The statement of the criminal offence as charged
has also been considered as unclear as regards which official or officials which, according to the Public
Prosecutor’s second hand allegation of the criminal act, will be bribed through Telia’s business dealings
with Takilant Ltd.
8

Part 4 15.02.2019 B 12203-17
Particularly as regards these unclear parts of the allegation of the criminal act, major deficiencies in the
robustness of the investigations could be established. The assertion that Gulnara Karimova acted in the
exercising of her duties as a public sector employee or contractor in a position of trust engaged on
assignments within the telecommunications sector has therefore not been able to be proven;
an alternative explanation has instead been considered reasonable, meaning that Gulnara Karimova
acted as a business person through Takilant Ltd.
The Public Prosecutor’s assertion that Gulnara Karimova exercised the authority of a foreign state
without authority, so-called “actual exercising of authority”, without holding a position or being
engaged on an assignment has not been found to constitute a crime according to the bribery legislation
due to the fact that the actual exercising of authority also supposes employment or engagement on an
assignment.
As regards different determined public employment or assignments within the

Uzbek overseas administration that, according to the Public prosecutor, Gulnara Karimova held, the
District Court has considered the so-called “service relationship” between any benefits from Telia and
reported positions and functions. When examined, it has been established that the investigation does not
demonstrate that the business area in which Gulnara Karimova had been active included national
telecommunications matters. The District Court has therefore not found it proven that a service
relationship existed.
Regarding the allegation of bribery where benefits have been provided directly to somebody other than
the official, in this case to Takiant Ltd./Gulnara Karimova, there must be some form of connection
between the official and another party in order for it to be said that the benefit has in some way or other
favoured the official (favourable connection). In so far as the
Public Prosecutor has not specified which official or officials the Public Prosecutor in the second and
third hand has or have been bribed, it has not been possible to test this.
Where the Public Prosecutor has specified the official as being the General Director for
the telecommunications authority, Abdulla Aripov and the CEO of the telecommunications operator
Uzdunrobita,
9

Part 4 15.02.2019 B 12203-17
Bekhzod Ahmedov, there is no investigation that proves a favourable connection between them and
Takilant Ltd./Gulnara Karimova.
There have therefore not been found any grounds for the District Court to proceed in its examination of
other constituent elements of criminal acts and examine whether the transactions had contained any
benefits and if so, whether they had been in appropriate. Nor has there been reason to review the
accused’s accounts and the evidence to which they have adduced.
The accused are acquitted from prosecution for gross bribery.
In the assessment of the matter regarding liability, a forfeiture action is being brought against Telia
without approval.
10

Part 4 15.02.2019 B 12203-17
2 BACKGROUND
A background to the prosecution is given in this section. General information about the country
Uzbekistan and of its
telecommunications market for the periods covered by the prosecution will initially be given, followed
by
an account in chronological order of events that relate to Telia’s entry into the Uzbek
telecommunications market and the subsequent
subsequent examination of the collaboration with the Uzbek partner.
2.1 Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan is a country with a population of approximately 30 million in Central Asia and with
Tasjkent
as its capital. The country has land borders with Kazakstan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan,
Tadzjikistan and Kirgizistan.Image 1.
11

Part 4 15.02.2019 B 12203-17
During the years that are relevant to the case, 2007–2010, the country was governed by President Islam
Karimov. President Karimov had two daughters: Gulnara Karimova and Lola
Karimova. Neither the presidential nor the parliamentary elections in Uzbekistan were considered to be
free and just. Arbitrary detentions regularly occurred in the country.
The judiciary was in practice dependent on executive power, which led to a low degree of security. The
political institutions were dominated by a strong presidential rule.1 Uzbekistan was placed in position
number 175 out of a total of 179 listed countries in
the so-called “Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI)” in 2007.
In Uzbekistan telecommunications matters were formally managed by the

Uzbek equivalent to the Swedish Post and Telecom Authority (Post- och Telestyrelsen), the Uzbek
Agency for Communications and Information, UzACI). The Director General of UzACI was Abdulla
Aripov. He was also the minister responsible for telecommunications matters.
In 2006 three companies conducted telecommunications activities in Uzbekistan: Mobile Telesystems

OJSC (MTS), VimpelCom Ltd (VimpelCom) and MCT Corp. (MCT).
MTS was a Russian company that in August 2004 acquired the largest mobile operator
in the country, Uzdunrobita FE LLC (Uzdunrobita). The country was the market leader and in March
2007 had a market share of 51 percent. The CEO of Uzdunrobita was Bekhzod Akhmedov.
VimpelCom was also a Russian company but with its headquarters in Amsterdam in the Netherlands.
The company was the second largest telecommunications company in Uzbekistan and conducted its
operations in the country through the subsidiary Unitel, which in March 2007 had a market share of 34
percent.
12
STOCKHOLM DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT B 12201-17

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
MCT was an American investment company which provided mobile

telecommunications services in Uzbekistan via its subsidiary Coscom LLC2
(Coscom). MCT owned 99.97 percent of Coscom and the other 0.03 percent was
held by minority shareholders. The company’s market share per March 2007
amounted to eleven percent.
2.2 Telia’s acquisition of MCT and the working relationship with a Uzbek partner
TeliaSonera Aktiebolag3 (Telia) operated via its partly owned Dutch

subsidiary Fintur Holdings B.V. (Fintur) in Central Asia in the what is referred
to as the EurAsia market. Fintur was owned together with the Turkish telecom
company Turkcell. There was an express strategy in Fintur to expand in the
region and come into i.a. the Uzbek telecommunications market.
In early 2007, Fintur excessed an interest in acquiring MCT. The soundings were
initially led on the Fintur side by the company’s CEO Serkan Elden and Chairman
of the Board Erdal Durukan. On 13 March 2007, Telia’s Board of Directors gave
Fintur a mandate to initiate concrete negotiations with MCT. Via an acquisition of
MCT, via Fintur Telia would get MCT’s telecom business operations in
Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.
A project group for the MCT deal was put together within Fintur in which included among
others Serkan Elden, Erdal Durukan, Tero Kivisaari, then Fintur’s CFO and Olli Tuohimaa,
who was Fintur’s chief lawyer, and Fintur’s future head of corporate mergers and acquisitions
(M&A) Hande Apaydin.
One precondition for the deal was that Fintur would have a local partner in place in Uzbekistan.
It was a strategy that Fintur had in all the countries in Eurasia. Partnerships were
made and negotiations commenced with Bekhzod Akhmedov as
2
The company also operated under the name Ucell.
3
Name changed in 2016 to Telia Company AB.
13

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
had said they represented a group of local businessmen in Tashkent. Information

that Gulnara Karimova was part of the group was circulated early.
Erdal Durukan joined the company in April 2007 and Serkan Elden was
dismissed from Fintur in June 2007. In May 2007, Tero Kivisaari was appointed
head of the business area Eurasia within Telia and chairman of the Board of
Directors of Fintur.
At the Board meeting of Telia on 11 June 2007, the Board of Directors made a
decision in accordance with a proposal put forward for the acquisition of MCT
including its shareholdings in mobile operators operating in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan
and Afghanistan. The Board of Directors conditionally approved i.a. that an
agreement with a suitable local partner in Uzbekistan would not be signed later than
when signing the agreements for the acquisition of MCT.
From the presentation material to the Board of Directors that was introduced by
Tero Kivisaari, it emerged that a strong local group with business interests in varied
industries expressed an interest in a working relationship and this partner would
work with Fintur to bring value-adding assets to Coscom including 1800 Mhz and
3G frequencies and number blocks for PSTN mobile telephone calls. A more
concrete partnership would be negotiated as soon as the acquisition of MCT was in
place.
On 3 July 2007, Telia’s Board of Directors decided to approve the signing of an

agreement for the acquisition of MCT for a total transaction cost not exceeding USD
440 million. Due to that Turkcell had not approved the deal, the acquisition would
not be made via Fintur but rather via a wholly-owned subsidiary, Sonera Hungary
Holding B.V. – later renamed TeliaSonera UTA Holding B.V. (TS UTA4).
On 4 July 2007, a partnership agreement was signed on cooperation and future

acquisition of frequencies, etc. between TS UTA and Bekhzod Akhmedov or the
one he nominates “the Uzbek Partner.” It was not then known which legal entity
4
UTA stands for Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Afghanistan.
14

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
who would represent the partner. The agreement was signed by Tero Kivisaari
on Telia’s side and Bekhzod Akhmedov on the partner side.
The business plan with the partner essentially meant that the partner would assist
and provide consulting services to TS UTA concerning certain issues, and contribute
assets such as 3G frequencies, etc. The assets would be placed in a 3G company that
later would then be sold to a newly formed subsidiary of TS UTA, which became
TeliaSonera
Uzbek Telecom Holding B.V. (TS Uzbek). Coscom would also be moved so that was
owned by TS Uzbek. After this the 3G company and Coscom would be merged. In
this way, the assets would accrue to the benefit of Coscom. The transaction was to
take place in two stages where the partner would first receive USD 80 million from
TS Uzbek with the sale of the 3G company and then later pay USD 50 million to TS
UTA when buying 26 percent of the shares of TS Uzbek. The other two telecom
companies, MTS and Vimpelcom, had used similar business arrangements with their
respective introductions in Uzbekistan via the operator companies Uzdunrobita and
Unitel/Beeline respectively. MTS had then entered into an agreement with the
Gibraltar-based company Swisdorn Ltd (“Swisdorn”), which Gulnara
Karimova’s former husband, Rustam Madumarov, was behind this. Vimpelcom

had entered into an agreement with the Gibraltar-based company, Takilant Ltd
(Takilant).
The local partner in Uzbekistan was formally and ultimately Takilant. From
the audits carried out at the customary review of the company, what is referred
to as the “Due Diligence Process,” it was found that Gayane Avakyan was
behind the company. Gayane Avakyan also had links to Gulnara Karimova.
The 3G company listed in the partnership agreement became Takilant’s
subsidiary Teleson Mobile LLT (“Teleson”). At the time there was still an
unconfirmed rumour that Gulnara Karimova was behind the partner.
Telia’s acquisition and implementation of the MCT transaction with regard to

decisions made by the Board of Directors and related matters and the entry into the
partnership can be described graphically as follows.
15

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
Figure 2.
1 January - 1 March January - February. Some contacts with MCT
1 March - 1 April Board Meeting 13 March. The deal is
presented; decision to continue discussions
1 March - 1 June Due Diligence regarding MCT with local
businesses in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and
Afghanistan. Contacts with Uzbek partner
1 June - 1 July Board Meeting 11 June. Transaction structure
is approved and decided by the Board
1 July - 1 August Board Meeting 3 July. Decision to implement
the transactions with wholly-owned subsidiary
without Fintur
1 July - 1 August 4 July. Cooperation Agreement with local
partner regarding cooperation and future
acquisitions of frequencies, etc.
1 July - 1 August 16 July. MCT Closing
Lars Nyberg took over as CEO of Telia in September 2007.
The intended way of merging Teleson with Coscom was never implemented due to
that Telia’s legal advisers concluded that it was not possible for the rights to be
transferred in this manner. Instead, Teleson returned the assigned frequencies and
number blocks to the telecommunications authority, after which Coscom applied
and these were assigned to them (see more about this in the Grounds for the
Decision, section 6.1.3 under Indictment count 1).
The partnership led to a number of agreements and payments between Telia’s subsidiaries
and primarily Takilant, where payments and agreements from 24 December 2007 to 16
December 2010 form the basis of the Indictment counts 1-5 and are discussed in more detail
in the Grounds for the Decision, section 6.1.3.
16

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
2.3 Subsequent review of the working relationship with the

Uzbek partner
On 11 February 2008, in an investigative report of Telia’s business operations in

Uzbekistan, Svenska Dagbladet drew attention to the rumour that the Karimov family
was behind the local partner. The headline of the article was “Telia does Business
with a Dictator.” The article was one of several articles on the subject. Banco Fonder,
in their capacity as a shareholder of Telia, also raised the question of who was Telia’s
partner in Uzbekistan.
At Telia’s Board meeting on 10-11 March 2008, the issue about the company’s
alleged unethical behaviour in Uzbekistan was raised. However, it was not possible
to clarify whether there was any truth behind the rumour that Gulnara Karimova was
behind Takilant, and the Board of Directors did not take any action on the matter on
the basis of the information.
In 2012 Behkzod Akhmedov fled from Uzbekistan to Russia since the

Uzdunrobita company was exposed to various interventions by the governmental
authorities. Later on the company declared bankruptcy. Uzbekistan issued an
international search and request for the arrest of Behkzod Akhmedov. As a result,
an investigation was initiated in Switzerland against three Uzbek citizens,
including i.a. Gulnara Karimova, in the summer of 2012, regarding suspicions of
money laundering, which led to the seizure of banking relationships, i.a. an
account belonging to Takilant.
On 28 September 2012, Swedish prosecutors requested international mutual legal

assistance from Switzerland regarding material from the seizures in the Swiss
investigation. An American, a Dutch and a Swedish preliminary investigation has
subsequently taken place regarding, inter alia, suspected corruption offences in the
telecommunications sector in Uzbekistan. A large amount of assets belonging to
Takilant and Gulnara Karimova have been seized.
Since the SVT program Assignment Review noted Telia’s business in

Uzbekistan in September 2012, Telia decided to instruct Mannheimer
Swartling Advokatbyrå AB (“MSA”) to investigate and review the company’s
business operations in the country. In January
17

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
2013, MSA presented its report. It this, it was established that the question of
whether any criminal offence had been committed could neither be established nor
ruled out, that it had not been possible to fully investigate which persons were
behind Takilant, and that Gulnara Karimova as far as it emerged from the
investigation was not a person belonged to the group of persons susceptible to
bribery according to Swedish law.
Only in 2016 appeared in documents that the public prosecutor received from the
Swiss investigation that Gulnara Karimova was Takilant’s “Ultimate beneficial
owner,” i.e. ultimate beneficiary.
On 21 September 2017, Telia entered into a settlement with the U.S. and Dutch
authorities, which entailed that the company acknowledged that corruption offenses
were committed at the company’s entry into and business operations in the Uzbek
market.
On 22 September 2017, the public prosecutor brought charges against Tero

Kivisaari, Olli Tuohimaa and Lars Nyberg and a legal action against Telia for
forfeiture of property.
The defendants applied for a review of the public prosecutor’s decision on two
occasions, 25 September and 17 October 2017 respectively. A legal opinion of
Professor Emerita in criminal law Suzanne Wennberg was attached to the request.
The reason for the request was that Gulnara Karimova, according to the accused
defendants, did not fall within the group of persons susceptible to bribery and hence
nor could she be [considered as being] bribed. The Swedish Prosecution Authority’s
Development Centre and the Prosecutor General rejected the request.
3 JURISDICTION OF THE SWEDISH COURTS
As a general rule, Chapter 2, Section 1 of the Swedish Penal Code applies that the
Swedish court has jurisdiction to judge according to Swedish law only for offenses
committed here in the country. Concerning the question of
if a crime is considered to have been committed, it is stated in Chapter 2, Section 4

of the same Penal Code applies refers to the place where the criminal acts took
place, however also where the actual implementation of the crime occurred. The
18

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
This means that a crime can be committed in several locations and in different
countries. In practice, every location where any part of the criminal act has been
committed is considered to be a place where the offence was committed. What this
means is that where a physical act, which constitutes a part of the crime, has been
carried out in Sweden, the crime is regarded as having been committed here, even if the
immediate or indirect or subsequent consequences of the act(s) have occurred abroad.5
As a general point of departure, it can be stated that with the examination of the legal
question of jurisdiction, the public prosecutor’s allegations concerning the course of
events are to be taken as fact, unless it is clear that there is no basis and it is unfounded.6
The public prosecutor’s description of the criminal acts and behaviour within the
framework of each crime is based on that the request for as well as the promise and
payment of bribes occurred in Sweden via that requests and promises and paying out
took place by Telia’s senior management in Sweden. Plus the facts of the matter is
that payment has been made from Telia’s bank account at Handelsbanken’s office in
Farsta to (primarily) Takilant’s account abroad. In view of the public prosecutor’s
description of the suspected bribery offenses and with the stated point of departure
with the assessment of the prosecutor’s information, the District Court finds that the
jurisdiction pursuant to Chapter 2, Sections 1 and 4 of the Swedish Penal Code for
examination of the indictment and prosecution exist.
4 THE PROSECUTION AND LEGAL ACTION FOR

FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY
4.1 Demands for the acknowledgement of liability in Case B 12201-17
And as the final , the public prosecutor has demanded that Tero Kivisaari, Olli
Tuohimaa and Lars Nyberg acknowledge liability and the commission of
bribery, felony according to the following statements of the criminal offence as
charged.
”In the primary allegation it is claimed that Lars Nyberg for the years 2008 –
2010 (points 2 - 5) and Tero Kivisaari and Olli Tuohimaa for the years 2007 –
5
See NJA 2008 p. 1135 and RH 2000:84.
6
See NJA 2005 p. 586 and NJA 2012 p. 362.
19

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
2010 (points 1-5) together and in agreement, offered, promised, approved of

and provided bribes or other improper financial or other advantage to Gulnara
Karimova for her performance of official responsibilities or task/commission
1. as an employee of the Uzbek state,
2. who due to a position of trust has received the task and responsibility
of managing and supervising financial and legal matters for others,
3. as foreign minister (Indictment count 2)
4. or without holding employment or commission for the exercise of the
authority of a foreign state.
in the alternative it is claimed that Lars Nyberg (points 2 - 5) and Tero

Kivisaari and Olli Tuohimaa (points 1 - 5) have offered, promised, approved
of and provided bribes or other improper financial or other advantage to a
civil servant/civil servants of the telecommunications authority or at another
governmental authority for the performance of their official responsibilities,
but to accrue to the benefit of another, in this case accruing to the benefit of
Gulnara Karimova. In other words, the civil servant’s receipt [of the bribe] is
for a party other than himself.
In the second alternative it is claimed that Lars Nyberg points 2 - 5) and
Tero Kivisaari and Olli Tuohimaa (points 1 - 5) have offered, promised,
approved of and provided bribes or other improper financial or other
advantage to Bekhzod Achmedov, in the performance of official
responsibilities as the CEO of the company Uzdunrobita, but to accrue to the
benefit of another, in this case accruing to the benefit of Gulnara Karimova.
In other words Bekhzod Akhmedov’s receipt [of the bribe] is for a party
other than himself.
Lars Nyberg, Tero Kivisaari and Olli Tuohimaa have acted as perpetrators or in
any case with advice and deed promoted the works according to the following:
1. Lars Nyberg, as CEO of TeliaSonera/in the Telia Group, has been
responsible for the agreements and payments outlined below under points 2 -
5. He has allowed and contributed to that the agreements were entered into
and a power of attorney was given along with permission for another party to
sign and implement the agreements. Lars Nyberg has thereby contributed to
making the related payments that were made. He has thus made efforts for the
above-described acts and behaviour to be carried out with respect to points 2 -
5 below. Lars Nyberg has had the opportunity to interrupt the acts and
behaviour with the partner. This has not taken place.
2. Tero Kivisaari, as project manager/responsible for EuroAsia, has been
the one who, under the CEO, has the overall responsibility for the agreements
and payments outlined below. He has also participated in the negotiations
with what was referred to as the “Uzbek partner”/Takilant Ltd. He has
allowed and contributed to the entry into of the agreements, signed
agreements and induced others into signing and also contributing to the
making of related payments. He has thereby made efforts and worked to
ensure that the above-described acts and behaviour has been carried out
regarding the points below.
3. Olli Tuohimaa has been and acted as the lawyer regarding current
agreements and signed the contract proposals (promise/offer/acceptance) and
agreements regarding alleged acquisitions, etc. which the payments (the
bribes) are based on and induced others or participated in the signing
including
20

