Expert Witness Journal Issue 65 February 2026 - Flipbook - Page 63
he should be putting the case for SKAT. I concluded,
with regret, that he has become compromised by the
nature and extent of his involvement for SKAT in its
global litigation e昀昀ort, such that he 昀椀nds it di昀케cult
not to think and express himself as an advocate for
SKAT’s position. He has, I think, lost detachment
from the partisan interests of SKAT as his instructing
client, and that left me unhappy to accept views of
his that, on analysis, were genuinely matters of expert
opinion where his views were not shared by at least
one of Mr Sharma or Mr Bird.“
Outcome
The Judge ruled that the 4,170 tax refund claims
were valid under Danish law. After examining all
the evidence, it was concluded that SKAT had not
been misled by any “misrepresentation” from the
Defendants into making the payments. The Judge
noted that whilst greed had undoubtedly played a
part in the Defendants’ actions, this did not mean
that what they had done was misleading or outside
of what was permitted under the legislation at the
time.
In paragraph 398.
It was concluded that the situation had arisen
due to the Danish tax authority’s controls for the
assessment and payment of dividend tax refund
claims being “so 昀氀imsy as to be almost non-existent”.
This lack of regulation had allowed these schemes
to 昀氀ourish. The Judge added that the Defendants
were “able to and did help themselves to a fortune because
SKAT’s processes were so limited”. The conclusion being
that insu昀케cient legislation and controls were at fault
here, rather than the Danish government being the
victim of fraud.
“
In Mr Sharma’s case, my concern was less pronounced.
There was in his case an unwelcome tendency, in
writing, to fail to express quali昀椀cations or set out a
complete expression of his view, such that the absence,
or narrowness, of any real di昀昀erence of expert opinion
between him and Mr Wade was obscured, and the
impression might have been gained from reading
his reports that there was nothing at all unusual or
contrary to typical market practice about the Maple
Point Model trading (which was Mr Sharma’s focus).”
Setting an example
Next steps
It was noted that SKAT e昀昀ectively had “unlimited
resources” in the pursuit of this matter, being backed
by a sovereign state. It was clear that there was
a desire to “set an example to the world” that such
actions would not go unchallenged. The case was
also described as being “politically as well as 昀椀nancially
motivated”. Nevertheless, despite such vast resources,
the Judgment has been an indisputable victory for
Mr Shah and the other Defendants.
SKAT was quick to issue a statement that they plan to
appeal this decision and that they “strongly disagreed”
with the outcome of the case. They are no doubt
encouraged by the decision in the US in February
2025, where a US jury awarded $500 million to SKAT
following the 昀椀rst US civil trial over cum-ex trades.
Simultaneously, Mr Shah, who is currently serving
twelve years in prison following a successful parallel
criminal conviction by the Danish authorities, has
stated that he intends to appeal this conviction, in
Whatofseems
clear is in
that
is not the end of this
view
the outcome
thisthis
case.
Expert Evidence
There were a number of Expert Witnesses called to
give their views on the principles involved in the case.
Professor, Dr.Jur Frederik Waage gave unchallenged
expert evidence on the fact that the nation state of
Denmark is a constitutional monarchy. Only SKAT
put in expert evidence from a forensic accountant,
Mr Jens Ringbaek of Deloitte Denmark, whose
evidence was also unchallenged.
What seems clear is that this is not the end of this
particular
be very
What seemslegal
clear saga
is thatand
thisitis will
not the
end ofinteresting
this
to see how both of these appeals progress.
[2025] EWHC 2364 (Comm)
References
1
- www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2025/2364.html
However others came in for severe criticism where
Mr Justice Baker said in paragraph 397.
“
All three experts, in di昀昀ering ways, did not provide
properly balanced written reports, unin昀氀uenced by
the fact that they were instructed, respectively, by
SKAT (Mr Wade), the DWF Ds (Mr Sharma), and
the Shah Ds (Mr Bird). This was most evident in the
case of Mr Wade, much of whose written work was
argument rather than expert evidence. Regrettably,
in my view he carried into his oral evidence the
same tendency and approach, to think 昀椀rst of how
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
Skatteforvaltningen v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025]
EWHC
23642364
(Comm)
(02 October 2025)
[2025]
EWHC
(Comm)
Expert Evidence
Limited
Expert
EvidenceInternational
Limited
36 Old Park Avenue
London SW12 8RH
36 Old Park Avenue
Telephone:
London
SW12+44
8RH20 7884 1000
Mobile: +44 7769 707020
www.expert-evidence.com
Mobile:
+44 7769 707020
61
FEBRUARY 2026
