Cum‑cum and cum‑ex: accountability in court

The cum-cum investigation, part 4

On 5 January 2026, France’s financial prosecutor closed its investigation into HSBC Continental Europe. The following day, it signed an agreement with HSBC Bank plc providing for a €267.531 million public-interest fine. A Paris court approved that agreement on 8 January. Both outcomes appear in the same court order. They concern separate legal entities whose transactions received different treatment. Viewed through a banking brand, the news seems contradictory. Following the entities and the conduct resolves the apparent conflict. S01, pp.7-9

That distinction runs through the dividend-tax cases. A company can acknowledge facts and enter into an agreement without a criminal conviction. A defendant’s trial can end because of lasting ill health while a separate question about the recovery of alleged proceeds remains unresolved. A conviction in one country can coexist with the failure of civil recovery proceedings elsewhere. All of these situations feature in the cases examined here. S01 S10 S11 S12 S13 S14

Asking who paid is therefore only the start. Different proceedings address the alleged tax fraud itself, an intermediary’s handling of its proceeds, or a regulated firm’s inadequate controls. Their practical significance lies in the operative part of the decision: who it applies to, what it requires and which questions it leaves open. Appeals and evidence of compliance then have to be followed separately.

Two HSBC entities, two outcomes

The Paris approval order explains the HSBC Bank plc case beyond the headline amount. The conduct covered transactions between 2014 and 2019 involving its Paris branch. Investigators examined, among other things, the gap between where trading decisions were made and where the trades were booked. Their reconstruction of orders and approvals found that the Paris desk’s role could lack sufficient autonomy, even though booking the transactions in France enabled an exemption from dividend withholding tax. HSBC Bank plc acknowledged the stated facts. The prosecutor considered them capable of constituting aggravated tax fraud. S01, pp.6-7 S02

The evidential question went beyond the presence of an office in Paris. Investigators followed the initiation of trades, hedging decisions and approvals obtained before execution. An organisational chart describes a legal structure; orders and communications help establish how that structure operated in practice. The approval order brings those two accounts together. S01, pp.6-7

HSBC Continental Europe, or HBCE, followed a different path. After taking over the branch’s activities, it booked the transactions directly, without HSBC Bank plc’s involvement. The tax inspections described in the order produced no adjustments concerning HBCE’s market-making activities. The document then records the closure of the preliminary investigation into HBCE on 5 January 2026. That outcome concerns the investigation and activities specified. It should not be expanded into a general clearance of every transaction across the HSBC group. S01, p.7

For a reader assessing responsibility, the distinction matters as much as the fine. HSBC is a brand. HSBC Bank plc is the legal entity that entered into the agreement. Its Paris branch belongs to that entity. HBCE is another legal person. Assigning the same outcome indiscriminately to all three would change what the authorities actually decided.

Method and scope

S01, pp.7–9: HBCE inquiry closed on 5 January 2026; HSBC Bank plc agreement signed on 6 January and approved on 8 January. Agreed fine: €267,531,000. The order distinguishes the activities and legal entities. Legal diagram, without quantitative flows or loss ranking.

Acknowledging facts and entering into an agreement

Crédit Agricole CIB’s agreement, signed on 5 September 2025 and approved on 8 September, concerns a different potential offence: aggravated laundering of the proceeds of aggravated tax fraud. The investigation describes the bank’s repeated assistance in transactions involving the proceeds of tax fraud. CACIB acknowledged the stated facts and agreed to a public-interest fine of €88,247,869. The prosecutor’s announcement expressly leaves the criminal position of third parties, including individuals, outside the settlement. S03, §§39-41 S04 S05

Money laundering is often associated with cash being introduced into an ordinary business. The conduct described here is broader: facilitating the placement, concealment or conversion of criminal proceeds through capital-markets activities. The proposed classification captures the intermediary’s alleged place in the financial chain. In HSBC Bank plc’s case, the prosecutor’s proposed classification concerns aggravated tax fraud itself. Treating the two agreements as legally identical would erase that distinction. S03, §§39-41 S02

