![]() ![]() He then appealed the conviction at the Court of Appeal but was denied leave to appeal the case. The Stockholm District Court, therefore, found him guilty of illegally procuring alcohol products and sentenced him to a 50-day fine. The district court also did not consider that he should be released from liability on the grounds that he had received incorrect information. The Court further found that the owner having a different opinion than Systembolaget on how the provision should be interpreted does not mean that he lacked intent. Since he did not take any measures to discontinue operations after receiving Systembolaget’s letter he was considered to have been indifferent to the risk that the business was illegal. The Court found that the owner of the company was aware that there was a risk his company was breaking the law. ![]() Since the owner acted alone, controlled the business’s inflows and outflows and had the customers’ delivery fees at his disposal, his actions were covered by the criminal liability in the Alcohol Act and therefore he could be convicted of a crime. Due to this reason the company was violating the prohibition to access provision as per the Swedish Alcohol Law. The Court assessed that the company’s activities led to private individuals in this case the drivers receiving alcohol as an intermediary between Systembolaget and the paying customers. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |