Professors: How can they be judged

today, to determine whether Britta Nielsen's three children are going to make their mother company behind bars.

Nadia Samina Hayat (33), Karina Jamilla Hayat (36) and their brother, Jimmy Hayat (40) is charged for directly or indirectly receiving 51,3 million. crowns out of the 117 million. kr., as Britta Nielsen is judged to have defrauded the state treasury.

Jimmy Hayat is also charged with being in possession of child pornography material.

The three children are accused of rough handling of stolen goods after the penal code § 290, paragraph. 2. In the case of all three children maintained that they had no knowledge of the mother's fraud, but was convinced that the money came from the estate of their deceased father.

the Penal code section 290

§ 290. For receiving stolen goods is punishable with fine or prison until 1 year and 6 months, as unjustified receives or obtains, or any other part of the dividend, which is obtained by a criminal offence, and the unjust to hide, store, transport, help for the disposal or in a similar way to subsequent works to ensure a different outcome of a criminal offence, unless the relationship is covered by § 290 a.

the first Paragraph. 2. The penalty may increase to imprisonment of 6 years, when hæleriet is of a particularly serious nature in particular, because of the commercial or professional character, or as a result of the obtained or intended gain, or when a larger number of crimes are committed.

Show more Close

the Prosecution have also not been able to present a concrete evidence that the children have been aware of the fraud in the national board of social services. However, it is also not necessary to be judged according to professor of criminal justice at University of Copenhagen, Trine Baumbach.

She would not comment on the specific case, but like in general on the application of the criminal provision on the gross handling of stolen goods.

- It is, in essence, that the accused must either know something, find it more likely than not or also consider it possible that the money comes from one or other offence and that the accused then is accepting to it.

- thus, There is no requirement that the prosecution must prove that a defendant knew exactly what crime was committed. It, it is a requirement, is that which is acted intentionally - i.e. that the accused either have found it more likely than not, or that the defendant have considered it a possibility that the person you have been for example, money or thing of, have been disgraceful to the money or thing in connection with, the commission of a crime, she says.

Prosecutor: It's not rocket science

Specialanklager Kia's. Photo: Aleksander Klug.

In his closing procedure said specialanklager Kia Reumert, among other things:

- This is not a case against three children. It is a case against three adults, has been offered a life they would normally not have had the opportunity to live.

- It is not rocket science, that no matter how high a position you have held in public, will not have had the opportunity to have the high consumption in the family, Hayat has had.

- not Even a prime minister would have had the option.

- It is not a Hollywood family here, she said.

Show more Close

Conversely, Brittas children be acquitted, if it is succeeded the defenders to convince the judge that the children have acted out from that everything was in perfect order, points out the professor of criminal law Jørn Vestergaard.

- criminal Liability for receiving stolen goods does not necessarily, that the accused was aware of or considered it most likely that the values originated from a berigelsesforbrydelse.

- It may in the circumstances be sufficient to hæleriparagraffen were violated because the defendants didn't care if it hung together on the one way or the other. It is the form of intention, as in criminal law called dolus eventualis. If the court however finds that there was acted in the confidence that everything was in perfect order, must be dismissed. So the rating depends on whether there can be proof that the accused person took the risk in the bargain, he says.

the Children's defender: they must Therefore be dismissed

Karina Jamilla Hayats defense attorney Peter Secher. Photo: Anita Graversen

below you can see preview of what forsvarene for Britta Nielsen's children put emphasis on their final proceddurer.

A picture of Britta Nielsen with champagne for a hesteauktion, must judge and two lay judges forget about. It felt to Peter in the Books, which will have Karina Jamilla Hayat dismissed the action.

- you need to try to forget this image of Britta and put you in the children's place and hear their perception of her.

- She (Karina, red.) have known her, as all others have known their mother, Britta comforted her, changed her diaper, Britta was her familiar, says Peter Secher.

He says further, that the failure to find a witness, who wondered about Britta Nielsen's a lot of money or thought that Jamilla Hayat did it.

- They can't find a single witness, as sensed at Jamilla, she wondered, said Peter Secher.

the Prosecution requires Jamilla Hayat sentenced to a year and a half to two years in prison. Should Jamilla Hayat be condemned, argues Peter Secher, to a penalty of six months imprisonment would be appropriate.

Jimmy Hayats defender, Jan Schneider. Photo: Liselotte Sabroe/Ritzau Scanpix

Britta Nielsen spent his 40-year-old son as a purse strings in south Africa, believes Jan Schneider.

My assessment is that he should be used to save the money of the road.

- It was because she just thought of his own best and nothing else. She exploited the children totally selfish, " says Jan Schneider.

Jan Schneider can well understand, if the court will judge him for the transfers, and Jimmy did after his mother's admission during the exile in south Africa.

- I just ask that you are aware that you consider the situation in which he finds himself in south Africa. He is being chased by the press. His own world colliding. His mother is in south Africa and need help, he says.

Jan Schneider believes not that Jimmy Hayat can be convicted of possession of child pornography material, because Jimmy did not even had the computer and the hard drive with the material, when he arrived in Copenhagen Airport and was arrested in 2018

the Prosecution believes that the son must be punished with at least three years in prison. Jan Schneider believes that if Jimmy Hayat should be sentenced, should the sentence be served by remand.

Nadia Samina Hayats defender, Christian Bjerrehuus. Photo: Tariq Mikkel Khan

Christian Bjerrehuus criticized the prosecution for not having presented a single concrete proof that some of Britta Nielsen's children actually knew that their mother svindlede.

- You've gone so much into this case, in at least one case has bugged my colleague and written conversation out in totally clear violation of the code of civil procedure. Still have not found a single concrete evidence that the Brittas children knew that there was fiddled.

at the same time, he pointed out that it is controversial in that several professional parties had had the possibility, but never discovered Britta Nielsen's fraud.

- Foreign banks, national board of social services, Danish banks, accountants and auditors, SØIK and Tax so not something.

- When the professional bodies are not discovered the fraud, how the children had to do it, echoed the arguments of the Christian Bjerrehuus

the Prosecution believes that the court should punish Samina Hayat with between three and a half years and four years in prison.

Bjerrehuus will have her acquitted, but she should still be sentenced, he believes, to a penalty of between two and two and a half years imprisonment will be appropriate. He believes that it can be made conditional, so that she should not serve.

Show more Close

That fall, the judgment at.13 today by the Court in Glostrup. You can of course follow here on eb.dk, when judge Henrik Munkholm comes with the sentencing.