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
that he himself has signed agreements. He has also participated in the

negotiations with what was referred to as the “Uzbek partner”/Takilant
Ltd. He has thereby made efforts and assisted in the above-described acts
and behaviour being able to be carried out regarding the points below.
The criminal acts have been committed in whole or in part in Sweden.
A substantial portion of the bribery has gone to the Gibraltar-based

company Takilant Ltd, controlled by Gulnara Karimova.
Taken overall, the bribery according to points 1-5 below has meant that
TeliaSonera would have access to the market via its Uzbek subsidiary
Coscom (trademark UCell) in order to operate telecom operations and that
Coscom would be allocated the requisite permits, frequencies and number
blocks by the governmental authorities.
The bribes under p. 1-5 below have also been part of a procedure
involving “the elimination of any claims of any agency may bring against
Coscom in connection with its investment promises under the investment
program of Uzbekistan.”
The offence is to be assessed as serious, due to that it collectively relates

to very significant amounts, was implemented systematically, and was
intended to influence the exercise of powers as a public authority in the
allocation of licences, etc.
The acts and behaviour has resulted in the agreements and payments mentioned
below.
1. BRIBERY, FELONY (Kivisaari and Tuohimaa) (0104- K156-12)

The bribes under p. 1 consisted of USD 80 million and the obtaining of 26
percent of the shares of TeliaSonera’s Uzbek business operations according to
the following:
In December 2007, USD 80 million was first paid to Takilant Ltd, which
cannot be understood as being anything other than for the benefit of Gulnara
Karimova.
Of these funds, Takilant Ltd, based in Gibraltar, has returned USD 50 million
to TeliaSonera for 26 percent of the shares of the holding company that owned
Coscom/UCell, i.e. the telecommunications company operating in Uzbekistan,
which was part of the TeliaSonera Group.
Takilant Ltd, which cannot be understood as being anything other than for
the benefit of Gulnara Karimova, has thereby ultimately received USD 30
million net plus 26 percent [of the] shares.
The prosecuted offence has been of an on-going nature from October 2007
(or the later date that suspends the statute of limitations period) until the
signing of the agreement, plus that the payments that have been a
consequence of the agreements. The following may be noted in particular:
21

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
• Decision by TS UTA (subsidiary of TeliaSonera) sometime around

17 December 2007: Olli Tuohimaa, Tero Kivisaari
• Agreement signed sometime around 24 December 2007 by: Tero Kivisaari
• Established/produced agreement/draft agreement during the time period: Olli
Tuohimaa
• Participated in/had direct/indirect insider knowledge of
negotiations/contract proposals during the time period: Olli
Tuohimaa, Tero Kivisaari
2. BRIBERY, FELONY (Kivisaari, Nyberg and Tuohimaa) (0104-K156-12)

The bribes under p. 2 consisted of USD 9.2 million according to the following:
In August/September 2008, USD 9.2 million was transferred to
Takilant Ltd, which cannot be understood as being anything other than
for the benefit of Gulnara Karimova, in order for Coscom to be
assigned a number block by a decision of a governmental authority,
which subsequently took place.
The prosecuted offence has been of an on-going nature from June 2008 up to
and including the signing of the agreement plus the payment that has been a
consequence of the agreement. The following may be noted in particular:
• Decision by Lars Nyberg (lies within the CEO’s framework)
• Authorisation/delegation has been given sometime around 15 September
2008 by: Lars Nyberg
• Payment instructions sometime around 15 September 2008 by: Tero Kivisaari
• Agreement signed sometime around 20 August 2008 by: Tero Kivisaari
Tuohimaa
• Participated in/had direct/indirect insider knowledge of negotiations/contract
proposals during the time period: Olli Tuohimaa, Tero Kivisaari
• Had direct/indirect insider knowledge of negotiations/contract
proposals during the time period Lars Nyberg

The bribes under p. 3 consisted of USD 220 million and USD 50 million
according to the following:
In January 2010, in part some USD 220 million was transferred to
Takilant Ltd, which cannot be understood as being anything other than
for the benefit of Gulnara Karimova, by the TeliaSonera Group, via a
repurchase agreement of 20 percent [of the] shares of the Uzbek business
operations from Takilant Ltd, has been agreed that the remaining 6
percent [of the shares] would be valued at USD 50 million.
The prosecuted offence has been of an on-going nature from October 2009 up
to and including the signing of the agreement plus that the payment has been
a consequence of the agreement. The following may be noted in particular:
• Participated in the presentation for TeliaSonera’s Board of
Directors sometime around 22 January 2010: Tero Kivisaari, Lars
Nyberg
• Decision by TS UTA sometime around 22 January 2010:
Tero Kivisaari, Olli Tuohimaa
• Authorisation/delegation has been given sometime around 28 January 2010 by:
Lars Nyberg
• Agreement signed sometime around 25 January 2010 by: Olli Tuohimaa
• Established/produced agreement/draft agreement: Olli Tuohimaa
22

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17

negotiations/contract proposals during the time period: Olli Tuohimaa,
Tero Kivisaari
• Had direct/indirect insider knowledge of negotiations/contract proposals
during the time period: Lars Nyberg

The bribes or improper financial or other advantages under p. 4, which
aimed at Coscom obtaining a decision of a governmental authority
concerning the allocation of 4G, consist of USD 15 million and USD 25
million, according to the following:
During the first half of 2010, “consulting agreement” for the obtaining of a
a decision of a governmental authority regarding 4G frequencies was entered
into with the “Uzbek partner,” which cannot be understood as being
anything other than for the benefit of Gulnara Karimova, which meant for
TeliaSonera’s part
in part a payment of USD 15 million (to Huawei to settle Zeromax GMBH’s,
which cannot be understood as being anything other than for the benefit of
Gulnara Karimova, debt to Huawei),
in part that the “floor” for the remaining 6 percent of the shares in the
jointly owned company, according to Takilant Ltd’s (which cannot be
understood as other than Gulnara Karimova) put option, is increased from
USD 50 million to USD 75 million.
The prosecuted offence has been of an on-going nature from April 2010 up to
and including the signing of the agreement plus that the payment has been a
consequence of the agreements. The following may be noted in particular:
• Authorisation/delegation has been given by: Lars Nyberg verbally. Written
authorisation was first established sometime around 23 January 2013 for Tero
Kivisaari with the possibility of further delegation
• Participated in the presentation for TeliaSonera’s Board of Directors
sometime around 7 June 2010 (after the agreement was entered into but
prior to when the payment was made): Lars Nyberg
• Agreement sometime around 14 and 15 April plus 31 May 2010 signed by: another
• Decision by TS UTA sometime around 4 June 2010: Olli Tuohimaa
Tuohimaa
• Participated in/had direct/indirect insider knowledge of negotiations/contract
proposals during the time period: Olli Tuohimaa, Tero Kivisaari
during the time period Lars Nyberg

Something that can almost be likened to a “consulting agreement”
for assisting with the acquisition of 4G frequencies was entered into
with Takilant Ltd.
The bribes under p. 5 consist of USD 55 million according to the following:
In November/December 2010, USD 55 million has been transferred to
the benefit of Gulnara Karimova, in order that Coscom should be assigned
additional frequencies (4G) via a decision of a governmental authority.
23

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
The prosecuted offence has been of an on-going nature from September 2010
up to and including the signing of the agreement plus that the payment has
been a consequence of the agreement. The following may be noted in
particular:
• Participated in the presentation for TeliaSonera’s Board of Directors
sometime around 22 October 2010: Lars Nyberg, Tero Kivisaari (in
writing)
• Authorisation/delegation has been given sometime around 25 October by:
Lars Nyberg to Tero Kivisaari with the possibility of further delegation
• Decision by TS UTA sometime around 29 October 2010: Olli Tuohimaa
• Agreement signed sometime around 1 November 2010 by: Olli Tuohimaa
• Payment order sometime around 14 December 2010 by: Tero Kivisaari
Tuohimaa
negotiations/contract proposals during the time period: Olli Tuohimaa,
Tero Kivisaari
during the time period Lars Nyberg.”
Statutes:
Chapter 17, Section 7 of the Swedish Penal Code in its wording before
July 1 2012, compared with Chapter 20, Section 2 (1) (employed)
Chapter 20, Section 2 (2), p. 5 a and d (appointed to manage or supervise
a legal or financial matter)
Chapter 20, Section 2 (2), p. 6 (corresponding minister) –Indictment
count 2. Chapter 20, Section 2 (2), p. 7 (de facto exerciser of powers as
a public authority).
4.2 Demand for the forfeiture of property in Case B 12203-17

The public prosecutor has applied for forfeiture of property vis-à-vis Telia in
the amount of USD 208.5 million, which constitutes the exchange/benefit
referred to in Chapter 36, Sections 1, 4 and 5 of the Swedish Penal Code by/as
a result of bribery, felony offence, according to the allegations and statement
of the criminal offence.
“TeliaSonera has, via employees of the TeliaSonera Group during the years
2007 - 2010, offered, promised, approved of and provided bribes or other
improper financial or other advantage.
As the primary allegation to Gulnara Karimova for her

performance of official responsibilities or task/commission
2. who due to a position of trust has recieved the task and responsiblity
of managing and supervising financial and legal matters for others,
3. as foreign minister (only for p. 2 below)
4. or without holding employment or commission for the exercise of the
24

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
In the alternative, to a civil servant/civil servants of the telecommunications

authority or at another governmental for the performance of official duties, but
to accrue to the benefit of another, in this case accruing to the benefit of
Gulnara Karimova. In other words, the civil servant’s receipt [of the bribe] is
for a party other than himself.
In the second alternative to Bekhzod Achmedov, in the performance of

official responsibilities as the CEO of the company Uzdunrobita, but to
accrue to the benefit of another, in this case accruing to the benefit of
Gulnara Karimova. In other words, Bekhzod Akhmedov’s receipt [of the
bribe] is for a party other than himself.
The criminal acts have been committed in whole or in part in Sweden.
A substantial portion of the bribery has gone to the Gibraltar-based

company Takilant Ltd, controlled by Gulnara Karimova.
Taken overall, the bribery according to points 1-5 below has meant that
TeliaSonera would have access to the market via its Uzbek subsidiary
Coscom (trademark UCell) in order to operate telecom operations and that
Coscom would be allocated the requisite permits, frequencies and number
blocks by the governmental authorities.
The bribes under p. 1-5 below have also been part of a procedure involving
“the elimination of any claims of any agency may bring against Coscom in
connection with its investment promises under the investment program of
Uzbekistan.”
The offence is to be assessed as serious, due to that it collectively relates

to very significant amounts, was implemented systematically, and was
intended to influence the exercise of powers as a public authority in the
allocation of licences, etc.
The acts and behaviour has resulted in the agreements and payments mentioned
below.
1. BRIBERY, FELONY OFFENCE

The bribes under p. 1 consisted of USD 80 million and the obtaining of 26 percent
of the shares of TeliaSonera’s Uzbek business operations according to the
following:
In December 2007, USD 80 million was first paid to Takilant Ltd, which
cannot be understood as being anything other than for the benefit of
Gulnara Karimova.
Of these funds, Takilant Ltd, based in Gibraltar, has returned USD 50 million
to TeliaSonera for 26 percent of the shares of the holding company that owned
Coscom/UCell, i.e. the telecommunications company operating in Uzbekistan,
which was part of the TeliaSonera Group.
the benefit of Gulnara Karimova, has thereby ultimately received USD 30
million net plus 26 percent [of the] shares.
25

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17

The bribes under p. 2 consist of USD 9.2 million according to the
following:
In August/September 2008, USD 9.2 million was transferred to Takilant Ltd,
which cannot be understood as being anything other than for the benefit of
Gulnara Karimova, in order for Coscom to be assigned a number block via a
decision of a governmental authority, which subsequently took place.

The bribes under p. 3 consist of USD 220 million and USD 50 million
according to the following:
In January 2010,
in part USD 220 million has been transferred to Takilant Ltd, which cannot
be understood as being anything other than for the benefit of Gulnara
Karimova, by the TeliaSonera Group via a 20 percentage point repurchase
agreement in the Uzbek operations of Takilant Ltd
in part it has been agreed that the remaining 6 percentage points would be
valued at USD 50 million.

The bribes or improper financial or other advantages under p. 4, which
aimed at Coscom obtaining a decision of a governmental authority
regarding the allocation of 4G, consist of USD 15 million and USD 25
million, according to the following:
During the first half of 2010, a “consulting agreement” for the obtaining of a
decision of a governmental authority regarding 4G frequencies was entered into
with the “Uzbek partner,” which cannot be understood as being anything other
than for the benefit of Gulnara Karimova, which meant for TeliaSonera’s part
in part a payout of USD 15 million (to Huawei has been made to settle
Zeromax GMBH’s, which cannot be understood as being anything other than
for the benefit of Gulnara Karimova, debt to Huawei),
in part that the “floor” for the remaining 6 percent of the shares in the jointly
owned company, according to Takilant Ltd’s (which cannot be understood as
other than Gulnara Karimova) put option, is increased from USD 50 million to
USD 75 million.

Something that can almost be likened to a “consulting agreement” for
assisting with the acquisition of 4G frequencies was entered into with
Takilant Ltd.
The bribes under p. 5 consisted of USD 55 million according to the following:
In November/December 2010, USD 55 million has been transferred to
the benefit of Gulnara Karimova, in order for Coscom to be assigned
additional frequencies (4G) via a decision of a governmental authority.”
Statutes:
Chapter 17, Section 7 of the Swedish Penal Code in its wording before
July 1 2012, compared with Chapter 20, Section 2 (1) (employed)
Chapter 20, Section 2 (2), p. 5 a and d (appointed to manage or supervise a
legal or financial matter)
26

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
Chapter 20, Section 2 (2), p. 6 (corresponding minister) –Indictment count 2.

Chapter 20, Section 2 (2), p. 7 (de facto exerciser of powers as a public authority).
4.3 Posture in regards to the demand for the acknowledgement of liability in Case
B 12201-17
4.3.1 Tero Kivisaari
The public prosecutor’s allegations and statement of the criminal offence in the
primary allegation, the alternative and the second alternative allegation are denied
on both objective and subjective grounds. It is denied that Gulnara Karimova had
employment or a commission that encompassed responsibilities or tasks a in the
telecom area, that contacts of such kind as the public prosecutor has alleged to have
occurred between representatives of Telia and representatives of the
telecommunications authority or at another governmental authority, or that
representatives of Telia had contact with Bekhzod Akhmedov in the performance of
his official responsibilities as stated.
It has been acknowledged that Tero Kivisaari had the stated position and
participated in the emergence of the various agreements. However, it is denied
that he was in any circumstance a decision-maker or executed any payments.
It has been acknowledged that the agreements in question have been entered into and
that specified payments in Indictment counts 1–5 have occurred. However, these have,
in their entirety, constituted commercial [based] compensation for various different
rights and did not constitute bribes.
It is denied that Tero Kivisaari had intentions that the payments paid would
constitute bribes, i.e. he has neither intended, recognised, nor suspected that the
payments in any part would accrue to persons with the authority to make decisions
regarding the matters and issues in question. Nor was he aware of that Gulnara
Karimova has been the stakeholder in fact being the recipient of the payments, and
above all has not had the understanding that she has been an authorised competent
decision-maker within the area in question.
27

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
4.3.2 Olli Tuohimaa
primary allegation, the alternative and the second alternative allegation are
denied on both objective and subjective grounds. It is denied that Gulnara
Karimova held such a position that is a prerequisite for the crime, that contacts of
such type as the public prosecutor has alleged has occurred between
representatives of Telia and representatives of the telecommunications authority,
and that representatives of Telia had contact with Bekhzod Akhmedov in the
performance of his official responsibilities as stated and that it also lacks the
necessary elements and preconditions for the commission of a crime.
It has been testified to that all agreements, documents and payments and transfers
have taken place as part of the company’s normal and ordinary commercial
activities. It has been testified to that Olli Tuohimaa, as company lawyer,
participated by coordinating and commenting on the preparation of agreements and
documents. However, it has been denied that he participated in decisions or
executed payments. He denies that he has induced others into signing or that he
himself has signed agreements, with one exception.
It has been denied that the transactions constituted or contained any bribes or other
non-normal and ordinary commercial payments. In all circumstances, this has been
Olli Tuohimaa’s understanding.
It has been denied that Olli Tuohimaa then carried out the transactions and was aware
with the transactions implemented that Gulnara Karimova had interests in the company
Takilant or the “Uzbek partner,” or that some any of payments would accrue to her.
4.3.3 Lars Nyberg
primary allegation, the alternative and the second alternative allegation are denied on
both objective and subjective grounds. It is denied that Gulnara Karimova had such
a position that is a prerequisite for the application of the Swedish Penal Code’s
provisions concerning
28

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
the taking of bribes and the giving of bribes. It is not specified which civil servants
are intended, nor which governmental authority – except the telecommunications
authority – is referred to here. Here too, the question arises as to which person can
objectively become subjected to [the rules concerning] bribe-taking or bribe-giving.
It does not appear in what manner representatives of the telecommunications
authority or at other governmental authority are encompassed within [and subject to
the provisions concerning] the performance of official duties. Bekhzod Akhmedov’s
position as CEO of Uzdonrobita cannot establish that any connection to the
performance of official duties existed with the decisions made with regard to Telia’s
obtaining frequencies, and related matters.
Lars Nyberg acknowledged that he, as CEO of the then TeliaSonera Group, has had overall
responsibility for the day-to-day management. Lars Nyberg’s responsibility cannot,
however, encompass each and every possible criminal act that takes place in the Group.
This would mean that there would be what is referred to as “strict liability” and that Lars
Nyberg as the company’s senior executive would thus have a very far-reaching liability in
criminal law for the entire business operations.
4.4 Posture in regards to the demand for the forfeiture of property in Case B 12203-17
Telia has consented to the demand for the forfeiture of property, subject to that
(i) the court has made the assessment that the documents on which the
public prosecutors have based the legal action in this case constitute a
crime and that such crime can be the basis for forfeiture of property;
and that
(ii) funds belonging to Telia or other assets during the processing of the
present case are not taken in forfeiture (by verdict, judgment, decision or
otherwise) other than by a legally competent public authority
(irrespective of the country in which it occurs) in connection with the
transactions [that took place] in Uzbekistan which form the basis of the
public prosecutor’s demand for the forfeiture of property in this case and
irrespective of whether or not such forfeiture of property occurs with
Telia or any of Telia’s subsidiaries.
If such further forfeiture of property as stated in (ii) occur, Telia consents if (i) is fulfilled
the forfeiture of property to the extent that funds or other assets have not already
29