France’s convention judiciaire d’intérêt public, or CJIP, is a statutory settlement route for legal entities. It is often compared with a deferred prosecution agreement, but its effects must be read under French law. The prosecutor and the company agree on facts and obligations, then seek judicial approval. At a public hearing, the judge examines matters including procedural regularity and the proportionality of the measures. The approval is published. The company has ten days to withdraw, and fulfilment of the agreed obligations extinguishes the public prosecution against it for the covered facts. S01, pp.2-3 and 9 S06

The HSBC order also expressly states that approval involves no declaration of guilt and does not have the effects of a criminal conviction. Calling it a conviction for tax fraud would replace the actual instrument with a different judicial outcome. Describing it as an agreement, however, should not make the acknowledged facts, financial obligations or public record disappear. S01, p.9

The personal scope of the agreement is equally important. Legal representatives remain personally responsible where the law so provides, and CACIB’s settlement leaves third parties’ criminal positions unresolved. That does not establish that any particular individual will be prosecuted or convicted. It establishes a narrower proposition: settling the company’s position does not automatically resolve the position of everyone who worked for it. S01, p.2 S04

Method and scope

S01, pp.2–3 and 9; S04; S06: agreement for a legal entity, approval hearing, ten-day withdrawal period and obligations to perform. Performance extinguishes the public prosecution for covered facts; individuals’ own liability remains separate. The diagram explains the procedure and does not turn approval into a finding of guilt.

Cooperation in the calculation of sanctions

The agreements offer a view of how prosecutors construct financial sanctions. For CACIB, €49,026,594 represents the component intended to remove the assessed benefit from the misconduct, with a punitive component of €39,221,275. The first figure is tied to historical profit-and-loss data for the relevant business and the bank’s role in the transactions. It is not a measurement of France’s total cum-cum tax loss. S03, §§45-51

The agreement identifies factors that increased or reduced the response. Repeated conduct and inadequate compliance arrangements appear among the aggravating factors. Corrective measures, an internal investigation conducted in liaison with the financial prosecutor, active cooperation, prior payments to the tax authority and acknowledgment of the facts appear on the other side. Their publication allows scrutiny of the reasoning. It does not provide a universal tariff converting every act of cooperation into a specific discount. S03, §§48-50

Assessing the settlement means holding both sides of that calculation in view. The fine includes punishment beyond the benefit assessed in the agreement. Giving credit for cooperation can encourage the production of evidence that might otherwise be difficult to obtain. The amount, the time taken and the treatment of individual responsibility remain legitimate subjects of inquiry. A fuller assessment would require knowing which prosecution options were realistically available, how likely they were to succeed and what evidence the company supplied. The published record illuminates part of that judgment, rather than the whole negotiation.

Commitment and payment also need separate treatment. The HSBC announcement records €34,464,424 in tax, interest and penalties already paid for 2019, apart from the fine in the agreement. On 15 October 2026, a ministerial answer published by the French Senate confirmed, in general terms, payments of fines by several banks under CJIPs. It did not provide a bank-by-bank breakdown. That broader confirmation can be reported while preserving the precise nature of each amount in the individual documents. The absence of a separate payment receipt from this research is not evidence of non-payment. S02 S07, government answer

Germany: final convictions and the aggregate prison term

Convictions of individuals appear in other files, notably those involving cum-ex. The underlying distinction matters. Cum-cum seeks more favourable tax treatment around a dividend payment. Cum-ex schemes examined by ESMA include claims for refunds of withholding tax that was not paid as the claims imply. The structures and national laws vary. A German sentence for cum-ex does not become a conviction for the French conduct described above merely because the cases appear in the same investigation. S17, §§21-41

The operative part of the Bonn judgment of 13 December 2022 in the Hanno Berger case imposes eight years’ imprisonment and confiscation of proceeds in value of €13,666,999. The official text is anonymised; the identification is cross-checked against WDR’s reporting. In May 2026, WDR reported a further development, confirmed by the court: Berger’s two final convictions had been combined into an aggregate sentence of ten years. The date 12 May is the publication date of that report, not a verified date for the aggregation order itself. S08, operative part S09

This illustrates why a case chronology should continue beyond the initial verdict. Adding the sentences in reports of the two trials would produce a different number from the aggregate term imposed by the court. A sentence at trial, a final conviction and an aggregate sentence are distinct procedural stages. An order to confiscate proceeds must, in turn, be distinguished from money actually recovered.

