The trial, which begins in Ångermanland District Court, will last for 15 days.

It will be a classic eco-crime trial with lots of accounting and invoices to show what the prosecutor wants to prove, namely that it was a cheeky multimillion coup with the purpose of favoring the all Swedish club Östersunds Fotbollsklubb, ÖFK.

The set-up

Ultimately, it all boils down to one thing. Was the construction job carried out in the Norr district of Östersund corresponding to the amounts of the invoices for which the Sollefteå entrepreneur was paid, or not?

The prosecutor has come to the conclusion that it did not. According to the indictment, 54 invoices are untrue and the work was never performed.

The prosecutor also claims that Daniel Kindberg was sitting on double chairs when he directed the payments.

invoice Carousel

When ÖFK needed money, Kindberg, then as chairman of ÖFK, contacts the Sollefteå entrepreneur who sends a scam invoice that is approved and paid for by the Peabman.

He in turn sends an invoice to Östersundshem where Kindberg as CEO lets it pass through.

The money to the Sollefteå entrepreneur is then sent to ÖFK as sponsorship.

During several years

All three keep their mutual contacts secret. Since Kindberg and Peabman are primarily in key positions in their companies, the arrangement is made possible for several years. Östersundshem and Peab now demand to get their money back - just over SEK 20 million.

Although Daniel Kindberg has been designated as the spider in the network and the one who created the arrangement, the Sollefteå entrepreneur will be central to the trial.

He is the one who is billed and who should have performed the contracting jobs that were invoiced and in the spring he presented new evidence in the case that would show that he has hired companies in Russia and Spain to perform jobs in the Norr district in Östersund.

Evidence contested

The payments must have been made in cash and even if the evidence was questioned by the police forensics, they form the basis of the Sollefteå entrepreneur's claim that the jobs he invoiced were also performed.

He and his two co-defendants refuse a crime.