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
been taken in forfeiture by other governmental authorities and provided that there
is a remaining part up to the agreed amount. Telia does not consent to the
forfeiture of property to the extent that the forfeiture of property would result in
the total forfeiture of property, on a global basis, would exceed USD 417 million
(the “Total Amount”), which Telia, as part of the settlement with the
governmental authorities in the U.S. and the Netherlands, undertook to pay as
forfeiture of property to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).
Telia has paid one-half the Total Amount to the SEC, i.e. USD 208.5 million. The
right to offset the other half of the Total Amount concerning the public prosecutor’s
demand for the forfeiture of property in this case is approved. This means that if the
court in this case within 540 days from 21 September 2017 (i.e. no later than 15
March 2019; meaning not after 14 March 2019) declares any amount forfeited, Telia
has been granted the right to deduct the forfeited amount from the obligation to pay
the Total Amount to the SEC up to one-half of the Total Amount, i.e. up to the
amount consented to, USD 208.5 million.
Telia has surrendered over to the court to determine whether the acts constitute
a crime, and submitted the following positions it holds vis-à-vis the facts and
circumstances that the public prosecutor has invoked.
During the years 2007–2010, Telia entered into an agreement with a Uzbek local
partner and, in connection with its establishment in Uzbekistan and subsequent
transactions, executed the payments as outlined by the public prosecutor. The
payments were made to accounts belonging to Takilant Ltd and in one case belonging
to Huawei’s account for the benefit of Zeromax GmbH (Zeromax).
The transactions and the payments made were decided upon by Telia.
By means of the transactions, Telia’s subsidiary in Uzbekistan acquired

frequencies and other telecom-related assets.
30

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
Telia does not deny the public prosecutor’s information that the ultimate
beneficiary of the payments in all cases was Gulnara Karimova.
5 THE INVESTIGATION IN THE CASE
5.1 The Prosecutor’s verbal evidence
Tero Kivisaari, Olli Tuohimaa and Lars Nyberg have been heard in the case. In
addition, 25 individuals have been heard. Information about the more detailed forms
of the questioning is included in the court session minutes of the trial. Of the persons
questioned, 17 were individuals belonging to Telia’s organisation (one of whom was
an external lawyer), of which four have sat on Telia’s Bboard of Directors during the
current time. For the most part, the theme of the evidence and proof for these
questioning sessions has consisted of the defendants’ insights on relevant events.
From the other question sessions, several of them have focused largely on describing
the general perception and understanding concerning the situation in Uzbekistan
during the relevant time period. Only one person belonging to the organisation from
any of the counterparties in relevant transactions has been questioned, namely
Coscom’s former CEO. Due to lack of mutual legal assistance from Russia and
Uzbekistan, it has not been possible to conduct questioning of three individuals and
these questioning sessions have been withdrawn by the public prosecutor.
5.2 The Prosecutor’s documentary evidence
Extensive documentary evidence has been presented in accordance with what is

stated in the court session minutes of the trial. It is about e-mail funds, agreements,
Board meeting minutes, etc. Notes from ….Records of stories that two people
submitted during the preliminary investigation have been allowed to be presented as
evidence according to the provision in Chapter 35, Section 14 of the Swedish Code
of Judicial Procedure.
31

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
5.3 Written evidence of the accused
Tero Kivisaari, Olli Tuohimaa and Lars Nyberg have presented a large
amount of written evidence in accordance with what is stated in the court
session minutes of the trial, among other things, a large amount of e-mail
correspondence regarding the emergence of the agreements.
5.4 The defendants’ information
The section presents a summary of the defendants’ information, to the extent

relevant.
He was appointed Business Area Manager in May 2007. There was an ambition to
expand in the region. The investment was managed as a Fintur project. It was
natural that they approached the president to ensure themselves that they were
welcome in Uzbekistan. If not, it would not have been possible to invest in the
country. When he took over, he was aware that all discussions with a local partner
went via Bekhzod, who was the CEO of Uzdunrobita. He was described as “Mr.
Telecom” in the country. From mid-June when Serkan Elden was fired, he started to
study the details of the project himself. Serkan Elden had talked about Gulnara
Karimova as a possible partner, but no one had met with her so it was only a
rumour. According to Serdan Elden, Gulnara Karimova was a local businesswoman
who was involved in several different business areas. He himself knew that Gulnara
Karimova was involved in many different business activities. Serkan Elden
probably spoke both about Gulnara Karimova alone and as a person among several
other investors. He has never received information in 2007 that she was a
government official or official decision maker. It was Bekhzod whom they
negotiated with the entire time. In June 2007, he received information from
Bekhzod that the local partner consisted of a group of local businessmen. He didn’t
know who the ultimate owner of
32

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
Takilant was. Bekhzod never admitted that it was Gulnara Karimova who was
standing behind [the actual] the partner and unfortunately did not receive any
confirmation of who it was. They did what they could in order to find out, but
without success. That this was so, was well-known within Telia. Lars Nyberg has
explained that he asked the local management in Uzbekistan why Gulnara Karimova
was at the meeting on the round trip in January 2008 for a brief time and received the
answer that she was a powerful businesswoman in the country. According to his
recollection, nothing was said about telecom. Their partner was not the national
government nor any public authority. That the whole deal was legal was clear to
them. On 6 January 2013, he submitted a report due to an investigation in connection
with Telia’s entry into Uzbekistan. It is correct that he said that there have been
rumours and stories over the years that Gulnara Karimova was behind the local
partner and for him that it was perfectly possible this it was so, however that he was
never able to have it confirmed, they have never seen anything proof of that. That’s
what he said the entire time.
5.4.2 Olli Tuohimaa
The spring of 2007 was a hectic time as his role changed and he finally became
chief counsel for the Eurasia operations. His responsibilities as chief counsel
encompassed transactions, acquisitions and divestments. They retained external
lawyers for larger projects. He gradually became involved in the project in
May/June 2007. The partner in the Uzbek project was always Bekhzod, who
presented himself as the representative of a group of local businesspeople. He
always talked about shareholders in the plural, so he perceived it as several. Based
on his business related activities, it is not unusual to see an individual representing
a larger group of shareholders. The name Takilant only came up on 31 October
2007. He talked to Bekhzod on the telephone and met with him 2-3 times. Gayane
Avakyan was the only owner and representative of Takilant. He didn’t know that
Gulnara Karimova was behind the company. And no one else knew it either. There
were rumours that Gulnara Karimova was behind the partner but it could not be
verified. It was not necessarily a problem to have Gulnara Karimova as a partner in
her capacity as the president’s daughter. But it not acceptable to have a civil
servant
33

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
with influence on the telecom market. However, he has never received information
from her that she has been a government representative or affiliated with the
telecommunications authority. But he assured himself in the agreements that this
issue was dealt with so that no official in the national government or person
working in a governmental authority was behind the partner. The lawyers engaged
have the legal obligation to investigate the background data. The background to the
anti-corruption clause was precisely to ensure that there are no government officials
behind the partner. It is not specifically there because of rumours of Gulnara
Karimova. If a civil servant government official had entered the ownership picture
in Takilant, the company had had to inform Telia about it and the agreement could
then have come to an end.
5.4.3 Lars Nyberg
He took up office on 3 September 2007. He was CEO of the Group and had eight CEOs
in the sub-areas. He had not previously worked in a telecom company, so he had quite a
lot to learn. The increasing of sales volumes and reducing costs was his primary mission.
Decisions regarding Uzbekistan were made and the legal instruments completed. At the
first meeting with Tero Kivisaari, he reacted that they didn’t know whom their local
partner was and that it was Bekhzod, who was the CEO of their competitor in
Uzbekistan, with whom they negotiated with. According to Tero Kivisaari, Bekhzod did
not represent the governmental authority but rather facilitated communications between
them and the governmental authority. He told Tero Kivisaari that they had to keep an eye
on this. He asked the chief counsel if the Board of Directors knew that they did not know
who was their partner and he answered ‘yes’ and that they didn’t know was not a legal
problem. The Chairman of the Board also said that they did not know who was their
partner, but that they were similar to the Uzbek Wallenberg. He asked Tero Kivisaari
about corruption in Uzbekistan and he said it could be a problem. He emphasised to Tero
Kivisaari that they did not pay bribes. He never heard the name Gulnara Karimova as a
possible partner prior to the December 2007 agreement. That name came later via the
media.
34

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
Prior to a round trip in January 2008 in the region, he learned that he would meet
Gulnara Karimova, who was a successful businesswoman and daughter of the
president. The meeting lasted just under 30 minutes, and he does not think she said a
peep. It was mostly he who spoke during the meeting. He did not react to the fact
that he did not meet with their partner, because after all they negotiated with
Bekhzod and as they didn’t know who was behind the partner, i.e. who was the
beneficiary in of the next stage. Tero Kivisaari never mentioned anything about
Serkan Elden’s information concerning Gulnara Karimova. He has drawn his own
conclusion that Tero Kivisaari made the assessment that it was not particularly
credible. The one person who could say who it was to Tero Kivisaari was Bekhzod,
but he never provided information about who was behind the partner.
5.5 Abstract Record from the questioning sessions
A summary abstract of what other individuals being questioned in the case have told
us about is contained in a separate attachment (file annex 433).
6 GROUNDS FOR THE DECISION
6.1 The criminal liability in case B 12201-17
6.1.1 Applicable criminal law provisions
1. Criminal liability for the commission of active and passive bribery, under the
legislation covering corruption offences in Swedish law, at the time period in
question was governed by Chapter 17, Section 7 and Chapter 20, Section 2 of the
Swedish Penal Code offence The provisions constituted different sides of the same
criminal act. In Chapter 20, Section 2 of the Penal Code stated the circle of persons
who were hit by criminal liability for passive bribery. Due to reference from Chapter
17, Section 7 of the same Code became the circuit also decisive for the delimitation
of the crime active bribery. The offence of passive bribery [requesting/receiving a
bribe] required that the perpetrator constituted a special subject and belonged to one
35

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
of the categories set out in the provision. Not only did employees listed in Chapter
20, Section 2 (1) belong to the group of persons susceptible to bribery but also the
other parties assigned tasks and officials/officers who are listed in the second
paragraph of the provision.
2. The legislation was criticised due to, among other things, that the detailed and
partly overlapping list of people resulted in that it was difficult to apply. Critical
remarks from international monitoring bodies, whose international instruments Sweden
acceded to in the corruption field, were added. This meant, among other things, a
reservation submitted by Sweden to Article 12 of the Council of Europe Criminal Law
Convention on Corruption (the Council of Europe Convention), which states that the
states shall criminalise what is referred to as “ trade in influence.” According to the
article, to i.a. promise, provide or offer an undue or improper benefit to someone who
claims or confirms themselves as being able to exercise an improper or inappropriate
influence over e.g. a civil servant, government official, member of parliament or
minister it would be punishable. In regards to the application of this article, Sweden
had reserved itself and argued that the punishable influence of persons who are
encompassed within the description was already criminalised and that criminalisation
in general in accordance with the article could very easily cause conflicts to arise with
the fundamental right for one to be able to express themself in a democracy and thus
seek to influence the holders of governmental authority and others.7
3. The monitoring body that evaluates the compliance of the States of the
Council of Europe Convention - Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) –

recommended to several convention States Parties that they reconsider their
corresponding reservations made. Among other things, a review was conducted
against this background with the aim of achieving a more modern and more effective
and easily accessible legal framework of the matters with clear criteria for criminal
liability. The Commission submitted its Report concerning the Crime of Bribery in
June 2010 (SOU 2010:38) and which formed the basis for the legislation that applies
after 1 July 2012, where the corruption legislation was collected together in Chapter
10 of the Swedish Penal Code, which now deals with embezzlement, other
unfaithfulness and bribery offences.
7
Prop. 2003/04:70 p. 32.
36

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
4. Over the years, amendments consisting of additions and changes had been made
to the relevant group of persons via a number of changes in the legislation. Via the
change in the legislation taking place in 2012, the group of persons susceptible to
bribery has finally determined, considering of each and every person who is an
employee or performs assignments, both within public and private activities. The
nine points previously included in the second paragraph of Chapter 20, Section 2 of
the Penal Code was thus repealed and the liability is now generally designed to meet
all persons performing assignments. Also, “trading in influence” was criminalised.8
5. However, as mentioned above, in this case the District Court has to apply the
earlier legislation in its wording prior to 1 July 2012 with the limited number of
persons that the provision covered at that time.
6. Active and passive bribery [bribe-taking and bribe-giving] in the public sector
were criminalised primarily to protect the public’s demands for impartiality and duty
of duty in the exercise of activities. The object that is sought to be protected with the
criminalisation of the offence can be said to be the performance of official duties
itself or the integrity of the assignment.9 It is essential that public confidence in
decision-making and other governmental activities is not damaged.
7. In the typical corruption situation, three parties are affected: the governmental
official or private officer, his or her principal, and the party giving the bribe.
Between the civil servant/private office and the principal, there is an obligation
relationship and a relationship based on trust, which may be based on employment
or assignment or may also follow due to law.
8. The principal’s interest in loyal performance of duties is protected partly by the

fact that a special responsibility has been imposed on employees and those assigned
tasks (passive bribery offences) plus partly due to that to attempt to influence them
to betray their loyalty to their principal has been made punishable by law.
8
Agneta Bäcklund et al., Brottsbalken [Swedish Penal Code]. A [Zeteo] commentary on
Chapter 10a, Section 5a, of the Penal Code, under the headings “Background” and “Employee
or person exercising assignments/”
9
Jareborg, N., Brotten. Third booklet. Brotten mot allmänheten och staten [The crimes against the
public and the state]. Second ed., Sthlm 1987 p. 198.
37

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
(active bribery; bribe-giving). It has been considered particularly important to

maintain confidence in the principal’s activities as it concerns the general public,
due to that it otherwise threatens the democratic system in the long run.
9. For active bribery [offering, promising or giving a bribe], sometimes referred to

as the active offence, if an employee or other person who is listed in the provision
concerning bribery provides, promises or offers, for himself or for another, a bribe
or other improper reward for the performance of official duties, they are to be
convicted and punished. The criminal liability is adapted to i.a. following
international instruments, which Sweden acceded to: The OECD Convention on
Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business
Transactions (Prop. 1998/99:32), the Council of Europe Convention (Prop.
2003/04:70) and the United Nations Convention against Corruption (Prop.
2006/07:74).
10. For passive bribery offences (bribe-taking), sometimes referred to as the passive
offence, an employee who, for himself or others, receives, allow themselves to be
promised or requests a bribe or other improper reward for the performance of his or
her of official duties is to be convicted and punished. Employees are understood to
be those who are employees in the sense of civil law. In all relevant respects here,
what is stated about employees also applies to: the person who, in cases other than
those referred to in Chapter 20, § 2 (2), p. 1-4, based on a position of trust has been
given the task of caring for a legal or financial matter for someone else or
monitoring the execution of such a task; a foreign minister; or someone who,
without holding employment or an assignment as stated in the provision, exercises
the authority of a foreign state.
11. The District Court will return under each respective section with a more
detailed account of the legal framework relevant to the legal proceedings.
38

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
6.1.2 Generally about evidence
6.1.2.1 Evidentiary requirements (the requirement of proof)
12. In criminal cases, it is the public prosecutor who has the burden of proof. For a
conviction, it is required that it is without reasonable doubt that the defendants have
been guilty of committing the acts that form the basis for the indictment and
prosecution. The evidentiary requirements/requirement for proof applies to all
necessary prerequisites for the conviction of the commission of a crime.
13. In order for the defendants to be convicted and sentenced for gross bribery, it
is therefore necessary that there is no reasonable doubt present that they have acted,
in all relevant parts, in the manner the public prosecutor has alleged. This means,
among other things, that, in order for the evidentiary requirements to be fulfilled,
there must be no reasonable explanation for the course of events other than the one
encompassed in the indictment. It is thus a part of the evidentiary requirement
“without reasonable doubt” that if there is a reasonable alternative to the public
prosecutor’s hypothesis, the accused shall be acquitted.
6.1.2.2 The robustness of the investigation
14. In terms of what is referred to as the “robustness” in the Swedish law of

evidence, it can be stated that the evidence is not considered to be robust until the
evidence presented is extensive to the extent there would be difficulties in
undermining the assessment of the evidence by the possibilities of introducing
further investigation. If not, other possible evidence may lower the probative value
of the evidence presented by the public prosecutor.
15. There seems to be general agreement that this doctrine means that the
robustness must be taken into account in the consideration and evaluation of the
evidence in criminal cases. However exactly how deficiencies in robustness are to
be taken into account during the assessment and evaluation of the probative value
of the evidence is not entirely clear from court practice. What is clear however is
that courts find that deficiencies in investigations should be at the expense of the
public prosecutor and not penalise the defendant.
39

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
6.1.2.3 The Identity of the criminal offence and perpetrator(s)
16. According to Chapter 45, Section 4 (1), point 3 of the Swedish Code of
Judicial Procedure, the public prosecutor shall state the information concerning the
criminal act that is needed for its characterisation. The public prosecutor’s
information must be organised in such a manner so that it clearly clarifies for him
or her what they are being accused of [what is being imputed of them], and thus
distinguish which points he or she needs to focus their defence on. The information
that the public prosecutor states in the indictment constitutes the external
framework of the legal proceedings.
17. The interest in effective administration of criminal justice supports the

position that, to some extent, it must be accepted that a description of the statement
of the criminal offence as charged is somewhat vague. In the event of ambiguities
and incompleteness in the Public prosecutor’s statement of the criminal offence as
charged, the court generally has an obligation under Chapter 46. Section 4 (2) of the
Code of Judicial Procedure to conduct substantive direction of proceedings. Via
questions and remarks, the court should attempt to remedy the ambiguities and
incompleteness of the statements made.
18. The Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure does not contain any rules that a
deficiently designed public prosecution could be able to be rejected, e.g. in the
event that the substantive management of the proceedings does not lead to a
sufficiently precise criminal offence. Instead, it is assumed that the court must
render an acquittal if it finds that the accused has not committed one or more
criminal offences that have been alleged within the framework of the offence for
which the indictment has been filed.
19. A seemingly different thing is that the accused and his or her defence counsel
must of course always have full knowledge of the statement of the criminal offence
as charged within whose framework the court, possibly after prosecution, has the
opportunity to impose a responsibility on him or her.10 To the extent that imprecise
allegations/statement of the criminal offence lead to difficulties for the defendant to
present rebuttal evidence, this may affect the evaluation of the probative value of the
evidence in a direction that is favourable to him or her.
See e.g. European Court of Human Rights case Mattoccia vs. Italy, SvJT 2000, p. 841, and
10
Sadak et al. vs. Turkey, SvJT 2001, p. 819.