Cooperation can also affect the response to individual wrongdoing. On 3 June 2025, the Bonn court sentenced Kai-Uwe Steck to one year and ten months’ imprisonment, suspended. The Federal Court of Justice rejected the prosecution’s appeal in a decision of 8 June 2026, 1 StR 35/26, leaving the sentence final. Its reasons describe the exceptional value of the defendant’s assistance: he explained the structures and roles, helped investigators pursue further cases and persuaded other participants to cooperate. The official decision is anonymised; dpa’s report of 8 July identifies Steck and the case. June is the date of the judicial decision, July the date of that report. S18, pp.2-3 S21

The French agreements and the Steck decision share a practical concern: the value of assistance that helps investigators obtain evidence. The comparison has limits. A corporate settlement and a prison sentence address different parties, offences and procedures. Their amounts and duration belong in the account of each case, alongside the reasons given for them. S03, §§48-50 S18, pp.3-4

Olearius: terminated proceedings and a separate confiscation case

Christian Olearius’s case exposes another boundary. His criminal proceedings in Bonn were terminated on 24 June 2024 because he was permanently unfit to stand trial. In its judgment of 18 March 2026, 1 StR 97/25, the Federal Court of Justice upheld that termination. It also overturned the refusal to address confiscation, transferred the case into independent confiscation proceedings and sent it to a different chamber of the Bonn court for examination. The official judgment records both outcomes. S10 S11, operative part and §12

The property proceedings therefore survive the end of the criminal trial. The judgment left the Bonn court to determine whether confiscation should be ordered; the remittal itself establishes no recovery. Olearius’s guilt was left undetermined in the terminated proceedings. His lawyer invoked the presumption of innocence and argued that substantial tax payments had already been made. That position belongs to the defence and is reported as such. S10 S11, operative part and §§45-48

The distinction has practical consequences. A finding about a person’s ability to stand trial determines whether the criminal case can proceed. Independent confiscation has its own procedural requirements and requires a separate decision about the assets. The BGH’s judgment preserves that route while leaving its outcome for the lower court to decide. S11, §§25 and 45-48

Method and scope

S08 and S09: eight years imposed in Bonn in 2022, followed by a ten-year aggregate term reported by WDR in May 2026. S18 and S21: Steck’s suspended sentence, prosecution appeal rejected by the BGH on 8 June 2026, identification checked against dpa on 8 July. S10 and S11: termination of Olearius’s trial and transition to independent confiscation with remittal. S12 and S19: Shah’s first-instance sentence and the Danish appeal schedule reported by Ritzau on 13 August 2026. Terms do not form a comparable severity scale across these cases.

Shah: a prison sentence in Denmark and civil litigation in London

Sanjay Shah was sentenced to twelve years’ imprisonment by the Glostrup court on 12 December 2024 in a cum-ex refund case. Reuters reported an immediate appeal. On 13 August 2026, Danish news agency Ritzau reported that his criminal appeal was scheduled to begin in November 2026, with a judgment expected in May 2027. That timetable is attributed to the August report; the first-instance sentence remains the documented verdict at this article’s research cut-off. S12 S19

In London, Denmark’s tax authority suffered a setback on 2 October 2025 in civil proceedings against Shah, his fund and other defendants, reported by Reuters as a £1.44 billion action. The court’s official press summary records the rejection of the claims against defendants who contested liability, despite the invalidity of the underlying refund claims. SKAT had to establish the legal elements of its civil causes of action, including that the alleged misrepresentations induced it to pay. The judge found that its extremely weak checking system meant that inducement had not been proved. Those findings concerned proof of reliance in the pleaded case. S13 S14

