1-6. Here, a victim of an ongoing crime in the Danish bank, Jyske Bank, writes to the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority 30-04-2019. and asks the supervisor for help.
The Authority refuses to help the victim who is forced to fight against the giant himself, and have his fraud / fraud case presented in the civil court by Lundgren’s lawyers.
The victim writes to Partner Dan Terkildsen for the first time on 30 January 2018. and asks for help in obtaining a large number of fraud allegations against the Jyske Bank Group, led by CEO Anders Christian Dam.
Unfortunately, the victim of the Danish bank’s fraud does not know that Jyske bank AS, subsequently February / March 2018, hires Lundgren’s lawyers for one million cases, presumably in return for Lundgren’s lawyers in return, and against Jyske Bank pays a return commission to Lundgren’s partner company, in order not to present the client’s, ie the victim’s fraud allegations against Jyske Bank AS.
Therefore, the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority does not know at this point 30-04-2019 that complainants are probably with a large Danish corrupt law firm, as the client does not at this time have any knowledge that Lundgren’s lawyers, have large financial interests with the Jyske Bank Group, and therefore Lundgren’s lawyers choose to damage the client’s case against Jyske bank AS.
When Lundgren’s many employees choose to keep this collaboration with the Management of Jyske Bank AS to the client, and Dan Terkildsen subsequently on 2 November 2018 chooses to hold a meeting with a board member Philip Baruch from Jyske Bank AS.
There very well himself, and together with Anders Dam he has been behind Jyske bank’s employment of Lundgren’s lawyers.
It is a fact that the client’s lawyers Lundgrens have been bought and paid for by the defendant Jyske Bank AS.
It is a fact that Lundgren’s lawyers hide this from the client.
It is a fact that Lundgrens does not present the client’s case to the court.
Although Lundgren’s Dan Terkildsen was employed to help the client present a case of fraud for millions against Jyske Bank, it became clear on 21 September 2019. It was clear to the client that Lundgren’s partner Dan Terkildsen directly opposed the client’s claims were presented to the court.
Lundgren’s client thinks back to a meeting 9-11 2018. where Dan Terkildsen tells the client that he has a good case, and Dan says the client’s car is good, knowing that what is on the car must be presented before it matters to the case in against Jyske Bank AS, and its Board of Directors.
But that Dan Terkildsen September 2019. then writes that he decides and does not present the client’s claims, then Lundgren’s lawyers by partner Dan Terkildsen are not worthy to be a lawyer.
It is a fact that Dan Terkildsen opposes the Danish constitution. § 64 and has opposed that a judge would be able to perform their work and judge according to the law, when the judges will not be able to judge according to the client’s claims and evidence, after which Dan Terkildsen and his disciples deliberately and evil withheld the client’s pleas with evidence before the court.