40

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
6.1.2.4 Assessment and evaluation of the probative value of the evidence
20. The starting point is that generally, there is unrestricted consideration and
evaluation of evidence. In its evaluation of the probative value of the evidence, the
District Court first examines the value of the various evidence, to the extent that they
are relevant to the trial, which the public prosecutor has presented separately.
Subsequently, a decision is made as to whether the weighted value of this evidence is
sufficient to meet the evidentiary requirement of proof and if it is thus proved that it
has been applied in the manner alleged in the statement of the criminal offence as
charged. In case the public prosecutor’s evidence is insufficient, the accused shall be
acquitted. If, on the other hand, the evidentiary requirements [burden of proof] are
deemed to be fulfilled, the defendant’s information and other evidence invoked
against the public prosecutor’s allegations/statement of the criminal offence of the
criminal act is reviewed. If the description of the statement of the criminal offence as
charged is thereby rebutted or if the accused’s story takes such force from the public
prosecutor’s evidence that the evidentiary requirements is not fulfilled, the
prosecution shall be dismissed. It is also important to emphasise that the defendant
has no burden of proof and is therefore not obliged to account for circumstances that
release him from criminal liability.11
11
NJA 2015 p. 702.
41

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
6.1.3 The course of events concerning the transactions with the Uzbek
partner during 2007-2010
− The course of events regarding the transactions that the public prosecutor
alleged in Indictment counts 1-5 in respect of contracts and related payments
to accounts of Takilant, and in one case to an account belonging to Huawei
for the benefit of Zeromax, both companies linked to Gulnara Karimova, are
objectively investigated in the case.
− The section describes the grounds and reasons for the positions adopted.
6.1.3.1 Indictment counts 1-5
21. The defendants and Telia have, in all material respects, acknowledged and
admitted to the actual factual course of events regarding the agreements and
payments which the public prosecutor described in Indictment counts 1-5. The
investigation in the case has found support for the acknowledgements and
admissions. It can be concluded that it has been shown that the following course of
events occurred.
Indictment count 1 – December Agreement 2007

22. In autumn 2007, Tero Kivisaari and Olli Tuohimaa participated in the
negotiations and development of the agreements with Takilant. Most people,
however, have been involved in the negotiations and the establishment of the
agreements, i.a. legal adviser from a Turkish and a Dutch law firm.
23. Decisions to enter into the negotiated agreements were made by TS UTA on 17
December 2007, where among others, Tero Kivisaari participated as Chairman of
the Board and Olli Tuohimaa as representative of the shareholder Sonera Holding
BV. On 18 December 2007, Lars Nyberg authorised Tero Kivisaari to sign the
agreements.
24. On 24 December 2007, the following agreements were entered into: -

Agreement between TS Uzbek and Takilant regarding frequencies and number
blocks; - Transfer agreement between TS UTA and Takilant for 26 percent of the
shares of TS Uzbek; - Shareholder agreement
42

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
between TS UTA, Takilant and TS Uzbek regarding the joint ownership of TS

Uzbek, including a sales option for Takilant.
25. The agreement was signed by Tero Kivisaari, on behalf of TS Uzbek and TS
UTA. As stipulated by the agreement, USD 80 million has been paid to Takilant on
27 December 2007, and Takilant has subsequently paid USD 50 million to TS UTA
for 26 percent of the shares of TS Uzbek. Takilant has thus received USD 30 million
and approximately 26 percent12 of Coscom via the shareholdings in TS Uzbek.
According to the shareholder agreement, Takilant had the possibility to sell these
shares to TS UTA from 2010 on on certain terms and conditions. The payment of
USD 80 million from TS Uzbek to Takilant was partially funded via a USD 30
million loan from TS UTA and according to the shareholder agreement, TS Uzbek
would repay this loan to TS UTA before any distribution of dividends to the
shareholders was allowed to take place.
26. The agreements and payments between TS UTA/TS Uzbek and Takilant in
December 2007 can be graphically shown as follows.
24/12/2007 24/12/2007 24/12/2007 27/12/2007 28/12/2007
Contract Purchase Shareholders Payment Payment

between Agreement Agreement
TelaSonera Uzbek between between USD 80 million USD 50 million
and Takilant TekaSonera UTA TelaSonera UTA, to Takilant from Takilant
and Takilant Takilant and
TelaSonera Uzbek
Figure 3.
12
Approximately due to that TS Uzbek only owned 99.97% of Coscom.
43

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
27. The associated assignment of GSM 1800 and 3G frequencies can be

graphically depicted as follows.
Figure 4.
3G 3G GSM 1800 STANDARD
1920-2550? MHz 2110-2340? MHz Teleson Mobile is 17???-17??? 18???-18???

Up Link Down Link assigned 1713.4?-1719.4? 18???-18???
frequencies 1722.0?-1731.3? 18???-18???
according to a Up Link Down Link
decision (N60)?
070927? of UzACI
Teleson Mobile is
assigned 1714.6-1715.2? 18???-18???
frequencies 1719.6-1720.4? 1814.6-1815.4
according to the 1722.0? MHz 1817.0? MHz
decision N4/7?
071009? of UzACI
Teleson Mobile
returns according
1920-1935? MHz 2120-2125? MHz to the decision
N4/7? 071029 of
UzACI
Teleson Mobile
receives
1935-1950? MHz 2125-2140? MHz changed?
decision 071008
of UzACI
Teleson Mobile
1935-1950? MHz 2125-2140? MHz returns the
remaining?
frequencies
071226 of UzACI
FE Coscom is
1920-1950? MHz 2110-2140? MHz assigned 17???-1714.4 18???-18???
frequencies 17???-1719.4 18???-18???
07221 by UzACI 1720.?-1721.8? 18???-18???
upon application Up Link Down Link
(NO201/3879)? 1714.6-1715.2? 1809.6-1810.2?
1719.6-1720.4? 1814.6-1815.4?
1722.0? MHz 1817.0? MHz
Figure 4.
Indictment count 2 – Acquisition of number blocks in August/September 2008
28. In 2008, the business decision was made to acquire number blocks, i.e. number
series and network codes, for Coscom by Takilant for USD 9.2 million, which
Teleson held. Olli Tuohimaa was involved and provided comments on the agreement
between TS Uzbek and Takilant which was signed on 20 August 2008 by Tero
Kivisaari on behalf of TS Uzbek and by Gayane Avakyan on behalf of Takilant. The
same day Teleson returned number blocks, according to the agreement to the
telecommunications authority. On 21 August 2008, Coscom applied to the
telecommunications authority for the number blocks. Coscom was awarded the
number blocks according to the application dated 26 August 2008. Lars Nyberg
provided a power of attorney/delegation of authority in the case on 15 September
2008. On the same day, Tero Kivisaari provided payment instructions. The money
was to be paid out to Takilant on 16 September 2008. The previous loan from TS
UTA to TS Uzbek in the amount of USD 30 million was increased in conjunction
with this in the amount of USD 9.2 million.
44
Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
29. The assignment of number series and network code linked to the USD 9.2
million agreement can be graphically depicted as follows.
Figure 5.
2008. Number Series and Network Code
-- Number Blocks --
Number block (6,000,000 – 6,999,999) and Teleson Mobile applies for and is assigned the
network code 594? number series according to a decision of UzACI
(N297) 050725
Number block (6,000,000 – 6,999, 999) Teleson Mobile returns (N4)? the number series
1 million numbers within the telephone and the network code 594? 080620?
network of Tashkent City
FE Coscom applies (N01/4315)? for the serial

Number block (6,000,000 – 6,999,999) number and the network code 080621?
1 million numbers within the telephone
FE Coscom is assigned the number series and

Number block (6,000,000 – 6,999,999) the network code according to a decision of
1 million numbers within the telephone UzACI (N246)? 080826?
Figure 5.
Indictment count 3 – Repurchase of shares, etc. in January 2010
30. On 22 January 2010, the issue of repurchase of shares of TS Uzbek from Takilant was
presented to Telia’s Board of Directors. Tero Kivisaari and Lars Nyberg participated in the
presentation. On the same day, a decision was made concerning the transaction by TS UTA’s
Board of Directors, including Tero Kivisaari and Olli Tuohimaa (in their capacity as
representative of Sonera Holding BV). On 25 January 2010, TS UTA and Takilant entered into
an agreement whereby TS UTA acquired 20 percent of the shares of TS Uzbek from Takilant for
USD 220 million. At the same time, a supplementary agreement to the 2007 shareholder
agreement was entered into for regarding TS Uzbek, in which it was stipulated that for the six
percent of the shares of TS Uzbek which Takilant still held, that Takilant would have a put
option with a floor price of USD 50 million. The agreement was signed by Olli Tuohimaa (who
also participated in the preparation of the agreement) on behalf of TS UTA, and Gayane
Avakyan signed the agreement on behalf of Takilant. On 28 January 2010, Lars Nyberg was
given a power of attorney/delegation of authority [local decision making authority] on the issue.
45

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
31. The events surrounding the January 2010 agreement concerning the
repurchase of 20 percent of the shares of TS Uzbek, etc. can be graphically
depicted as follows.
24/12/2007 25/12/2009 22/01/2010 25/01/2010 25/01/2010 01/02/2010
Contract Valuation Board of Directors Contract Supplementary

Payment
appraisal of decision between agreement
Agreement
Coscom TelaSonera UTA USD 220 million
and Takilant
Figure 6.
Indictment count 4 - Consultancy agreement and related for the acquisition of

4G frequencies April - June 2010
32. Takilant’s subsidiary Teleson had been liquidated in 2009. On 18 January 2010,
Uzdonrobita was awarded 4G frequencies by the telecommunications authority. In
April and May 2010, agreements were entered into in various party configurations
between TS Uzbek, TS UTA, Huawei Zeromax and Takilant, which include: meant
that Coscom would receive 4G frequencies against the settlement of a debt of USD
15 million that Zeromax had to Huawei and that the “floor” of Takilant’s put option
for the remaining six percent of the shares of TS Uzbek was raised from USD 50
million to USD 75 million. Among others, Tero Kivisaari and Olli Tuohimaa
participated in the negotiations and preparation of the agreements. According to the
public prosecutor, Uzdonrobita has returned 4G frequencies to the company on
unknown date. On 10 May 2010, Coscom applied for 4G frequencies at the
telecommunications authority. The decisions to enter into the agreements regarding
TS UTA and TS Uzbek were made by the respective Boards of Directors of TS
UTA and TS Uzbek on 4 June 2010 where Olli Tuohimaa participated as the
representative of Sonera Holding B.V. Lars Nyberg has approved the transaction
and has participated in the presentation of the deal for Telia’s Board of Directors on
7 June 2010. On 11 June 2010, Coscom received permission to use the 4G
frequencies applied for. The payment of USD 15 million pursuant to the agreement
then took place on 14 June 2010.
46

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
33. On 23 January 2013, Lars Nyberg signed a written ratification in which the
power of attorney with the possibility of further delegation of authority was given
to Tero Kivisaari regarding the agreement.
34. The transaction-related assignment of 4G frequencies can be graphically

depicted as follows.
2010) Frequencies
&
Figure 7.
2010. Frequencies
4G LTE
2500-2700 MHz The frequencies are assigned to Uzdunrobita
(Originally Uzdunrobita) LLC according to the decision N181 of UzACI
18/01/2010.
2540-2620 MHz | 2660-2700 MHz Agreement between Zeromax and TS Uzbek

Up Link | Down Link dated 15/04/2010 where Zeromax? would
represent Coscom in the acquisition of the
frequencies.
2500-2700 MHz Uzdunrobita returns the frequencies. Date

unknown. Frequency range unclear.
(Unclear if everything is returned). If not,
Uzdunrobita retains 2500-2540, and 2620-2660
MHz. FE Coscom applies for the allocation of
frequencies in the range of 2500-2700 MHz
2500-2700 MHz 10/05/2010. (Letter N01/2178)
FE Coscom receives decision (N4206) on

permission to use the frequencies. 11/06/2010.
2540-2620 MHz | 2660-2700 MHz
Up Link | Down Link
Figure 7.
Indictment count 5 – Consultancy agreement for the acquisition of

additional 4G frequencies in November 2010
35. On 22 October 2010, Uzdunrobita was granted additional 4G frequencies by

UzACI. Lars Nyberg was present at meeting of the Board of Directors of Telia on
22 October 2010 when the issue concerning the agreement with Takilant regarding
the acquisition of additional 4G frequencies to
Coscom for USD 55 million was presented. The written documentation for the
Boards of Directors regarding the transaction was drawn up by Tero Kivisaari. The
Board of Directors decided to enter into the agreement, which Olli
Tuohimaa had been involved with developing. On 25 October 2010, Lars Nyberg
was provided with a power of attorney with the possibility of further delegation of
authority to Tero Kivisaari to enter into the agreement. On
47

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
29 October 2010, the Boards of Directors of TS Uzbek and TS UTA, where Olli
Tuohimaa in both cases participated as representative of Sonera Holding BV, made
the decision to enter into the agreement between TS Uzbek and Takilant. On 1
November 2010, Olli Tuohimaa signed the agreement for TS Uzbek and Gayane
Avakyan signed the agreement for Takilant.
36. On 18 November, Coscom applied for the allocation of 4G frequencies. By an

unknown date, Uzdunrobita has, according to the public prosecutor, returned part
of the frequencies. On 26 November 2010, Coscom was awarded the 4G
frequencies that were returned by Uzdunrobita.
37. Tero Kivisaari approved the payment order on 14 December 2010.

A payment of USD 55 million was executed on 16 December 2010.
38. The events around what is referred to as the “ USD 55 million agreement”
in 2010 can be graphically depicted as follows.
22/10/2010 29/10/2010 01/11/2010 16/12/2010

Board of Directors Board of Directors Contract
Payment
decision decision between
TelaSonera AB TelaSonera Uzbek TelaSonera Uzbek USD 55 million
and Takilant
Figure 8.
48

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
39. The thus connected coherent allocation of 4G frequencies can be

graphically depicted as follows.
Figure 9.
2010. Frequencies
4G LTE
658?-716 MHz| 728-746 MHz FE Uzdunrobita is assigned frequencies in the
777-787 MHz | 788-798 MHz 700 MHz range according to a decision by
746-756 MHz | 758-768 MHz UzACI (N222). 22/10/2010.
700 MHz range FE Coscom lodged an appeal against the

allocation and applied at the same time with
UzACI (N01-01/6799)? for allocation of
frequencies within the 700 MHz range.
18/11/2010.
700 MHz range FE Uzdunrobita returns its share of the

frequencies within the 700 MHz range. Date for
this is unknown.
777-787 MHz| 788-798 MHz According to a decision (N226) of UzACI, FE
746-756 MHz | 758-768 MHz Coscom is assigned frequencies within the 700
Up Link | Down Link MHz range. 26/11/2010.
Figure 9.
6.1.3.2 Gulnara Karimova’s connection to Takilant and Zeromax
40. The rumour that was early in the case that Gulnara Karimova was behind
Takilant could not be confirmed until 2016 via a response from Switzerland upon the
request for international mutual legal assistance in criminal matters from the Swedish
prosecutors. From documents from the Swiss investigation in the form of
“Declaration of trust for nominee share” it can be concluded that Gayane Avakyan’s
shares of Takilant were held by her “on trust for Gulnara Karimova” (the “Beneficial
Owner”) and that in the same manner Rustam Madumarov held, for the account of
Gulnara Karimova, the shares of Swisdorn. Furthermore, it appeared that Gayane
Avakyan bequeathed all his shares of Takilant to Gulnara Karimova, and that
Rustam Madumarov bequeathed his shares of Swisdorn to Gulnara Karimova.
41. The documents are deemed to have a high probative value as evidence. Via the
investigation which the public prosecutor presented, it may thus be regarded as proven
that Gulnara Karimova had
49

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
in this respect, a relevant link to Takilant via being the company’s ultimate
beneficiary.
42. The fact that it was Takilant which was Telia’s contracting party in the
negotiations has a high probative value as evidence for the prosecutor’s allegations
that Gulnara Karimova was also behind Zeromax, whose debt Telia, in accordance
with what was considered investigated in Indictment count 4 above, was paid off in
relation to Huawei. The information in Frederick Stan’s report concerning political
risk analysis Telia’s faces with the entry into the Uzbek market also supports this. The
report contains information relating to that Zeromax is Gulnara Karimova’s company.
Even information in an e-mail from 30 May 2007 from a consultant retained by
Fintur, Talgat Dairbekov, to Serkan Elden regarding information about Gulnara
Karimova’s ownership in various companies, where i.a. Zeromax is mentioned, also
supports this. Looked at from an overall perspective it may be regarded as shown that
Gulnara Karimova also had a relevant connection to Zeromax.
6.1.3.3 Conclusion
43. The course of events regarding the transactions that the public prosecutor
alleged in Indictment counts 1-5 in respect of contracts/agreements and related
payments to accounts belonging to Takilant and in one case to an account belonging
to Huawei for the benefit of Zeromax, both companies with a linkage to Gulnara
Karimova, has, from an objective perspective, been investigated in the case.
50

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
6.1.4 General remarks on the prosecution
6.1.4.1 Weak identity of the criminal offence and perpetrator(s), and deficiencies in the
investigation’s robustness
The following is stated in this section:

− The statement of the criminal offence as charged is unclear with regard to the
primary grounds in the case of Gulnara Karimova’s belonging to the group of
persons susceptible to bribery and with regard to the alternative secondary
grounds in respect of which civil servant(s) or governmental authority it
relates to.
− These uncertainties due to deficiencies in the robustness of the investigation
have led to difficulties for the defendants to prepare their defence and to present
rebuttal evidence, which may affect the assessment of the probative value of the
evidence in a positive direction for the accused.
44. The public prosecutor has alleged that the transactions in Indictment counts 1-5
encompassed bribery or other undue remuneration/improper reward according to the
then applicable Swedish legislation. More specifically, he alleges that Lars Nyberg
through the years 2008-2010 via the acts in Indictment counts 2-5, and Tero
Kivisaari and Olli Tuohimaa for the years 2007-2010 via the acts in Indictment
counts 1-5 have together and in agreement, offered, promised, accepted and provided
bribes or other undue remuneration:
• primary accusation to Gulnara Karimova for her performance of

official duties or task/assignment
2. as a result of the position of trust has the task of managing and
supervising financial and legal matters for others,
3. as foreign minister (Indictment count 2)
4. or without holding employment or a commission for the exercise of the
• in the alternative, for the performance of official duties to a civil
servant/civil servants at the telecommunications authority or a
governmental authority, but so as to accrue to the benefit of another party,
in this
51

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
case Gulnara Karimova. In other words, the receipt by the civil servant
is for a party other than themselves.
• in the second alternative to Bekhzod Akhmedov, in the performance of

official responsibilities as CEO of the company Uzdunrobita, but in order to
accrue to the benefit of another party, in this case Gulnara Karimova. In other
words, the receipt by Bekhzod Akhmedov is for a party other than himself.
45. The public prosecutor’s statement of the criminal offence as charged gives rise to
the following general remarks. A starting point in the law of criminal procedure
against the background of inter alia the requirements which the European for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms imposes concerning a fair
trial is that a charge must be sufficiently detailed so that the accused will be able to
defend themselves13. It can be seen that objections were submitted early on from the
defendants regarding the design and form of the indictment and contents which in
their opinion was in part far too imprecise. The District Court actively pursued a
substantive direction of the proceedings at the pretrial proceedings session on 27
November 2017, with the aim of clarifying uncertainties in the public prosecutor’s
statement of the criminal offence as charged. This concerned partly the requisite
elements in the first count regarding the group of persons as regards to employment or
assignment in a position of trust, and partly which civil servant(s) and governmental
authority in the alternative count in the statement of the criminal offence as charged,
and partly what was claimed more specifically as criminal behaviour in respect of
each of the defendants. In the latter part, the public prosecutor has then specified the
indictment by revising the statement of the criminal offence as charged and for
Indictment counts 1-5 stated the factual circumstances which he believes the
defendants have performed. In other aspects, the questions were left unanswered.
46. In cases of criminal liability, abstract legal facts, i.e. parts of the legal rules
(requisites) must be filled out and made specifically concrete so that the court will to be
able to carry out its examination. The provisions concerning corruption and bribery
indicate typical cases, general descriptions, while the statement of the criminal offence
as charged must state the specific individual, unique case. The public prosecutor must
therefore describe an actual real sequence of events, i.e. state the factual
Lars Heuman, “Är vaga och oklara gärningsbeskrivningar godtagbara enligt

13
Europakonventionen” [Are vague and unclear statement of the criminal offence as charged
acceptable under the European Convention], JT 2005/06 p. 544.
52

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
facts and circumstances that have occurred in real life. Therefore, in order for the
District Court to be able to examine the requisites concerning employee, position
of trust or assignment, these must be broken down into concrete objective facts on
which the concepts are based in this particular case. This also applies, of course, to
which civil servant(s) or governmental authorities is being referred to.
47. Although the public prosecutor does not concretise abstract legal facts in the
prosecution’s statement of the criminal offence charged, the public prosecutor must,
during the legal proceedings, specify the circumstances that the accused is charged with
so that they are provided sufficient possibilities of defending themselves. Normally, from
the statement of facts the court and the defendant should be able to obtain a good
understanding of what facts and circumstances the public prosecutor specifically asserts
and claims.
48. During the course of the trial proceedings, the District Court has once again
taken up the remaining issues that have existed in the case regarding the lack of
specification, i.a. of the requisite employees and various assignments. On 24
September 2018, the public prosecutor submitted a request for international mutual
legal assistance in criminal matters to Switzerland with a reply the next day on 25
September 2018, which was then submitted to the District Court on 9 October 2018,
referred i.a. to information from Uzbek authorities over Gulnara Karimova’s official
positions in Uzbekistan. The public prosecutor has decided, based on the information
in the document from Switzerland, to restrict the assertion that Gulnara Karimova
was minister to refer only to 2008. In general he has, which in the end finally
understands, also claimed that Gulnara Karimova had in the answer stated official
positions in the Uzbek Foreign Service administration, but in addition he has
maintained the assertions about Gulnara Karimova as an employee or in a position of
trust with a responsibility within telecom without providing further detail.
49. The situation in Uzbekistan, as the District Court has understood, has been such
that there have been difficulties associated with the public prosecutor efforts to
conduct a preliminary investigation in the country. Due to shortcomings in the
investigation, which external circumstances has led to, the indictment has
53