The result also requires a qualification about the defendants. Syntax GIS Ltd’s liability had already been established by a default judgment; the court made a separate monetary award against it. Describing every claim against every defendant as rejected would erase that outcome. The three-page judicial summary supplies this distinction, while a detailed analysis of the individual causes of action would require reading the full main judgment. S14

The appeal history has moved on since that judgment. On 14 November 2025, the trial judge gave reasons for refusing permission to appeal. Ritzau subsequently reported on 13 August 2026 that SKAT had pursued an appeal and that the London hearing was scheduled for 9 to 16 March 2027. The November refusal by the first judge and the later appeal timetable are successive procedural events. Meanwhile, the Danish criminal appeal and the London civil appeal address different judgments and remedies. S20 S19

Supervisors also act on control failures

Mako Financial Markets Partnership LLP followed a fourth route. In a Final Notice dated 17 February 2025, the Financial Conduct Authority imposed a sanction for inadequate controls and diligence concerning business introduced by the Solo Group. The financial penalty was £1,662,700, including £1,137,283 in disgorgement of the assessed benefit. The findings concern the FCA’s Principles 2 and 3. They are not a criminal conviction for tax fraud. S15, §§1.1-2.2

The calculation makes the settlement mechanism visible. The regulator separates removal of the benefit from a punitive component. Its 30% settlement discount applies to the latter, leaving disgorgement unchanged. The figure below reconstructs the published calculation and its final rounding. S15, §§6.4-6.26

Method and scope

S15, paragraphs 6.4–6.26, printed pp.52 and 55–56: £1,448,345 revenue − £311,062 fees = £1,137,283 disgorgement. Published Stage 4 punitive component: £750,607; after discount: 750,607 × 0.70 = £525,424.90. Sum: £1,662,707.90, rounded down by the FCA to £1,662,700. The £7.90 difference comes from this rounding. Calculations use published nominal pounds; no exchange-rate conversion or later cash collection is assumed.

The distinction between trading volume, intermediary revenue and tax losses matters here. Each measures something different. The FCA assessed Mako’s own failings in controls and diligence, then used the benefit it calculated and its penalty framework to set the sanction. The result concerns those findings against that firm; attributing a client’s suspected fraud requires its own evidence and legal assessment. S15, §§2.2-2.6 and 6.4-6.26

Reading only the final total also conceals the objectives behind it. Removing the assessed benefit neutralises an advantage; a punitive component adds a further consequence. Those purposes can coexist within a single payment. They should remain separate when the public response is evaluated, just as tax recovered and fines remain distinct in the French agreements.

Daniela P.: allegations admitted for trial

Developments in 2026 also concern whether allegations proceed to trial. WDR reported that, in a decision of 10 August covered on 14 August, the Cologne Higher Regional Court admitted the case against a Hamburg tax official identified as Daniela P. The allegation concerns assistance to tax evasion in the Warburg affair. Her lawyer disputes the allegations and the interpretation of her involvement. The full admission order was not obtained for this research. S16

Admission allows the accusation to be examined at trial; it leaves the issue of guilt to be decided. Including the development tracks the range of responsibilities being scrutinised, including within the administration, without anticipating a verdict. No subsequent verdict concerning this person has been verified here.

The same discipline applies to banks named in older reports of searches. An investigative action records a particular stage at a particular date. Establishing the later position of a legal entity requires following subsequent decisions. The cases selected here illustrate those changes and distinctions; they form a documented selection rather than an exhaustive account of the European proceedings.

