Former boss: It was unusual, but not fraud

Late Tuesday afternoon, the questioning of a former senior official of Kommuneqarfik Sermersooq reaches the most important question in the case:

Has the accused man abused his position at the municipality to favor a company owned by family members?

The accused was a manager in a relevant area during a period from 2021-2022, when the municipality was supposed to have new agreements for cleaning in place.

The prosecutor's claim is that he committed fraud and abuse of authority to ensure a favorable outcome for a cleaning company owned by the man's sister and brother-in-law. It is a different sister than the one mentioned in a previous report about a paid trip.

The prosecutor presents an email in which the accused manager addresses a minor disagreement about cleaning. The email was sent from a person from the ASK school in Nuuk who is dissatisfied with the cleaning.

However, the defendant asks the complainant to stop the harassment and send an apology to the cleaning company. This is the cleaning company that the sister owns.

Rejects unfair treatment

The prosecutor's purpose in showing the email is of course to substantiate the claim that the then municipal manager has his family's interests in mind in his work for the municipality.

Are you writing that email as the manager of the municipality or as a brother, the prosecutor asks.

– If the email says “brother”, the defendant asks back and adds:

– It’s not about my sister’s company. It’s about the fact that it’s a contract supplier that we have a good working relationship with. I would have written the same thing if it were someone else.

The tender for cleaning tasks in question was divided into several sub-tasks. The company owned by the defendant’s sister and brother-in-law won some of them, but not all of them.

Another company offered to do it cheaper. Here, the prosecutor’s claim is that there was cheating involved on the defendant’s part.

Other reasons for refusal

The prosecutor points out that it seems that the conditions for the tender were shaken up along the way. Among other things, it was about whether the municipality or the company should provide equipment. Various meetings were held.

According to the indictment, the cheapest company could have done it 390,000 kroner cheaper. But according to the defendant, there were good reasons why this company did not win anyway.

– The assessment was that they could not handle the tasks. They were even cheaper than those who had won the contracts six years earlier and who could not make it work, said the defendant.

The prosecutor presents a score report that forms the basis for the decision on who should carry out the tasks. Companies are measured on various parameters such as economy, quality, working environment and implementation, which help to determine who wins a tender round. However, in the presentation, it appears that economy is not taken into account. The defendant has no idea why.

– I simply do not know. I do not know why points were not given for economy, he says.

At the same time, he acknowledges that something in the process has not gone quite according to the book.

– I know the Public Procurement Act very well, and I have told the investigators throughout the process that they can charge me with violating the Public Procurement Act. I will be ready to acknowledge that.

But he still denies that he committed fraud and put his sister's interests above the municipality's, as the prosecutor claims.

The former municipal manager is also asked whether the then municipal director, Lars Møller-Sørensen, pointed out any problems with impartiality in the procedure. Møller-Sørensen did not, the defendant answers in court.