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
been in crucial parts, as it seems, built around speculation without concrete

anchoring among the actual facts of the case.
50. That being said, the District Court finds that the ambiguities that remain in the
statement of the criminal offence charged because of deficiencies in the robustness of
the investigation have led the defendants to have difficulties in preparing their defence
and to bring rebuttal evidence/offering evidence in disproof. In these respects they have
been forced to start from various hypothetical courses of events and speculate about
this. According to the District Court, this will have an impact on the assessment of the
probative value of the evidence in a positive direction for the accused.
6.1.4.2 The principle of legality and the external framework of the legal proceedings
The following is seen in this section:

− In criminal law, the principle of legality impedes an extensive
interpretation and application of the law.
− The information that the public prosecutor states in the indictment constitutes
the external framework of the legal proceedings and the criminal offence which
the public prosecutor is prosecuting does not extend beyond the clarifications
and specific allegations the public prosecutor makes in the legal proceedings.
51. The public prosecutor has stated that the District Court shall use imagination and
empathy in its examination of the indictment and prosecution. The District Court must
already state here that it is self-evident that within the law of criminal procedure there is
no room for such a thing. The principle of legality is considered central from a rule of law
and is given a special importance in criminal law and the criminal legal proceedings.14
The principle prevents extensive interpretation and application of the law. When
interpreting a penalty clause, the purpose of the legislation – which can be seen from
preparatory work – as well as practice and statements in the legal literature is important.
52. As stated above in the section on the identity of the criminal offence and
perpetrator(s), the information as stated by the public prosecutor in the indictment
constitutes the external framework of the legal proceedings. Based on that framework,
14
Chap. 1, § 1 of the Swedish Penal Code “nullum crimen sine lege” (= no crime without prohibition in law).
[Actually the principle means that no person should face criminal punishment except for an act that was criminalised by
law before the act was performed, i.e. the applicable punishment must be set out in clear terms before its commission.
Perhaps the court meant to say “Nulla Poena Sine Lege” here, which does mean “no crime/punishment without a law.”]
54

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
the District Court’s review is limited and the same as in all other criminal cases with
the formal regulations that apply to the public prosecutor in terms of investigation,
burden of proof and evidentiary requirements.
53. The alleged illegal act must fulfil all the requisites in the legal text, otherwise it
is contrary to the principle of legality’s prohibition on the use of analogy to
nevertheless apply the provision.
54. It is self-evident that the allegations/statement of the criminal offence must

consist of facts and circumstances that are able to be proven. The act of the public
prosecutor for the case no longer extends beyond the clarifications the public
prosecutor does in the legal proceedings and Chapter 30, Section 3 of the Code of
Judicial Procedure should be applied taking into account such clarifications. As
mentioned above in section 6.1.4.1 above, the District Court has materially litigated
the public prosecutor on several occasions. The District Court limits the
examination in accordance with the answers given.15
6.1.5 Active bribery (as the primary charge) of Gulnara Karimova as an

employee or contractor in a position of trust
6.1.5.1 What the District Court is to examine
55. In order for the corruption legislation to be applicable at all, it is assumed that
the alleged recipients are susceptible to bribery, i.e. they must fall within the group
of persons susceptible to bribery. As the public prosecutor has formulated the
statement of the criminal offence charged, the District Court therefore begins by
examining whether Gulnara Karimova belonged to the group of persons susceptible
to bribery who are faced with liability for bribery, something the public prosecutor
alleged but the defence counsel denies.
56. It can be noted that the Public prosecutor’s primary allegations means that
Gulnara Karimova has been employed during the current period, had an
assignment in a position of trust in the telecom sector or in other ways
exercised foreign state’s public authority. In addition, Gulnara Karimova has,
according to the public prosecutor, also acted as
15
Nordh, Praktisk process II, edition. 3, p. 33-34, 36 notes 39 and 49.
55

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
the foreign state’s minister in 2008. However, the public prosecutor has not
specified, on the basis of a concrete actual course of events, what it is for
employment or assignment in a position of trust that Gulnara Karimova held, but
only in vague general terms specified Gulnara Karimova’s belonging to the group of
persons susceptible to bribery according to the following two options:
• Gulnara Karimova has had the relevant public position in telecoms in the
form of employment or assignments based on trust she has received from her
father, President Islam Karimov.
• Gulnara Karimova has herself taken upon herself the right to exercise
power, completely independent of the system or any governmental entity
providing any assignment. This means that she, without having had
governmental employment or assignments, in practice exercised authority
based on a position of trust, referred to as a de facto exerciser of powers as
a public authority.
57. The public prosecutor has also presented a third alternative, which he meant is
not realistic, meaning that Gulnara Karimova has been an agent or lobbyist for
Telia and as such she has had the opportunity to influence, completely independent
of the system or any governmental entity providing any assignment.
58. In addition, in the statement of facts the public prosecutor has contended that
Gulnara Karimova has not been a civil servant of the state or minister in the normal
sense who has provided directives in matters regarding what must be done, but
rather the public prosecutor’s position is that Gulnara Karimova has conducted a
crime syndicate, a state-organised crime enterprise, with the president’s [explicit]
approval.
59. And finally here the public prosecutor has also referred to information vis-à-vis
official functions that Gulnara Karimova had during the current period in the Uzbek
Foreign Service administration based on the response to an application for
international mutual legal assistance in criminal matters received from Switzerland,
who in turn received the information from Uzbek public authorities. The public
prosecutor’s position is that the information is proof of Gulnara Karimova’s
employment as a civil servant and related matters with a broad functional area of
responsibility during 2007 with links to the telecom industry.
56

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
60. In this context, the public prosecutor has argued that the Swedish model with
public authorities (myndigheter) clearly delimited against the Government
(Regering) and state is not common as a model in a state such as Uzbekistan. He has
asserted in general terms that in Uzbekistan, ministries are closely connected with
public authorities even if the decision is made in the authority and pointed out that
Abdulla Aripov was both deputy prime minister and head of the authority.
61. The public prosecutor’s case in the first count means in the part where no
concretisation of the group of persons susceptible to bribery has taken place on the
basis of an actual individualised course of events that the District Court cannot
examine every necessary prerequisites for the commission of a crime individually,
i.e. employees, contractors in a position of trust or referred to as a de facto exerciser
of powers as a public authority.. The District Court instead examines the allegations
in this section gathered under what the District Court chooses to designate as vague
or indefinite public employment or assignment in a position of trust within the
telecom sector. Subsequently, the District Court will examine the various concrete
public appointments or assignments within the Uzbek Foreign Service
administration which, according to the information provided by Uzbekistan, the
public prosecutor claims that Gulnara Karimova has had. The legal framework for
each necessary prerequisites for the commission of a crime is reviewed initially.
6.1.5.2 The legal framework
6.1.5.2.1 Employees
62. What is meant by “employee” is an individual who is an employee in the civil

law sense. The concept of employee is not defined in law, but has been developed
in preliminary work and practice. It has not been considered appropriate to have
any specific employee concept for the law on bribery, e.g. for a function that, in
terms of experience, is in need of protection against corruption. Instead, the concept
of employee is stated in Chapter 20, Section 2 (2) of the Penal Code, the meaning
expressed in the labour court’s application of the Swedish Collective Bargaining
Agreements Act and the Swedish Act on the Right of Association and Negotiation.
57
STOCKHOLMS TINGSRÄTT DOM B 12201-17

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
When assessing whether there is an employer-employee relationship, it is often

given importance to something as if the relationship is based on an agreement, if it
is the case that one party must perform work on behalf of the other party, if the
relationship has a permanent or regular character and whether the execution of the
work is subject to specific directives or control.
63. However, employees are not those who, on behalf of others, perform work in
circumstances similar to those that occur in an employment relationship, e.g. as a
self-employed.16
6.1.5.2.2 Position of trust (Förtroendeställning)
64. In the relevant context, it is relevant to examine the provision in Chapter 20.
Section 2, second paragraph, p. the person who, in the case other than that referred
to in p. 1-4, has been entrusted as part of a position of trust with the task of
appointing, for another, a) managing a legal or financial matter; or d) monitoring the
performance of such a task as referred to in a).
65. The group of persons that are encompassed within the descriptions of the
assignments which are stated largely corresponds to the group of persons that
according to then applicable Chapter 10, Section 5 of the Swedish Penal Code could
be convicted of unfaithfulness to the principal. The perpetrator of the offence of
unfaithfulness to the principal is a special subject in the sense that he or she must be
in a special position. This means that the provision encompasses i.a. members of
Boards of Directors/Governing Boards, auditors and other persons with managerial
and controlling tasks, brokers, commission agents, property managers, lawyers and
others who carry out work-related assignments. In the case of the State, this also
refers to holders of public position as a result of appointment or election, who are
not civil servants.
16
Mutansvarskommittns betänkande [Report of the Liability for Bribery Commission]. SOU 1974:37 p. 136 f.
58

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
66. In order to assume the special position that is required according to the offence
of unfaithfulness to the principal, it is furthermore required that the person
concerned be entrusted with a certain task of managing or supervising. The
following information is mentioned in the text of the law. For instance a CEO’s
proper management of the day-to-day administration of a limited liability company
is encompassed within the term “financial matters.” It is not necessary that activities
necessarily consist of providing the legal authority to enter into
agreements/contracts or other legal acts on behalf of the principal, even though it
often relate to matters in this way. It is sufficient is that he or she assumes the
responsibility of monitoring the management of the financial affairs, which is often
included in the senior management position.”
67. Finally, individuals who have received the responsibility of taking care of
legal matters for another are encompassed within this. This includes advokater
[lawyers who are a member of the Swedish Bar Association] or other lawyers
who have been specifically retained by a client.
68. On the other hand, a contractor who is not in a position of trust in relation to
the party or entity providing the assignment cannot be convicted of either a breach
of the law concerning bribery or unfaithfulness to the principal.
6.1.5.2.3 The exercising of foreign state’s exercise of public authority

(de facto exerciser of powers as a public authority)
69. In this case, the relevant provision is in Chapter 20, Paragraph 2 (2), p. 7 of the
Swedish Penal Code was introduced on 1 July 2004, under which foreign public
authorities exercising powers as a public authority are subject to responsibility for
the offence of bribery. The amendment resulted in that the group exercisers of
powers as a public authority susceptible to bribery was expanded.
70. The provision encompasses someone who, without holding employment or an

assignment similar to what has now been said, exercises the authority of a foreign
state with the purpose of the categories mentioned in the previous paragraph. It is
also a prerequisite here that employment or an
Agneta Bäcklund et al, Brottsbalken [Swedish Penal Code]. A comment [Zeteo]

17
commentary on Chapter 10, Section 5 of the Penal Code, under the heading “Obligations
due to a position of trust”["Åliggande på grund av förtroendeställning"]
59

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
assignment exists. Among other things the provision encompasses i.a. foreign
mayors for whom a direct counterpart to their title no longer exists in Swedish law;
this is because Sweden should fulfil obligations under the Council of Europe’s
Criminal Law Convention on Corruption, etc. Regarding what is meant by the
exercise of public authority for a foreign state, reference is made to what applies for
the Swedish situation. The same grounds of assessment must therefore be applied to
those exercising the power of the foreign state’s public authority.18
71. What is meant by the exercising of power as a public authority is in principle

formal decisions and measures which are an expression of the society’s authority to
exercise power in relation to the individual. The authority can be exercised by
governmentally employed employees, holders of an assignment, or a person
obligated to serve.
72. In order to give rise to liability according to the present paragraph, an actual
measure must be taken in the exercise of public authority. A typical case where a
decision is invalid according to the head of department is when it has been made
by an individual self-evidently unauthorised to do so. In that case, no exercise
power as a public authority exists and therefore this statute or other legal provision
is not applicable. Thus, the provision does not include unauthorised persons
engaged in the actual exercise of power. However on the other hand, the offence
can fall under Chapter 17, Section 15, where it states that punishment is to be
imposed on a person who represents themselves as a party authorised to exercise
public authority when they in fact are not authorised.
18Prop. 2003/04:70 p. 34 and 51.

Agneta Bäcklund et al., Brottsbalken [Swedish Penal Code]. A commentary [Zeteo]
19
comment on Chapter 20, Section 1 of the Penal Code, under the heading “Exerciser of
powers as a public authority.”
60

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
6.1.5.3 Undetermined governmental employment or assignment in a position of

trust within the telecom sector
− The report presented has not clarified the vague parts that are found in the public
prosecutor’s allegations about Gulnara Karimova’s belonging to the group of persons
susceptible to bribery. An alternative explanation has instead been considered
reasonable, i.e. that Gulnara Karimova in the transactions acted as a businesswoman
via companies with which she had been linked.
− Overall, it has not been found that Gulnara Karimova belonged. in the manner of the
public prosecutor has alleged, to a group of persons susceptible to bribery as an
employee or contractor in a position of trust with responsibilities task within the
telecom sector.
− The public prosecutor’s allegations that Gulnara Karimova unauthorisedly
exercised the authority of a foreign state has been found not to be a criminal act
according to the anti-bribery legislation.
− The section describes the grounds and reasons why this position is adopted.
6.1.5.3.1 Introduction
73. As stated in the section on the legal framework, the relevant necessary
prerequisites in the prohibition of bribery legislation for the commission of a crime
in the group of persons are well-defined and demarcated. In order for the District
Court to be able to examine the current necessary prerequisites for the commission
of a crime criminal case in objective sense, it is therefore required, as the District
Court has previously pointed out, that the public prosecutor concretise the
circumstances on which he bases his allegations in these respects.
74. However, the public prosecutor has not stated what position or position he
alleges that Gulnara Karimova in the proper order has chosen, appointed or
employed held, or was she served, if it was in the ministry, authority, etc. Instead, he
has vaguely sweepingly stated that Gulnara Karimova has had the relevant
governmental position in the form of employment or an assignment based on trust
which she has received from her father, the president Islam Karimov, or that Gulnara
Karimova herself has taken upon herself the right to exercise power, entirely
independent of the system or any governmental assignment. The latter, according to
the public prosecutor, means that, without having had governmental employment,
assignments or positions of trust, she practically exercised foreign state authority in
what is referred to as the de facto exercise of powers as a public authority.
61

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
75. However, as stated in the relevant section under the legal framework above,
what is referred to as the de facto exercise of public authority does not encompass
unauthorised persons who become engaged in actual exercise of power. Therefore
what the public prosecutor asserts in this part can not be accepted on a legal basis
and meet with approval.
76. Otherwise, the public prosecutor is perceived to hold the view that President
Islam Karimov, without being able to report an actual concrete course of events on
this, either in writing, verbally or via delegation, gave Gulnara Karimova
governmental employment or an assignment in a position of trust to manage the
telecom sector in Uzbekistan.
77. The public prosecutor’s allegations seem to be essentially based on general

information that Uzbekistan was a kleptocracy where President Islam Karimov
enriched himself and his family as much as possible and that there was a general
reputation in Tashkent that Gulnara Karimova was awarded the telecom market by
Islam Karimov and the fact that she via similar companies entered into similar
agreements and held ownership interests in all three major mobile operators in
Uzbekistan.
6.1.5.3.2 Assessment and evaluation of the probative value of the evidence
Introduction
78. The District Court is considering in the following evidence that indirectly
points in the public prosecutor’s direction but at the same time examines and
considers alternative explanations for the public prosecutor’s allegations.
79. With regard to the evidence cited by the public prosecutor in the case,
the following should be emphasised.
62

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
80. The documentary/written evidence in the form of e-mail agreements, etc. which
constitute direct indications from the times stated therein, is assessed according to
the principle of the best evidence as a starting point to have a high probative value
in terms of contents.
81. When assessing the verbal evidence, it should be pointed out that, in the
reliability of the statements from the questioning/interrogations, the District Court has
to take into account that to a significant extent it concerns the reproduction of
recollections about everyday events, e.g. the contents of e-mail exchanges, meetings,
etc. that have occurred between eight and eleven years ago. It concerns the witnesses
banal memories, which must be assessed as being easily modifiable, not the least due
to information has been taken in from outside over the years. It may have related to
that the individuals have read about the event, talked to others about it, or picked out
details which others have mentioned; circumstances that may unconsciously affect
their memory. In addition, the quality of memory is influenced by how questions are
posed. In this context, it can be stated that leading questions have repeatedly been put
to individuals being questioned even during what is referred to as the main
interrogation [trial testimony?]. All of this is of importance for the reliability of
information provided by individuals being questioned. Taking into account what has
now been reported, it can be concluded that it has not been possible to determine how
the knowledge that the persons told about various events has been obtained, i.e. if it
consists of indications from actual events or if the memory has been modified by any
of the above and that the information is therefore derived from any other document.
82. Initially, it can be concluded that there are no direct indications that show that
Gulnara Karimova was given any governmental employment or assignment in a
position of trust within the telecom sector in writing, verbally or via delegation. On
the other hand, there are indirect indications that to some extent supports the position
or, in any case, that Gulnara Karimova in this relevant respect has had an influence on
the decision-making regarding Coscom. However, there are also alternative
explanations for these indirect indications. One such is that Gulnara Karimova acted
as a businesswoman and that as such she acted improperly or inappropriately. The
public prosecutor has himself pointed out that Gulnara Karimova had a large business
empire where the telecom sector accounted for about one-half of
63

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
the assets, and that she engaged in criminal activities. It is noted that here that
the payments from Telia have also gone to her company; a fact that even standing
alone speaks against the assertion that work has been carried out on behalf of
another party in governmental employment or that she has acted within the
framework of an assignment of trust.
Evaluation of written material
83. From a number of e-mails presented in the case from the spring of 2007, it
appears that there was a great interest from Fintur’s side to obtain approval from
President Islam Karimov or the responsible minister for telecom issues Abdulla
Aripov for conducting telecom operations in the country.
84. By means of the investigation, the behaviour has been explained by the fact
that it was a common recurring procedure that Telia, via subsidiaries, sought
approval from the highest decision-making management in a country before
deciding on major investments. This is to ensure that the company was welcome to
conduct telecommunications operations in the country, which is necessary because
the infrastructure in telecom operations is of importance for countries’ national
security. Meanwhile among other things, in these contexts information has also
arisen showing that there was an interest in meeting with Gulnara Karimova. The
District Court considers this information in the following.
85. In an e-mail dated 16 March 2007 from Nurlan Sargaskayev, who worked in
Telia’s Kazakh subsidiary Kcell, to Serkan Elden, Hande Apaydin and Talgat
Dairbekov, there is relevant information, i.a. information from a visit to Tashkent,
that they will meet with Bekhzod, one of “the Lady Gulnara Karimova’s” key
people within the telecom area.
86. From an e-mail dated 24 March 2007 from Serkan Elden to Esko Rytkonen,
who was one of the Board members of Fintur, regarding the MCT transaction, it
appears that they have a possible
64