Following responsibility beyond the headline amount

The French agreements set out acknowledged facts, financial obligations and the limits of the settlements’ personal scope. The German decisions explain how final sentences and independent confiscation develop after a trial. Shah’s cases show how punishment and civil recovery can follow different courses, each with its own appeal. The reasons given in these documents allow scrutiny of the authorities’ choices: the weight assigned to cooperation, the conduct addressed and the remedies pursued. S01 S03 S11 S14 S18 S19

The harder question is how far those decisions achieve their purpose. Answering it means tracing compliance with the agreements, the outcome of appeals and confiscation proceedings, and the examination of individual responsibility. Published decisions give that inquiry a firm starting point. A fuller account of effectiveness also needs evidence of execution and recovery, tied to the relevant person, case and obligation. That is the standard on which a public assessment can be built. S01, p.9 S07 S11 S19

---

Method and limitations

This documentary investigation draws on the decisions and accounts listed below, consulted on 27 October 2026. It includes the favourable findings and defence positions available in those sources. The official BGH decisions concerning Olearius and Steck were obtained. For the London civil case, the three-page official press summary was read in full, together with selected reasons in the trial judge’s 14 November 2025 decision refusing permission to appeal; the full main judgment was not read. The full Danish criminal judgment was not obtained. The 2026 appeal timetables are attributed to Ritzau’s report of 13 August and remain reported schedules. No new interviews or requests for comment were conducted, and individual evidence of subsequent compliance was not obtained. Dates of judicial acts, reports and future scheduled hearings are kept distinct.

Terms used in this article

Legal entity: an organisation with a legal personality distinct from its employees and directors. Branch: an establishment of an enterprise, here belonging to HSBC Bank plc rather than constituting a separate company. Public prosecution: criminal proceedings brought on behalf of society under the relevant legal system. Value confiscation: an order for an amount corresponding to the value of criminal proceeds, distinct from actual recovery. Suspended sentence: a sentence whose execution is suspended under the applicable conditions; the conviction and the execution of the sentence are separate matters. The effects of foreign procedures must be read in the cited decisions, rather than assumed to match an English or French label exactly.

Earlier instalments

• The dividend mechanism and sharing of the tax advantage.
• Warnings and tax challenges before the 2018 scandal.
• Tax loss estimates and France’s fiscal bill.

Sources

The notices identify the passages read, the dates of the decisions and the documentary limits of each case.

1. S01 · Tribunal judiciaire de Paris · 2026-01-08 · Accessed: 2026-10-27Ordonnance de validation de la CJIP HSBC Bank plc
   Passages and scope

   pp.2–3: legal framework; pp.6–7: facts and HBCE; pp.8–9: reasons and order. RG 01-2026; prosecutor reference 21 351 000 065.

   The cited pages were read as images. HBCE closure on 5 January is reported in the 8 January order. The order does not itself establish subsequent compliance.

2. S02 · Parquet national financier · 2026-01-08 · Accessed: 2026-10-27Communiqué relatif à la CJIP HSBC Bank plc
   Passages and scope

   Single page: agreement on 6 January, approval on 8 January, fine and 2019 tax payments.

   The prosecutor reports €34,464,424 in tax, interest and penalties already paid. €267,531,000 is the agreed fine. No later individual payment receipt was obtained.

3. S03 · Parquet national financier / Crédit Agricole CIB · 2025-09-05 · Accessed: 2026-10-27Convention judiciaire d’intérêt public Crédit Agricole CIB
   Passages and scope

   Paragraphs 38–61, printed pp.6–8 (PDF pp.7–9): classification, acknowledged facts, fine components and payment schedule.

   The cited pages were read visually. Acknowledgment of the facts and the agreement are distinct from a criminal judgment.

4. S04 · Parquet national financier · 2025-09-08 · Accessed: 2026-10-27Communiqué relatif à la CJIP Crédit Agricole CIB
   Passages and scope

   Single page: signing and approval, €88,247,869 fine, combined total and treatment of third parties.

   The stated €134,432,437 combined amount already includes the fine. Third parties and individuals remain outside this settlement.

5. S05 · Tribunal judiciaire de Paris · 2025-09-08 · Accessed: 2026-10-27Ordonnance de validation de la CJIP Crédit Agricole CIB
   Passages and scope

   Heading: RG 138-2025; prosecutor reference 21 349 000 655; entity and date.

