Application of law and sentence for providing false information to the Brønnøysund Registers

Justices: Indreberg, Kallerud, Ringnes, Østensen Berglund, Steinsvik

The penalty for one incident of aggravated VAT fraud, contribution to five incidences of national insurance fraud and a number of violations of the Accounting Act, as well as violations of section 166 and section 182, cf. section 181 of the 1902 Penal Code, was two years and nine months of imprisonment. The reason for the penalty for violation of section 166 of the 1902 Penal Code was that the defendant had given false information in coordinated register notifications to the Register of Business Enterprises and the Central Coordinating Register for Legal Entities as to who were board members and general managers in six limited companies that were owned and operated by himself. The persons registered in these positions were merely straw persons. In addition, annual accounts had been submitted and signed by these straw persons. The Supreme Court found that in order to be covered by section 166 – currently section 221 of the 2005 Penal Code – it was sufficient that the false information was intended to be included as a natural part of the decision-base for the public authority's execution of tasks. There was thus no doubt that information provided in coordinated register notifications to the Register of Business Enterprises and the Central Coordinating Register for Legal Entities, as well as in annual accounts sent to the Accounts Register, constitutes information "intended to serve as evidence". Section 166 and section 182 cf. section 181 protect different interests and were applicable in cases of multiplicity of offences (idealkonkurrens). During sentencing for violation of section 166, emphasis was placed on considerations of general deterrence with regard to ensuring that the Brønnøysund Register Centre has correct information. The reaction should generally be a short immediate sentence for one false register notification alone. The case concerned a total of 25 false notifications and accounts for six companies over a period of three and half years. A suitable level for this was thus seven to eight months of imprisonment. The starting point for an aggregate sentence was around three years. A small deduction was granted for lengthy proceedings.