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
meeting with the president’s daughter Gulnara Karimova and her

telecom colleagues in the process of being set up. Information also appears there that
the telecommunications minister Aripov is an aggressive person and that a meeting
with him should wait until they have an “understanding” with Karimova’s team as a
local partner.
87. The information in the case may indirectly be considered to have probative value
for the public prosecutor’s allegations, but at the same time they do not clarify what
formal governmental role that Gulnara Karimova had in that case and acted within.
88. The interest that has existed from Fintur to meet with Gulnara Karimova can
have, in contrast to what the public prosecutor has argued, another alternative
explanation. In the following, the District Court is considering evidence that
generally points in that direction, namely that Gulnara Karimova acted as a
businesswoman with sometimes unauthorised means.
89. In a draft for Frederick Stan’s report on the political risk analysis prior to
Telia’s entry into the Uzbek market there is information that Gulnara Karimova had
a central and leading role within the telecom industry via her company Zeromax in
Uzbekistan. According to Starr, it could be tempting to work in parallel with
Gulnara Karimova or via her and her company Zeromax, not least because of that
she herself was interested in the telecom industry. Starr also pointed out that in that
case Gulnara Karimova would also become a direct competitor.
90. Co-authors Frederick Stans, conflict researcher and lecturer at Uppsala

University, and Svante Cornell, have testified that Stan stated, on the direct question
from him in the summer of 2013, that it was general knowledge in the business
community in the capital of Uzbekistan that Gulnara Karimova had a central and
leading role within the telecom industry via her company Zeromax. Svante Cornell
has emphasised however that Gulnara Karimova’s role was not transparent and not
entirely one hundred percent clear. Without being able to more specifically identify
it, according to Cornell it was revealed that she had a leading role in informal
structures.
65

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
91. The District Court notes that the information from Frederick Starr concerning
that Gulnara Karimova had a central and leading role in the telecom industry via her
company Zeromax in Uzbekistan appears to directly contradict the public
prosecutor’s assertion that she acted within the framework of a governmental
employment or assignment in a position of trust. Instead Frederick Starr sees her as
a direct competitor. Also Svante Cornelis’ statement concerning Gulnara Karimova
in an unknown role in informal structures appears to directly contradict the public
prosecutor’s assertion of governmental employment or assignment in a position of
trust. Taken together the information in Frederick Stan’s report and what Svante
Cornell has testified about supports the alternative hypothesis which is that Gulnara
Karimova has conducted business in the telecom industry as a businesswoman via
her private companies and not in any governmental position.
92. This is position is also supported by information in an e-mail dated 30 May 2007
from Talgat Dairbekov to Serkan Elden concerning information about the Uzbek
partner Gulnara Karimova’s ownership interests in the following 13 companies:
“Uzdonrobita, Beeline, CDMA operator, Internet providers (works with

privatisation of Uzbektelecom) Fergana Oil Refinery, Zero Max and Uzgasoil –
control Uzneftegas, Bank Credit Standard, the Media group ‘Terra Group’ which
includes Terra Radio and TV plus Bella Terra Magazine, Glass Factory Quarts,
Kuvai Cement Factory, Bekbadai Cement Factory and Coca Cola Factory”
93. Also, the fact that there were formal structures in Uzbekistan with a minister
responsible telecommunications who was also the head of the telecommunications
authority UzACI may be considered to contradict the public prosecutor’s assertion
that Gulnara Karimova was responsible for the telecom sector via governmental
employment or taking a commission in a position of trust.
Evaluation of information from the questioning
94. Jouko Rosenberg, the then chief engineer for Eurasia within Fintur, has been
confronted with information noted down from his police questioning where it
appears that
66

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
he overheard “discussions in the corridor that the president’s daughter might

somehow be involved in the process in Uzbekistan she represented or managed the
Uzbek state’s governmental affairs. Somehow in some manner, she was tied to
affairs/matters for the Uzbek state.” Jouko Rosenberg has commented on the
information that Gulnara Karimova played a role in the country, within politics,
but that she did not specifically have any links to the Telia affair.
95. The District Court finds that information from police questioning investigations
as a starting point has a low probative value with regard to all the sources of
incorrect information that may exist. In addition, it is a very vague piece of
information, which is also based on what Jouko Rosenberg was talking about in a
[chance] discussion that took place in a corridor. The origin of the information has
also not been clarified. Considering these circumstances, which further weakens the
probative value of the information, no secure conclusions can be drawn from the
interrogation notes concerning the issue of if Gulnara Karimova acted in a role that
causes her to fall within the group of persons susceptible to bribery as asserted by
the public prosecutor.
96. The information provided by Serkan Elden speaks against the public
prosecutor’s allegations and for the alternative explanation that Gulnara Karimova
acted as a businesswoman. According to Serkan Elden, did not have any Gulnara
Karimova official role in Uzbekistan, but rather it was generally known that she was
a serious businesswoman with contacts and influence within a number of business
areas. More specifically, Serkan Elden has mentioned a joint venture that she had
with Coca Cola, which he had previously knowledge concerning this, due to that he
had been involved in several business projects with Coca Cola in the region.
Furthermore, Serkan Elden’s information shows that their consultant, Talgat
Dairbekov’s investigations, which he believes he did on websites in Central Asia,
suggested that Gulnara Karimova was associated with the group of investors within
the telecom sector which Fintur did business with at a later date.
97. The Turkish lawyer Tolga Ismen, who was involved in negotiating the MCT
transaction, has explained that during discussions with Serkan Elden and Talgat
Dairbekov during
67

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
the spring of 2007 he received information, which he believes came from Talgat Dairbekov,
that the president had assigned his daughters [specific] industries for which they had
responsibilities for and that Gulnara Karimova had been assigned the telecom [sector].
98. According to the District Court, Tolga Ismen’s information role does not clarify
what governmental role, if any, that Gulnara Karimova held and acted within. As
regards to the probative value of the information referred to by Serkan Elden and
Tolga Ismen concerning Gulnara Karimova, it should be pointed out that this
appears to originate from unknown searches that Talgat Dairbekov reportedly made
on websites in Central Asia. In this context, it should be mentioned that the public
prosecutor in a late stage of the legal proceedings chose to withdraw the questioning
with Talgat Dairbekov. The starting point is therefore that the information comes
from Google web searches that cannot be verified or confirmed. The probative value
of the information individually may thus be regarded as non-existent.
99. Hande Apaydin was an employee working within the finance department and
responsible for internal controls at Fintur during the time period 2006 to May 2007
when she became head of M&A and business development. According to her
information, there were rumours that the president delegated telecoms in Uzbekistan
to Gulnara Karimova, who had unofficial control and exercised informal influence
over this sector. According to Hande Apaydin, the information came from Nurlan
Sargaskayev and Talgat Daribekov, Serkan Elden’s other networks in Uzbekistan
and Svante Cornelis’ report.
100.With the evaluation of her information, it should be noted in particular that

before the interrogation in the U.S. investigation in 2016 she was given access to
three binders with documents. Hande Apaydin has confirmed that without this
material she would not have remembered much from 2007; the facts and
circumstances that affect the probative value of the information she has provided,
due to that it cannot be determined where the information she has related originates
from.
68

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
101. In addition, it was revealed the information Hande Apaydin refers to seems to
be, at least partly, the same information what was assessed above in Frederick
Stan’s report and Serkan Elden’s and Tolga Ismen’s questioning. From an overall
perspective, it can be stated that no other concrete source of origin is concluded
concerning the rumour that President Islam Karimov assigned Gulnara Karimova
the telecom sector other than Talgat Dairbekov’s web searches on websites in
Central Asia. Taken together, Hande Apaydin’s information lacks actual probative
value for the public prosecutor’s allegations that Gulnara Karimova held such a
governmental position or position in the telecoms sector in Uzbekistan that she falls
with the group of persons susceptible to bribery as asserted by the public prosecutor.
102. Coscom’s former CEO, Abraham Smith, has also testified that he perceived
Gulnara Karimova as being a businesswoman with many business interests
including i.a. in the telecom industry. However he also said that Fatullah
Abdullahev, who was a shareholder and employee of Coscom and a former
telecoms Minister in Uzbekistan, after a meeting with Aripov, provided
information concerning that the Ministry’s strict treatment of Coscom was due to
Gulnara Karimova wanting to squeeze Coscom.
103. According to the District Court, Abraham Smith’s information points to that
Gulnara Karimova exercised influence on the telecommunications authority,
however it does not clarify in what role or in what manner she has done so. As
stated above, it is irrelevant that Gulnara Karimova, within the framework of
informal structures, exercised influence on public authorities as long as it cannot be
proved that she acted in such an official governmental position as the public
prosecutor has alleged.
104. The fact that Gulnara Karimova had an ownership interest in all the active
telecom companies in Uzbekistan where essentially the same arrangement was used
and similar agreements were entered into with her company Takilant and Swisdorn
is not in itself and of itself is evidence for Gulnara Karimova’s belonging to the
asserted group of persons susceptible to bribery.
69

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
105. On the other hand the fact that decisions concerning permits from the
telecommunications authority have sometimes been issued after the application,
without (which it gives the impression of) an examination is of relevance for the
evidence and can be said to indirectly have a probative value for the public
prosecutor’s allegations. However, the relationship may also have other alternative
explanations than that Gulnara Karimova due to governmental employment or a
position of trust dealt with these matters within the area of responsibility of the
telecommunications authority, for instance that Gulnara Karimova, as a private
contractor, conducted lobby-like activities, which were aimed at influencing civil
servants/public officials to make a certain decision, which is not punishable as
paying a bribe. On the other hand however, Gulnara Karimova may have been
guilty of other crimes depending upon the methods that were utilised for the
influence. This may involve, for example. undue pressure in the form of blackmail
or extortionate practices in relation to the civil servant/public official, which may
give raise liability for blackmail or extortion.
106. Journalist Elin Jönsson, specialising in Russia and the former Eastern
countries, has testified, based on a picture that has been conveyed to her by people
in the Uzbek society, that Gulnara Karimova was a businesswoman with an
extremely large group of people around her who protected her and the took care of
her affairs, that Gulnara Karimova a hand in the news media, nightclubs, telecom
industry, gas, etc. while Lola Karimova had a hand in the import sector, that it was
generally considered to be Gulnara Karimova who had unofficial control over
telecom, that she, when she ran a nightclub and café, by means of her security team,
made sure that all other competitors were closed down plus that it could be
described as a mafia operation, which didn’t have any formal role to play, where
people were threatened to the extent that they became scared.
107. It can be concluded that Elin Jönsson’s testimony is based on information

from other persons who are not named. Notwithstanding the fact that the probative
value of such information is low, it can be concluded that the information does not
provide support for the public prosecutor’s allegations, i.e. that Gulnara Karimova
acted in a governmental position in the telecom sector, which means that she
therefore belongs to the group of persons susceptible to bribery. Instead, the
information supports
70

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
the alternative hypothesis that Gulnara Karimova acted as a businesswoman and that
improper methods and pressure may have occurred.
108. So far, it can be established that key pieces of evidence are lacking in the case
that could shed light on determinative facts and circumstances of the alleged crime
concerning the transactions at the receiving end in Uzbekistan. Instead, the
investigation has come to be based on information which a consultant has,
according to what has emerged, found by Googling on Central Asian websites about
Gulnara Karimova and which have since been disseminated in e-mails and among
individuals being questioned, as well as generalised public rumours concerning
Gulnara Karimova’s role in Uzbekistan and especially in its capital Tashkent.
Information in response to the application for mutual legal assistance in the

Uzbekistan criminal case
109. In addition, what is stated in the Uzbek responses to the application for
international mutual legal assistance in criminal proceedings from the public
prosecutor does not support the public prosecutor’s allegations regarding Gulnara
Karimova’s belonging to with the group of persons susceptible to bribery with
positions in the telecom sector and speaks for for the alternative hypothesis. In
the following, the District Court outlines the responses.
110. From Uzbek responses dated 10 May 2017 and 19 June 2017, what is
apparent is primarily the following.
111. An investigation is ongoing regarding Gulnara Karimova being suspected of

fraud, illegal sale of radio frequencies and number blocks to telecom companies,
violations of customs legislation, etc. Bekhzod Akhmedov was responsible for
telecom projects in an organised group that engaged in criminal activities consisting
of Sodikov and Madumarov, who were assisted and controlled by Gulnara
Karimova, with what is referred to as offshore companies, which Madumarov
established in the name of Swisdorn and Avakyan established in the name of
Takilant, where the money from the criminal activities went. Gulnara Karimova was
able, by utilising her status, to give permission to the members of the
71

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
the organised group to work in her name in contacts with persons with authority
at governmental agencies and other public authorities. Negotiations with UzACI

and others were conducted by Bekhzod Akhmedov, who is internationally wanted
for his involvement. Teleson Mobile LLC is another pseudo-company created by
the organised criminal group for the purpose of illegally receiving and selling
frequencies and number blocks. Allocation of frequencies and number blocks to a
fictitious legal entity that Teleson, which in practice did not operate in the
telecommunications field, was implemented contrary to the law. Civil servants
have assisted in this processing of this matter. Everyone knew that Gulnara
Karimova was the president’s daughter. Bekhzod Akhmedov may have used her
name in contact with civil servants to exert pressure on them.
Perhaps it puts pressure on the civil servants. In order to investigate this, it must
be known which civil servants Bekhzod Akhmedov contacted.
112. Without the participation of Bekhzod Akhmedov, it is not possible to identify

guilty civil servants and make legal assessments of their actions. Because it has not
been able to determine which specific employees at UzACI and its structures who
have had contact with Bekhzod Akhmedov and who contributed to the organised
group being allocated frequencies in an illegal manner, no interrogations could be
held. Suspicions of criminality support the position that unlawful conduct occurred
in the course of official duties as well as the abuse of authority (misuse of office) or
exceeding authority have occurred. This cannot be confirmed or ruled out, via an
investigation, that civil servants of the state have received some form of reward. The
allocation to Teleson has taken place without the right to the present where power
has been illegally taken from the governmental body. It is an illegal act. This is the
reason why the action is not qualified as a crime of bribery concerning Gulnara
Karimova and other members of the organised criminal group, because they had no
such official power. If Gulnara Karimova and her assistants had had the possibility
for unconditional control over the allocation of frequencies, it is clear that there
would not have been a need to establish and go the way via Teleson.
72

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
113. In the reply of May 2017, it is stated that the information in the previous reply
submitted by Uzbekistan in 2012/2013, where it is argued that everything has
occurred legally, is true and correct so that the allocation of frequencies and number
blocks took place in a formally correct manner with all required documents being
submitted and fees paid. In the reply from June 2017, this is changed so that the
allocation did not take place in a formally correct manner.
114. According to the public prosecutor, caution must be exercised when it comes
to assessing information that comes from Uzbekistan, due to the manner in which
the exercise of power occurs in the country and due to that the Uzbekers now want
their seized assets, amounting to the equivalent of ten billion Swedish kronor, back.
115. The District Court notes that the information does not support the public
prosecutor’s assertions that Gulnara Karimova had a governmental position that
makes her fall within the group of persons susceptible to bribery according to
Swedish legislation. On the contrary. even taking into account that caution must be
observed when evaluating information from Uzbekistan, the District Court finds
that the information has probative value in a direction favoured for the defendant’s
reasonableness assessment of the alternative hypothesis, especially if these are
supported by other evidence. In view of the fact that Elin Jönsson’s information in
each case provide such support on a general level in that she described a mafia-like
activity where people were threatened so that they became fearful, based on what
overall has been shown, the District Court found that the alternative hypothesis
entailing that Gulnara Karimova acted as businesswoman with sometimes
unauthorised means may be assessed as being a reasonable conclusion.
116. The District Court then proceeds to examine the probative value and impact
of the evidence which, according to the public prosecutor, is presently relevant
concerning the outcome of the legal proceedings that have taken place in
Switzerland, the United States, and the Netherlands.
73

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
The probative value and impact of foreign judgments, and related matters.
117. From an excerpt from a Swiss judgment dated 5 November 2013 following an
appeal by Takilant regarding a decision concerning the surrender of evidence of
Sweden’s request via international mutual legal assistance in criminal cases, the
following is clear. Particularly taking into account the various diplomatic
commissions that have been exercised so far by Gulnara Karimova on behalf of
Uzbekistan, and since it is a country governed by her father, it is not
indefensible/unjustifiable to assume that Gulnara Karimova exercises an actual
power via her own situation and that she can be equated with a member of a
governmental authority.
118. The District Court can state that the principle of legality stands in the way of
such an extensive interpretation and application of Swedish legislation concerning
bribery as is stated in the ruling from Switzerland. In the absence of a corresponding
applicable provision in Swedish legislation concerning bribery, the ruling lacks
significance as evidence for the District Court’s examination of the case.
119. On 20 July 2016, a court in Amsterdam rendered judgment against Takilant in

the company’s absence regarding i.a. complicity in [assisting] bribery of a civil servant
where it has been proven that Takilant together and in agreement with a public official,
Gulnara Karimova, has received shares [of a company] and a payment from company
2 (according to the public prosecutor, subsidiary of Telia). In exchange, Takilant and
Gulnara Karimova have used their influence in Uzbek governmental agencies for the
allocation of telecom licenses. The investigation of the crime shows that the public
official, Gulnara Karimova, is in fact the owner and the only factual beneficiary of
Takilant and that she, primarily as the daughter of the President of Uzbekistan,
influences the Uzbek telecom market. Furthermore, it appears that she was employed
by the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Uzbekistan to the United Nations Office
in Geneva.
120. The District Court can confirm that the Dutch application almost seem to
refer to what is generally referred to as “trading in influence,” which did not
constitute a crime in Swedish legislation until
74

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
1 July 2012. That Gulnara Karimova, in her capacity as the president’s daughter, in an unclear
manner exercised improper or inappropriate influence on the decision-making on the telecom
market was thus not encompassed within Swedish legislation concerning bribery at the time
period in question, which is why the assessment lacks significance as evidence in the Swedish
case. Regarding her employment at the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Uzbekistan to the
United Nations Office in Geneva, the District Court deals with that issue below in section
6.1.5.4 Specific public employment or commission within the Uzbek foreign service/foreign
affairs administration.
121.On 21 September 2017, a press release from the U.S. Department of Justice
announced that Telia and its Uzbek company Coscom acknowledged that they had
paid over USD 331 million in bribes to a Uzbek government public official and that,
in order to avoid a U.S. criminal trial with allegations of bribery, Telia signed an
agreement to pay USD 965 million in a combined penalty to the Justice Department,
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Netherlands Public
Prosecutor’s Office for violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)
and Dutch law.
122.According to the statement of agreed facts as a part of the agreement, the

parties to the agreement agree that Gulnara Karimova fulfils the definition for a
“Public Official” according to the FCPA and that she has influence over decisions
made by UzACI and decisions that may have been made by other governmental
authorities, for example so that Telia would have any possibility to be able to
establish operations in Uzbekistan. The definition of “Public Official” according to
FCPA includes senior officers [those with decision-making authority]or employees
of a foreign government or some ministry, governmental authority or agency, or part
thereof, or a public international organisation, or any person acting in their official
function or on behalf of such government, ministry, governmental authority or
agency, or part of it, or on behalf of such an international organisation 99
75