   Only the heading was consulted visually. Figures and reasons rely on S03 and S04; no claim is made to have read this order in full.

6. S06 · Ministère de la Justice · 2026-09-17 · Accessed: 2026-10-27Conventions judiciaires d’intérêt public : présentation et registre
   Passages and scope

   Explanation of the framework and entries for CACIB and HSBC Bank plc.

   17 September 2026 is the displayed update date, not a date of a court act. This register is not a comprehensive list of convictions or investigations.

7. S07 · Ministère de l’Action et des Comptes publics / Sénat · 2026-10-15 · Accessed: 2026-10-27Réponse à la question écrite n°07856, Contrôle des arbitrages de dividendes
   Passages and scope

   Government answer, Journal officiel du Sénat p.4975: tax assessments and payment of CJIP fines.

   Question: 26 February 2026; answer: 15 October; page updated: 16 October. Aggregate confirmation of payments gives no entity-by-entity breakdown.

8. S08 · Landgericht Bonn / portail judiciaire NRW · 2022-12-13 · Accessed: 2026-10-27Jugement du 13 décembre 2022, 62 KLs - 213 Js 116/20 - 2/20
   Passages and scope

   Operative part of Bonn judgment 62 KLs – 213 Js 116/20 – 2/20: three offences, eight years, €13,666,999 value confiscation.

   Official anonymised judgment. The public identification is cross-checked against S09. The 2022 sentence must be read alongside the later aggregate term.

9. S09 · WDR / tagesschau, Massimo Bognanni · 2026-05-12 · Accessed: 2026-10-27Hanno Berger : peine globale de dix ans confirmée par le tribunal de Bonn
   Passages and scope

   Published 12 May 2026 at 14:38: final convictions and a ten-year aggregate sentence; court confirmation obtained by WDR.

   The exact date of the aggregation order was not obtained. 12 May is the reporting date. A European Court of Human Rights application is also reported, without a later outcome established here.

10. S10 · Legal Tribune Online, avec dpa · 2026-03-18 · Accessed: 2026-10-27BGH-Urteil: Olearius droht Einziehung von Cum-Ex-Gewinnen
    Passages and scope

    Judgment 1 StR 97/25: termination upheld and confiscation remitted; defence position.

    Legal reporting checked against the official judgment obtained (S11). The position on tax payments is attributed to defence lawyer Peter Gauweiler. Confiscation amounts with different scopes are omitted.

11. S11 · Bundesgerichtshof · 2026-03-18 · Accessed: 2026-10-27Urteil vom 18. März 2026, 1 StR 97/25
    Passages and scope

    Operative part, p.4 and paragraphs 1–13; paragraphs 25, 30 and 45: termination, transition to independent confiscation and remittal to another Bonn chamber.

    Official PDF obtained. Operative part and selected paragraphs read, with pp.4 and 7 visually checked. Judgment dated 18 March 2026 despite the URL’s 2025 directory. It establishes neither guilt nor a final confiscation award.

12. S12 · Reuters, Isabelle Yr Carlsson et équipe · 2024-12-12 · Accessed: 2026-10-27Briton gets 12 years’ jail in Denmark for cum-ex tax fraud
    Passages and scope

    Glostrup judgment of 12 December 2024: twelve-year sentence and immediate appeal.

    Full Danish judgment not obtained. Contemporary reporting of the verdict; the appeal schedule reported in August 2026 is covered by S19.

13. S13 · Reuters, Sam Tobin et Kirstin Ridley · 2025-10-02 · Accessed: 2026-10-27Danish tax authority loses $1.9 billion London cum-ex tax fraud case
    Passages and scope

    Civil judgment of 2 October 2025, £1.44 billion action, reported reasons and SKAT’s intention to appeal.

    Contemporary reporting checked against court summary S14. Sterling is retained instead of the headline dollar conversion. Appeal developments are updated through S19 and S20.