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
123. The defence counsel has argued that strong commercial reasons have been
present for Telia to enter into the agreement in question. This concerns what is
referred to as a “Deferred Prosecution Agreement” between Telia and the U.S.
Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud Section and the U.S. Attorney’s
office for the Southern District of New York, dated 21 September 2017. According
to the agreement, Telia will pay USD 548,603,972 in fines. According to the
defence counsel, the financial impetus amounts to some SEK 1.4 billion. The
defence counsel has pointed out that Telia’s participation via identification of
certain persons and information concerning their participation is deemed to
constitute an extenuating circumstance [mitigating factor] and entitles Telia to a
reduction. In addition, according to the defence counsel, the market-related situation
is that companies usually choose to enter into agreements of the kind in question in
order to avoid the very significant risks that an adverse action entails; that the
market shares such a view is regularly reflected in the fact that a settlement has a
positive impact on the price of the share. Furthermore, the defence counsel has
pointed out in connection with the content of U.S. law that it lacks significance that
Gulnara Karimova did not have employment or an assignment for UzACI due to
that the actions as described in the statement of agreed facts are contrary to the U.S.
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
124. The District Court may conclude, based on the contents of the agreement, that
the strong commercial reasons that have existed for Telia to enter into the
agreement and which the defence counsel has pointed out are of significant
importance in terms of evidence and means that the agreement as such according to
the District Court is without probative value or impact in the case. In this context,
the District Court desires to emphasise the FCPA’s broad definition of the term
“Public Official.” The District Court will return to this below in the next section
6.1.5.4. Specific public employment or commission within the Uzbek foreign
service/foreign affairs for the taking of a position regarding Gulnara Karimova’s
employment or commission within the Uzbek foreign service/foreign affairs.
6.1.5.3.3 Summary
125. The public prosecutor has not explained the concrete facts of the
significance for the assessment of whether Gulnara Karimova has been a
governmental employee. It has not
76

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
been clarified whether the relationship had been based on an agreement, what work
Gulnara Karimova would perform, or whether the performance of the work was
subject to specific directives or control. The same applies to the public prosecutor’s
assertion that Gulnara Karimova acted in a position of trust. No description of the
assignment has been submitted. Questions relating to that in which manner she has
had a managerial or controlling task or responsibility remain unanswered. It is a
requisite according to the provision that Gulnara Karimova constituted a special
subject in the sense that she must have been in a special position.
This is because it requires that she be entrusted with a certain task/responsibility of

managing or supervising. What kind of task/responsibility she has had has not been
clarified. The public prosecutor has instead invoked all possible requisites in the
provision, including legal affairs, which, naturally, is primarily intended to be
carried out by lawyers.
126. The report that was presented has not clarified the vague parts that are in the
public prosecutor’s indictment concerning the issue of Gulnara Karimova’s
belonging to the group of persons susceptible to bribery. The assertion that she
has had governmental employment or assignments in a position of trust within
telecom has not been able to be proven. Instead, an alternative explanation has
been deemed as being reasonable, i.e. that Gulnara Karimova in fact acted as a
businesswoman within the framework of companies with which she had
associations with.
127. Finally, the legal framework does not encompass what is referred to as the
de facto exercise of powers as a public authority in such a situation as the public
prosecutor has described where unauthorised persons engage in the actual exercise
of power. The public prosecutor’s assertions in this part have thus already failed
on a legal foundation.
128. Taken all together, it can be stated that the shortcomings that exist in the
robustness of the investigation, the weakly weighted probative value of the
evidence in conjunction with the great vagueness concerning the group of persons
for the alleged crime and the difficulties which, as a result, have existed for the
defendants to present rebuttal evidence lead to the conclusion that it has not been
proven that Gulnara Karimova has been an employee or held a position of trust in
the manner in which the public prosecutor has asserted.
77

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
6.1.5.3.4 Conclusion
129. It has not been proven that Gulnara Karimova belonged, in the manner that the public
prosecutor alleged, according to Chapter 20, § 2 of the Penal Code, to a group of persons
susceptible to bribery as an employee or contractor in a position of trust within the telecom
sector. The public prosecutor’s allegations concerning that Gulnara Karimova’s engaged in an
unauthorised exercise of foreign state authority is not a criminal offence pursuant to the
legislation concerning bribery.
6.1.5.4 Specific public employment or commission within the Uzbek

foreign service/foreign affairs administration
− The investigation has not shown that any connection to the

performance of official duties existed between any benefits [received]
from Telia and Gulnara Karimova’s positions, which she, according to
the public prosecutor, held within the system for the Republic of
Uzbekistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
− In this section, the District Court goes into the reasons for the positions
adopted.
6.1.5.4.1 Introduction
130. The following can be seen from a document with information concerning
Gulnara Karimova’s official positions within the system of the Republic of
Uzbekistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which Uzbekistan submitted to the
Swiss investigation, and which has been received by the Swedish investigation at
the end of September 2018, to the extent it is relevant. Gulnara Karimova has
been an advisor to the Minister, leader of the Centre for Political Studies during
the period 18 April 2005 to 1 February 2008, and Deputy Foreign Minister for
International Cooperation in Cultural and Humanitarian Affairs within the cultural
and humanitarian field during the period from 1 February 2008 to 3 September
2008 and, also permanent representative of the Republic of Uzbekistan at the UN
Office and other international organisations in Geneva on 3 September 2008 to 1
September 2011.
78

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
131. The information in the Uzbek documents is supported by what is stated on

Wikipedia (which is a free, open-content online encyclopaedia developed by the
collaborative effort its users, meaning anyone can make edits). Taking into
account the obvious sources of incorrect information that may exist in such
material, in a criminal trial the probative value of the information that is reported
there as evidence is low.
132. In terms of the probative value of the information in the Uzbek document, it
should be pointed out that the public prosecutor has stated that information from
Uzbekistan must “be taken with a pinch of salt.” Both the public prosecutor and the
defence counsel have pointed out differences that have occurred over time in the
responses provided from Uzbekistan to various applications for international mutual
legal assistance in criminal cases. The probative value of facts provided by
Uzbekistan is therefore assessed individually as being low.
133. In addition, it has not been clarified whether the Centre for Political
Investigations is to be regarded as something that can be considered to be another
such public authority that belongs to the State. No position of governmental power
has been able to be established. Furthermore, there is no public documentation that
Gulnara Karimova has been duly appointed by appointment or the equivalent.
134. Notwithstanding the deficiencies in the investigation that exist in the

question of Gulnara Karimova’s stated official positions within the system of the
Republic of Uzbekistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the District Court is
examining what is referred to as the connection to the performance of official
duties based on the described descriptions of the functions.
6.1.5.4.2 Legal regulation concerning the connection with the performance of official duties
135. For criminal liability to exist, it is required that a benefit is be related to or

have a connection with the recipient’s exercise of their work or assignment (for
the performance of his/her official duties). The requirement means that the benefit
in question should in principle be directed towards an action or measure that
belongs to
79

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
the employee’s position. An obvious limit to what can be considered to constitute

official duties is that the measure intended for the purpose of bribery must be within
the principal’s field of activity.20 It is not required that the benefit is related to a
certain act or measure within the framework of the employment. It must, however,
be provided under such circumstances that there is reason to fear that it may affect
how the recipient engages in their work or assignment. The beneficial act or measure
does not need to be covered by the recipient’s formal competence or the recipient’s
responsibility is to take this action. It is sufficient that the recipient, in his
employment or assignment, can actually exercise influence on the action in a manner
that promotes the donor’s interest, for example an employee who is to prepare or
prefer a case for a decision may thus be guilty of the crime of bribery.
136. It often happens that a benefit is given due to some other relationship between
the donor and the recipient than the recipient’s work or assignment. The transaction
cannot then be deemed to have been given/received for the performance of official
duties. This may be the case if the benefit constitutes compensation for an
assignment that the recipient has undertaken alongside the employment or
assignment.
6.1.5.4.3 Advisor to the Minister, Head of the Centre for Political Studies
[Centrum för politiska undersökningar]
137. In the Uzbek document above, the following functional area of responsibility
for Gulnara Karimova is given as advisor to the minister, head of the Centre for
Political Studies:
“- preparing proposals and recommendations in the field of priorities for

Uzbekistan’s medium and long-term foreign policy, as well as in issues relating to
regional cooperation and security with regard to ensuring Uzbekistan’s national
interests; - implementing analytical monitoring of social policy processes in the
international arena associated with the modernisation of the economy, development
of leading technologies and breakthrough know-how in the information area, the
energy area, the military technical area and other areas, - preparation and realisation
of general methodological approaches within the organisation of information and
analysis work at the Centre, and
20
SOU 1974:37 p. 142.
80

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
in addition, recommendations and practical measures aimed at the increasing

of efficiency.”
138. Gulnara Karimova’s powers and authority included:
“- general coordination of the activities at the Centre; - signing of documents

relating to the Centre’s activities; - direct participation in competence-enhancing
activities for personnel at the Centre; - ensuring joint cooperation with information
and analysis centres abroad.”
139. The District Court can conclude that the investigation does not show
anything other than that Gulnara Karimova’s functional area of responsibility is
internationally focused on Uzbekistan’s foreign policy and regional cooperation
and security, which refers i.a. to the implementation of analytical monitoring of
social policy processes in the international arena. Thus, according to the
investigation the area of activities does not include national telecom issues. Thus it
has not been shown that there is any connection relating to the performance of
official duties in any benefits [received] from Telia and Gulnara Karimova’s work
or commissions in the Centre.
6.1.5.4.4 Deputy Minister
140. In the Uzbek document, it sets out the following functional responsibilities
for Gulnara Karimova as Deputy [Foreign] Minister for International
Cooperation in Cultural and Humanitarian Affairs:
“- preparation of proposals in the realisation of foreign policy in the Cultural and
Humanitarian field; the solving of organisational issues for events (exhibitions,
festivals, concerts, conferences, promoting business, etc.) in the Cultural and
Humanitarian field, both in the Republic and abroad.”
141. The powers included:

“- general coordination of activities at the subsection she was responsible for; the
submission proposals and recommendations to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
concerning matters relating to the improvement of Uzbekistan’s cooperation within
the field of cultural and humanitarian cooperation.”
142. As stated above, the connection to the performance of official duties

presupposes that there has been a formal possibility of having an effect or
influence in any respect that might have been able to affect the
81

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
alleged donor, Telia. This could have been the case if Gulnara Karimova had been
a minister in a government characterised by collegial decision-making, i.e. where
the possibility of influence may also exist regarding issues outside of one’s own
sphere. However, the public prosecutor has not provided any evidence to support
this. Instead, the defence counsel has argued that the Uzbek government does not,
[in contrast to] the Swedish, make decisions collegially and that Uzbekistan does
not apply regular ministerial government or ministerial administration, meaning
that each minister makes all decisions within their own area of responsibility.
143. In the absence of an investigation, it has not been shown that Gulnara
Karimova, as Deputy Foreign Minister for International Cooperation in Cultural and
Humanitarian Affairs, had any formal rights to participate in decisions concerning
issues arising from other ministries or agencies and which could have affected
telecom issues. The conclusion is thus that some connection related to the
performance of official duties between any benefits from Telia and Gulnara
Karimova in the position of Deputy Foreign Minister for International Cooperation
in Cultural and Humanitarian Affairs has not been proven.
6.1.5.4.5 Permanent representative at the UN
144. In the Uzbek document, the functional responsibilities of Gulnara

Karimova as permanent representative of the Republic of Uzbekistan are set
out at the UN Office and other international organisations in Geneva:
“- issues relating to developing cooperation with international organisations

and missions from other states accredited in Geneva; - the establishment of
contacts and support of continual contact with official persons at international
organisation and missions from other states in the world, accredited in
Geneva, public circles, representatives of the diplomatic corps and the expert
community of Geneva.”
145. The powers and authorities of the position included:

“- general coordination of the activities of the Permanent Mission of the Republic of
Uzbekistan; signing of documents relating to the activities of the Permanent Mission
of the Republic of Uzbekistan; preparation and dissemination of press releases from
the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Uzbekistan;
82

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
to international organisations and the diplomatic corps in Geneva;

conducting consultations with representatives of various international
organisations and diplomatic missions accredited in Geneva.”
146. Taking into account the area of activities of Gulnara Karimova as a permanent
representative of the Republic of Uzbekistan at the UN office and other international
organisations in Geneva reported in the Uzbek document, it can be concluded that
no connection between any benefits provided by Telia and her work or commissions
in the performance of official duties has been shown.
6.1.5.4.6 Summary
147. The public prosecutor has concretised three different official positions within
the Uzbek Foreign Service administration with related functional descriptions based
on an Uzbek document. Despite the fact that information from Uzbekistan is to be
valued with caution, the District Court has, based on the Uzbek information, tested
the positions and functions against referred to as the connection to the performance
of official duties, which is one of several requirements that the criminal offence
according to the bribery legislation to be considered come into play at all. The
District Court has found that the reported official positions do not have a connection
with national telecom issues and that no connection between any benefits from Telia
and the official positions and functions in connection with the performance of
official duties has been shown.
6.1.5.4.7 Conclusion
148. No connection to the performance of official duties has been shown between
any benefits from Telia and the reported official positions and functions with the
Uzbek Foreign Service administration.
83

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
6.1.6 Bribery, as the alternative charge or second alternative charge, by a

civil servant or Bekhzod Akhmedov with “another” as the recipient
− In order for it to be able to be argued that a possible benefit has accrued
or been intended to accrue to the civil servant whose official duties the
benefit relates to, even if it has been physically handed over to another
party, some form of connection must exist between the recipient of the
benefit and the employee, so that the benefit can be said in one way or
another to benefit the civil servant.
− The public prosecutor’s prosecution in the part that was concretised
with regard to which civil servants he refers to is therefore not provable
nor possible to examine.
− There is no investigation showing a link between the Director
General of the telecommunications authority [Communications and
Information Agency], Abdulla Aripov and Takilant/Gulnara
Karimova, as well as the CEO of Uzdunrobita, Bekhzod Akhmedov
and Takilant/Gulnara Karimova.
− The section describes the District Court’s considerations for the
positions it has adopted.
6.1.6.1 Introduction
149. In the alternative, the public prosecutor has determined the group of persons
susceptible to bribery to be a public official or civil servant at the
telecommunications authority or at the authority, without concretising which public
official(s) or, in addition to the telecommunications authority, which authority it
relates to. It is self-evident that the allegations/statement of the criminal offence
must consist of facts and circumstances that are able to be proven.
Despite this, the public prosecutor has not made any clear clarification as to who he
wants the District Court to examine the allegations of bribery. The reason for this
can be found in the response to the application for international mutual legal
assistance in criminal cases from Uzbekistan where it appears that it was not
possible to determine which concrete employees at UzACI and its structures
participated and had contact with Bekhzod Akhmedov. However taking into account
what has emerged from the factual and written evidence, the public prosecutors may
be understood as such that the Director General of the telecommunications authority
[Communications and Information Agency] Abdulla Aripov is such a public
official. In the absence of concretisation in other respects, it is not possible for the
District Court to examine the alleged assertions in other ways than in relation to
Abdulla Aripov at the telecommunications authority, which in this part may be
considered as the external framework of the legal proceedings. In this context, it
should be mentioned that in the case of the
84

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
State, holders of a public position as a result of appointment or election, are not

to be regarded as civil servants.
150.In the second alternative assertion, the group of persons susceptible to

bribery is well-identified in the form of Bekhzod Akhmedov, in the performance
of his official responsibilities as CEO of the company Uzdunrobita.
6.1.6.2 Legal regulation – Other concept
151.The term “for another” refers to the situation where the benefit, i.e. the bribe or
the undue remuneration goes to someone other than the individual(s) receiving the
bribe. For criminal liability, it is not sufficient enough that the benefit accrues to
some other natural person or legal entity. In order for it to be argued that the benefit
has accrued or been intended to accrue to the civil servant whose performance of
official duties the benefit concerns, even if it has been physically handed over to
another party, some form of connection must exist between the recipient of the
benefit and the employee, so that the benefit can be said in one or otherwise favour
the civil servant (beneficial link). This may, for example, be the case that the reward
falls to a company to which the civil servant has a connection via that he is a partner
in the company or based on other grounds has influence. With an objective reflection
it must therefore be able to conclude that the civil servant has such a clear connection
with the recipient of the benefit that it in some sense it also benefits the civil servant
in some form.21
6.1.6.3 Beneficial link in this case
152.The construction of the law of what is referred to as the other concept means
that it is not possible to assess whether criminal liability exists for bribery with
assertions that compensation has been given to anonymous civil servants for
someone other than themselves.
21
In this context, the District Court notes that the public prosecutor in his primary assertion has
stated that bribery has been submitted to Gulnara Karimova, but what is meant with that the
assertion has been concretised in strict meaning should be provided to another party, i.e.
Takilant, for Gulnara Karimova’s performance of official duties. However, the question is of no
relevance to the examination above.
85

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
The examination involves namely, as stated above, to take a position and decide if
the civil servant has such a connection with the recipient that the benefit is
beneficial to the civil servant. The public prosecutor’s prosecution in the part he
did not concretise with regard to which civil servants he refers to is therefore not
provable nor possible to examine.
153. What then applies to the Director General of the telecommunications

authority [Communications and Information Agency] Abdulla Aripov, with others
as the recipient, it can be concluded that no investigation has been presented that
shows any beneficial link between him and Takilant, who received the payments in
question in the indictment or, for that matter, Gulnara Karimova.
154. Concerning Bekhzod Akhmedov, nor has a report/investigation been

presented which shows that he, in the performance of his official responsibilities as
CEO of the company Uzdunrobita, with another as a recipient, showing any
beneficial link between him and Takilant or Gulnara Karimova.
155. In the absence of this link, the general precondition that it must be shown that
some benefits in the transactions should have benefited Abdulla Aripov or Bekhzod
Akhmedov is not fulfilled. In this context, it must be pointed out that favouring or
providing a benefit does not include that Abdulla Aripov or Bekhzod Akhmedov felt
general satisfaction – or avoided from feeling uncomfortable – as a consequence of
possible benefits, but rather they themselves actually concretely received an
exchange of such benefits, either directly or indirectly. On the other hand, in
Swedish law, an act based on such facts or circumstances may mean that a civil
servant is guilty of official misconduct.
6.1.6.4 Summary
156. The public prosecutor’s prosecution in the part that he did concretise with regard to
which civil servant(s) he refers to is not provable nor possible to examine.
86

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
157. There is no investigation in the case showing a beneficial link between

the Director General of the telecommunications authority [Communications
and Information Agency], Abdulla Aripov or the CEO of Uzdunrobita,
Bekhzod Akhmedov and Takilant or Gulnara Karimova.
6.1.6.5 Conclusion
158. It has not been proven that bribes or other undue remuneration has been
made in accordance with Indictment counts 1-5 for the performance of the official
duties to a civil servant(s) of the telecommunications authority or at a
governmental authority, or to Bekhzod Akhmedov, in the performance of the
duties of CEO of the company Uzdunrobita, but intended to be received by another
party, in this case Gulnara Karimova, in part.
6.1.7 Overall assessment of criminality
− The objective requisites for [the offence of] bribery are not fulfilled.
There is therefore no need for the District Court to examine the stories
of the accused and the evidence they relate to.
− The defendants are acquitted from the prosecution for gross bribery.
159. In the examination of a criminal law criminal liability prosecution, deficiencies

in the robustness of the investigation and a vague concretisation in the statement of
the criminal offence charged of the kind described above result in the public
prosecutor having particular difficulties in being able to prove his
allegations/statement of the criminal offence. Because of what is thus investigated –
and especially in light of what has just been said about the importance for the
prosecution as the lack of concretion in the statement of the criminal offence charged
– the District Court finds, in summary, that the evidence invoked by the public
prosecutor in support of the prosecution is not sufficient for that the evidentiary
requirement of proof must be fulfilled. This means that the District Court has made
the assessment that the central objective requisites for the offence of bribery within a
group of persons, connection to the performance of official duties and with “another”
as a recipient are not fulfilled.
87

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
160. With this assessment, there is no reason for the District Court to proceed
further in its examination of other necessary prerequisites for the commission of
a crime and to consider whether the transactions contained a benefit and this was
the case, if it had been undue in that case. Nor are there any grounds to look
more closely into the accused’s explanations and the evidence they have
invoked. The defendants should therefore be acquitted from the indictment and
prosecution for gross bribery.
6.1.8 The dropped part of the indictment
161. The public prosecutor dropped prosecution count 1 in the indictment

regarding Lars Nyberg on the grounds that sufficient grounds for Lars Nyberg
to be guilty of the crime are not present.
162. Lars Nyberg has requested and moved for a judgment of acquittal.
163. A judgment of acquittal shall therefore be rendered.
6.2 Forfeiture of property in Case B 12203-17
164. With regard to the outcome of the liability section in Case B 12201-17, and
since the criminal offence in the manner the public prosecutor has alleged as a
basis for forfeiture of property has not otherwise been proven, the motion for
forfeiture of property shall be rejected.
6.3 Legal fees, court costs, and other litigation costs
6.3.1 Introduction
165. A judgment of acquittal was rendered against the three accused

defendants. All defendants have hired private defence counsel to defend them
and filed claims for reimbursement for the costs of their defence, as well as for
88

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
costs for appearance and in one case for one’s own work. A motion for forfeiture of
property against Telia has been dismissed and Telia has requested reimbursement for
its costs for its legal counsel.
166. According to Chapter 31, Section 2 of the Swedish Code of Judicial

Procedure, the court may decide that the accused shall be granted reimbursement
from public funds for their costs for defence counsel and for evidence during the
preliminary investigation and judicial proceedings, provided that the costs have
been reasonably justified in order for the accused to be able to be able to safeguard
of their rights. From the second paragraph of the same provision and Section 7 of
the Ordinance (1982:805) on Compensation from Public Funds to Witnesses, etc. it
follows that the defendant can also receive compensation for his appearance at the
court in the form of travel allowances and per diem allowances.
167. The provision in Chapter 31, Section 2 of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure
can also be applied in the case of trial and related legal costs for a party against which an
action for forfeiture of property has been directed (see NJA 2016 p. 714).
168. The defence counsel has done extensive work in the case and the legal fees,
court costs, and other litigation expenses amount to considerable amounts. The public
prosecutor has expressed his views on the claims for reimbursement and argued that
the compensation in certain parts should be reduced. The defendants have in turn
expressed their views and maintained the cost claim submitted.
169. The case has been extensive and the preliminary investigation has been ongoing
since autumn 2012. An indictment was filed and prosecutions were brought in
September 2017. In the District Court, in addition to the trial, a preparatory pretrial
proceeding has been held with the parties for the purpose of planning the judicial
proceedings. The trial has been going on for 42 days of hearings. Effective
hearing/trial time (excluding breaks) for the trial amounts to approximately 164 hours.
170. Before the respective claims for reimbursements for costs are examined, the
District Court desires to emphasise the following. The defence counsel questioned the
robustness of the investigation and sought clarification from the public prosecutor in the
parts that the statement of the criminal offence charged was vague and unclear. The
public prosecutor has conducted,
89

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
as it appears, supplementary preliminary investigations in parallel and a large

number of supplementary additions were received during the course of the trial
proceedings. The preliminary investigation material has major deficiencies in the
fact that a table of contents in several preliminary investigation minutes is missing
and that the same pages appear in the minutes from several different preliminary
investigations. There are also documents in several different versions. In some
cases, it has been noted that the agreements in parts consisted of a mixture of drafts
and final material. All in all, this has led to the preliminary investigation being
difficult to understand and difficult to absorb. Of course, all of this is of importance
for the assessment of whether the number of hours that the defence counsel has
expended has been reasonably justified or not.
171. As mentioned above, this has been a matter of a relatively large criminal
case aimed at major international business transactions, facts and circumstances
in Uzbekistan and other countries, as well as international decisions linked to a
difficult to apply older Swedish corruption legislation in terms of what applies in
the matter of criminal liability in a larger international company. Both the public
prosecutors and defence counsel have also been very resourceful in producing
underlying documentation and the parties have introduced and referenced
extensive documentary evidence. In view of the nature of the case, the District
Court has made the assessment that the accused defendants and Telia may be
considered as having the right to retain particularly experienced defence
counsel/representatives.
Therefore the starting point is that the actual costs for the defence counsel/
representatives must be reimbursed, provided that it is reasonable according to general
engagement law principles (NJA 2015 p. 62).
172. The descriptions of work from the defence counsel have shown that some work
related to measures that have been attributable to investigations in other countries,
primarily the USA but also, for example a Russian request for mutual legal assistance
and interrogations in Switzerland; Telia’s internal investigations; insurance matters;
and participation in various news media contexts. It is not possible to glean from the
descriptions of the work any greater detail as to the time expended on these measures
or to what extent the measures have been necessary in order to safeguard the rights of
the defendants in the Swedish legal proceedings and thus this shall be reimbursed
within the framework for Swedish judicial proceedings. Of Olli Tuohimaa’s claims
for reimbursement for costs, it is stated that SEK 47,213
90

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
has been reimbursed by the Swiss authorities and deducted from the claimed
amount. The defence counsel have further stated that certain contacts with
American lawyers have been necessary for the protection of their clients’ rights. It
is not questioned by the District Court, however most of the ambiguities and
uncertainties described above remain. These ambiguities and uncertainties may fall
back on the one who requested the compensation. A reasonable estimate based on
the above background and the work reports submitted is that measures that have
not been necessary to safeguard the rights of the defendants in the Swedish legal
proceedings have taken up at least five percent of the total working time.
The reimbursement for defence costs for each defendant should therefore be
reduced by five percent of the legal fees paid to the defence counsel, after
deductions for expenses and any other reductions.
173. The cost claims have shown that the costs for the defendants have already
been substantially reimbursed by insurance companies. However, the defendants
have stated that the insurance terms and conditions impose an obligation on them to
claim reimbursement for the legal fees, court costs, and other litigation expenses in
the case of an acquittal, and if this does not happen a repayment obligation arises,
and that if they are awarded reimbursement they have an obligation to return the
amount to the insurance company. Under these facts and circumstances, the costs
such as legal fees, court costs, and other litigation expenses for the defendants must
be regarded as that which can be reimbursed pursuant to Chapter 31, Section 2 of
the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure.
174. With this established, the District Court moves on to examine the
reimbursements for costs claims for each respective defendant and for Telia.
175. Tero Kivisaari has been represented by the two private defence lawyers, Leif
Gustafson and Staffan Bergqvist. The total time spent is 3,093 hours. The District
Court finds that the work done, with the stated exception mentioned above, may be
considered to be reasonably justified.
91

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
176. As it concerns the claimed hourly rate of SEK 3,500 - 4,000 for the lawyers, the
District Court finds that, in a criminal case of the present kind, it appears reasonable and
fair according to general engagement law principles.
177. The District Court also finds that the claimed costs for expert legal opinions
appear to be reasonably justified for Tero Kivisaari to be able to safeguard his rights.
The public prosecutor has raised objections to the costs. The District Court notes
here that the uncertainties that have been in the prosecution have left the defendants
in a position where they take into account several different hypothetical courses of
events. He is thus entitled to compensation for the costs.
178. The reimbursement demanded for appearance, correctly summarised,22

is assessed to be reasonable and should be reimbursed.
179. Tero Kivisaari shall therefore be reimbursed according to his claim,

correctly summarised, after deduction of five percent of the legal fees paid to
the defence counsel.
6.3.3 Olli Tuohimaa
180. During the trial proceedings, Olli Tuohimaa has been represented by two
private defence lawyers and one assistant namely the lawyers Hans Strandberg and
Olof Kullinger and jur. kand. Erik Sundqvist. In addition, a number of other persons
from the defence counsel’s law firm have been engaged to a certain extent. The total
time spent amounts to 3,598 hours.
181. With an overall consideration, the District Court finds that the work that has
been done is in the main considered reasonably justified, however with the above
and the following exceptions. According to the District Court, it may not be
regarded as necessary to have more than two defence counsel present during
The summary itemisation attached to the Statement of cost and request for reimbursement totals SEK 130,437
22
with the stated exchange rate.

92

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
the trial proceedings. It must also be considered the lawyers who have essentially
been responsible for the work in the trial courtroom. The District Court therefore
finds that the compensation in this part should be reduced to 100 hours at SEK 1,800,
i.e. jur.kand. Erik Sundqvist’s presence during the trial proceedings is not
reimbursed.
182. The District Court finds that the requested hourly rate of SEK 1,800 - 4,200
is reasonable according to general engagement law principles.
183. Olli Tuohimaa has requested compensation of SEK 159,648 for travel and
hotels during the investigation and trial proceedings period according to an attached
document. According to Chapter 31, §2 (2) of the Swedish Code of Judicial
Procedure the defendant can receive compensation for his appearance in the court.
Travel expenses, etc. Thus, meetings with their defence counsel during the
preliminary investigation are not reimbursed from public funds. Requested
compensation for travel and overnight stays in connection with the trial proceedings
is deemed reasonable. Regarding compensation for food costs, these are limited to
SEK 60 per day according to Section 4 of the Regulation (1982:805) on
Compensation from Public Funds to Witnesses, etc. reimbursement for meals is thus
granted only in the amount of SEK 60 per day during the 42 days of the trial
proceedings.
184. Olli Tuohimaa has also requested compensation of SEK 358,435 for his own
work for participation in the defence work to produce the evidence. As far as
emerged, Olli Tuohimaa has not had any cost for the production of the evidence.
According to the District Court, own work does not constitute a cost according to
Chapter 31, § 2 of the Code of Judicial Procedure. In this context, it can be noted
that Section 7 of Ordinance (1982:805) on Compensation from Public Funds to
Witnesses, etc. follows that accused in criminal cases who are entitled to
compensation pursuant to Chapter 31, section 2 of the Swedish Code of Judicial
Procedure lack the right to compensation for lost income. Olli Tuohimaa’s request
in this part should therefore be rejected.
185. In summary, Olli Tuohimaa is to be reimbursed according to his claim after

deduction for jur. kand. Erik Sundqvist’s presence/appearance during the trial
proceedings, five percent of
93

Department 4 15/02/2019 B 12203-17
the reimbursable legal fees to the defence counsel and non-reimbursable expenses
for travel, subsistence and own work.
6.3.4 Lars Nyberg
186. Lars Nyberg has been represented primarily by the two private defence
lawyers Stephane Pleijel and Cristina Bergner. The work has been ongoing since 10
April 2014. Total time spent on the defence amounts to 2,553 hours. The District
Court finds that the work that has been done can in the main be considered
reasonably justified, with the exception of what has been stated above.
187. With regard to the requested hourly rate, for reasons stated above the District
Court finds that this appears to be reasonable according to general engagement law
principles. The requested appearance costs are also assessed to be reasonable and
should be reimbursed. Lars Nyberg will therefore be reimbursed according to his
claim after deduction of five percent of the legal fees to the defence counsel.
6.3.5 Telia
188. Telia has been represented by three legal counsel: the lawyers advokaterna
Andreas Steen and Johan Skog and jur.kand. Lisa Ejelöv. Compensation is requested
for 358 hours in a total amount of SEK 954,190. The District Court finds that the work
done is considered reasonably justified, and the District Court finds that the hourly
rate charged is reasonable according to general engagement law principles.
HOW TO APPEAL, see appendix (TR-01)

Any appeal is to be addressed to and filed with the Svea Court of Appeal and
submitted to the District Court no later than 8 March 2019.
Tomas Zander Anna Liljenberg Gullesjö

Appendix 1
SVERIGES DOMSTOLAR/THE COURTS OF SWEDEN
How to Appeal
Judgment in criminal cases, District Court
TR-01
If you want the judgment to be changed in any part Also submit documentary evidence that is not
Instructions for the Appealing Party TR-01 - Judgment in criminal proceedings • Produced by the Swedish National Courts Administration, Dept. for Court Development • 2018-11
you can file an appeal. You will find out here to do already in the case.
this.
If you want new testimony taken with someone
who’s testimony has already been heard or a new
File an appeal in writing within 3 weeks on-site inspection (for example a visit to a place),
you should talk about this and explain why.
Your appeal must have been received by the court
within 3 weeks from the date of the judgment. The Also talk about if you want the complainant/
final date for filing an appeal is stated on the last injured party to appear in person at one of the
page of the judgment. sessions of the trial proceedings.
4. Provide the name and personal identity

Appealing after the other party has filed an
number or company registration number.
appeal
Provide current and complete information on
If one party has appealed within the proper time
where the court can reach you: postal
period, the other party also has the right to file an
addresses, e-mail addresses and telephone
appeal even if the time period has expired. This is
number(s).
referred to as filing a “counter appeal” (anslutnings
överklaga) If you have a legal representative, also
provide the legal representative’s
A party can file a counter appeal within one extra contact details.
week from the last day to file the appeal. Thus a
counter appeal must be received within 4 weeks 5. Sign the appeal yourself or allow your legal
from the date of the judgment. representative do so.
A counter appeal will cease to be pending if the 6. Send or deliver the appeal to the District
first appeal is withdrawn or for any other reason Court. You will find the address stated in
does not proceed further. the judgment.
What you will need to do What happens next?
1. Write the District Court’s name and case The District Court verifies that the appeal has
number. been received in at the proper time. If it has
arrived too late, the court rejects the appeal.
2. Explain why you think the judgment This means that the judgment is in effect and
should be changed. Speak about the change will apply.
you want and why you think that the Court
of Appeal should hear the appeal (read If the appeal has arrived on time, the District Court
more about leave to appeal further down). will send the appeal and all documents in the case
to the Court of Appeal.
3. Talk about the evidence you want to refer
to. Explain what you want to prove with If you have previously received documents via
each item of proof. simplified service of process, the Court of Appeal
can also send letters/documents in this manner.
Page 1 of 2
www.domstol.se
Leave to appeal in the Court of Appeal Decisions on other issues
When the appeal comes in to the Court of Appeal, the In the cases where leave to appeal is required in the
court first takes a position on whether the case is to criminal proceedings part (see above), leave to appeal
be taken up for consideration. is also required for such decisions that may only be
appealed in connection with the judgment that is being
If you do not have a leave to appeal granted, the appealed. Decisions that can be specially appealed in
judgment being appealed will remain in effect and particular do not require a leave to appeal.
applicable. Therefore, it is important to include
everything you want to present in the appeal.
When is a leave to appeal

When does one receive a leave to appeal?
required? Criminal proceedings part The Court of Appeal grants a leave to appeal in four
different situations.
In the criminal proceedings part, leave to appeal is • The court assesses that there is reason to doubt that
required in two different situations: the District Court issued a proper judgment in the
case.
• The accused has been sentenced only to pay a
monetary fine. • The court considers that it is not possible to assess
Instructions for the party Appealing TR-01 - Judgment in criminal cases • Produced by the Swedish Courts Administration, Dept. for Court Development • 2018-11
• The accused has been acquitted from a crime that has whether the District Court has issued a proper
no more than 6 months’ imprisonment on the penalty judgment in the case without taking up and reviewing
scale. the case.
Compensation for damages part • The court needs to take up and review the case in
order to provide other courts with guidance in the
Leave to appeal is required for the Court of Appeal application of the law.
to examine a claim for compensation for damages.
Exceptions may apply when a judgment is appealed • The court considers that there are exceptional
in the criminal proceedings part, and a request for grounds for taking up and reviewing the case for
compensation for damages is linked to the crime. In some other reason.
such situations, leave to appeal is not required for the
compensation for damages claim if
Would you like to learn more?
• a leave to appeal is not required in the
criminal proceedings part Then contact the District Court if you have any
or if questions. The address and telephone number are on
the first page of the judgment.
• the Court of Appeal issues a leave to appeal in
the criminal proceedings part. More information is available at www.domstol.se.
Page 2 of 2
www.domstol.se

Swedish Court Decision Re Telia Execs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Swedish Court Decision Re Telia Execs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

1

STOCKHOLM DISTRICT COURT JUDGEMENT Case no: B 12201-17

Prosecution from which the Defendant is being acquitted

Postal address Visiting address Telephone Telefax Office hours

ULTIMATE ORDER OF THE COURT

Prosecution from which the Defendant is being acquitted

ULTIMATE ORDER OF THE COURT

Prosecution from which the Defendant is being acquitted

ULTIMATE ORDER OF THE COURT

Forfeiture and seizure

STOCKHOLM DISTRICT COURT JUDGEMENT B 12201-17

STOCKHOLM DISTRICT COURT JUDGEMENT B 12201-17

STOCKHOLM DISTRICT COURT JUDGEMENT B 12201-17

As regards different determined public employment or assignments within the

STOCKHOLM DISTRICT COURT JUDGEMENT B 12201-17

STOCKHOLM DISTRICT COURT JUDGEMENT B 12201-17

STOCKHOLM DISTRICT COURT JUDGEMENT B 12201-17

In Uzbekistan telecommunications matters were formally managed by the

In 2006 three companies conducted telecommunications activities in Uzbekistan: Mobile Telesystems

STOCKHOLM DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT B 12201-17

MCT was an American investment company which provided mobile

TeliaSonera Aktiebolag3 (Telia) operated via its partly owned Dutch

STOCKHOLM DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT B 12201-17

had said they represented a group of local businessmen in Tashkent. Information

On 3 July 2007, Telia’s Board of Directors decided to approve the signing of an

On 4 July 2007, a partnership agreement was signed on cooperation and future

STOCKHOLM DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT B 12201-17

Karimova’s former husband, Rustam Madumarov, was behind this. Vimpelcom

Telia’s acquisition and implementation of the MCT transaction with regard to

STOCKHOLM DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT B 12201-17

Lars Nyberg took over as CEO of Telia in September 2007.

STOCKHOLM DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT B 12201-17

2.3 Subsequent review of the working relationship with the

On 11 February 2008, in an investigative report of Telia’s business operations in

In 2012 Behkzod Akhmedov fled from Uzbekistan to Russia since the

On 28 September 2012, Swedish prosecutors requested international mutual legal

Since the SVT program Assignment Review noted Telia’s business in

STOCKHOLM DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT B 12201-17

On 22 September 2017, the public prosecutor brought charges against Tero

3 JURISDICTION OF THE SWEDISH COURTS

if a crime is considered to have been committed, it is stated in Chapter 2, Section 4

STOCKHOLM DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT B 12201-17

4 THE PROSECUTION AND LEGAL ACTION FOR

STOCKHOLM DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT B 12201-17

2010 (points 1-5) together and in agreement, offered, promised, approved of

in the alternative it is claimed that Lars Nyberg (points 2 - 5) and Tero

STOCKHOLM DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT B 12201-17

that he himself has signed agreements. He has also participated in the

The criminal acts have been committed in whole or in part in Sweden.

A substantial portion of the bribery has gone to the Gibraltar-based

The offence is to be assessed as serious, due to that it collectively relates

1. BRIBERY, FELONY (Kivisaari and Tuohimaa) (0104- K156-12)

STOCKHOLM DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT B 12201-17

• Decision by TS UTA (subsidiary of TeliaSonera) sometime around

2. BRIBERY, FELONY (Kivisaari, Nyberg and Tuohimaa) (0104-K156-12)

3. BRIBERY, FELONY (Kivisaari, Nyberg and Tuohimaa) (0104-K156-12)

STOCKHOLM DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT B 12201-17

• Participated in/had direct/indirect insider knowledge of

4. BRIBERY, FELONY (Kivisaari, Nyberg and Tuohimaa) (0104-K156-12)

5. BRIBERY, FELONY (Kivisaari, Nyberg and Tuohimaa) (0104-K156-12)

STOCKHOLM DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT B 12201-17

4.2 Demand for the forfeiture of property in Case B 12203-17

As the primary allegation to Gulnara Karimova for her

STOCKHOLM DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT B 12201-17

In the alternative, to a civil servant/civil servants of the telecommunications

In the second alternative to Bekhzod Achmedov, in the performance of

The criminal acts have been committed in whole or in part in Sweden.