14. S14 · High Court of Justice, Commercial Court · 2025-10-02 · Accessed: 2026-10-27Skatteforvaltningen v Solo Capital Partners: Press Summary, [2025] EWHC 2364 (Comm)
    Passages and scope

    Official three-page summary, read and visually checked in full; paragraphs 4–10: contested claims, representations and reliance, and the Syntax GIS exception.

    The summary states that it is not part of the judgment and that the full reasons alone are authoritative. The main judgment was not read in full here. Syntax GIS was already subject to default judgment; an award remains distinct from collection.

15. S15 · Financial Conduct Authority · 2025-02-17 · Accessed: 2026-10-27Final Notice: Mako Financial Markets Partnership LLP, FRN 231157
    Passages and scope

    Paragraphs 1.1–1.2, 2.2 and 6.4–6.26: breaches, disgorgement, discount and rounding.

    Official PDF obtained; selected paragraphs and calculations read, printed pp.52 and 55–56 visually checked. Discount applies to the punitive component; final total rounded down to £100. Principles 2 and 3 findings are distinct from criminal fraud liability. A payment deadline is not a receipt.

16. S16 · WDR / tagesschau, Massimo Bognanni · 2026-08-14 · Accessed: 2026-10-27Hamburger Cum-Ex-Affäre kommt nun doch vor Gericht
    Passages and scope

    Cologne Higher Regional Court decision of 10 August 2026, reported on 14 August: trial admission and defence response.

    Full admission order not obtained. The partially published identification, Daniela P., is retained. No later outcome verified; admission is distinct from guilt.

17. S17 · ESMA · 2020-09-23 · Accessed: 2026-10-27Final Report on Cum/Ex, Cum/Cum and withholding tax reclaim schemes, ESMA70-155-10272
    Passages and scope

    Paragraphs 21–41, pp.11–13: mechanisms, variety of arrangements and national legal assessments.

    Selected text and rendered pp.11–13 read. Working definitions and national legal differences: the label alone does not establish a transaction’s legal classification.

18. S18 · Bundesgerichtshof · 2026-06-08 · Accessed: 2026-10-27Beschluss vom 8. Juni 2026, 1 StR 35/26
    Passages and scope

    Pages 2–3: rejection of the prosecution appeal, one year and ten months suspended, and exceptional assistance to the investigation.

    Official four-page PDF obtained; pp.2–3 visually checked. Anonymised text: Kai-Uwe Steck’s public identification is checked against S21. The decision date is 8 June; 8 July is the dpa reporting date.

19. S19 · Ritzau / DK Nyt · 2026-08-13 · Accessed: 2026-10-27Danmarks erstatningssag mod Shah og co. berammet til foråret
    Passages and scope

    London civil appeal reported for March 2027; Danish criminal appeal reported for November 2026 to May 2027.

    Schedules reported on 13 August 2026 and attributed to that report. Scheduling orders and full Danish judgment not obtained; the dates establish no appeal outcome.

20. S20 · High Court of Justice / The National Archives · 2025-11-14 · Accessed: 2026-10-27Skatteforvaltningen v Solo Capital Partners, [2025] EWHC 2979 (Comm)
    Passages and scope

    Paragraphs 1–15 and 35–39: scope of dismissal, affected defendants and the trial judge’s reasons for refusing permission to appeal.

    Selected passages of the official text read. The trial judge’s refusal leaves a route to seek permission from the Court of Appeal; the 2026 development is reported in S19. It is not treated as final rejection of all appeals.

21. S21 · dpa / Mittelhessen · 2026-07-08 · Accessed: 2026-10-27Cum-Ex-Kronzeuge kommt nicht ins Gefängnis
    Passages and scope

    Kai-Uwe Steck’s identification, rejection of the prosecution appeal by the BGH and finality of the suspended sentence.

    Names the person in anonymised court text S18. 8 July 2026 is the dpa publication date, not the date of the BGH decision of 8 June.