Two lawyers from the law firm Arntzen Grette who assisted Terje Rød-Larsen and Mona Juul with the controversial property transaction at Frogner in 2018 have, according to Advokattilsynet (the Supervisory Council for Legal Practice), violated the Anti-Money Laundering Act (hvitvaskingsloven).
The supervisory authority reviewed bank account statements, correspondence with the buyers and other documentation from the law firm, and believes that the case was handled in a highly deficient manner.
– The deficiencies are serious, particularly because the client was a politically exposed person (PEP) when the assignment commenced in March 2018, while there were also circumstances surrounding the transaction that indicated a need for closer investigation, the letter states, according to Advokatbladet.
Jeffrey Epstein functioned in practice as broker for the sale of the apartment in “Sverreslottet” at Drammensveien 42, and negotiated a price for Rød-Larsen and Juul that lay far below the market price.
After the transaction he attempted to extort the seller, shipowner Morits Skaugen Jr., for four million kroner, which he believed he was entitled to receive back after having participated in the financing.
The property transaction allegedly stands central in Økokrim’s corruption investigation against Juul and her husband.
Withdrew from complaints board
Document wrote on 7 February this year about lawyer Kåre I. Moljord, who was Rød-Larsen and Juul’s lawyer. E-mails from the Epstein archive show that he had extensive dialogue with Jeffrey Epstein about the transaction.
Two days later Advokattilsynet requested a written explanation from Moljord.
On the same day he withdrew as head of the Finanstilsynsklagenemnda (the Appeals Board for the Financial Supervisory Authority), a position he received in 2025.
In 2024 Moljord received an honorary award from the Norwegian Bar Association (Advokatforeningen), where he for a period served as head of seven regional disciplinary committees that worked particularly with sanctions against lawyers who cross the boundaries of legal professional ethics.
Rød-Larsens advokat fikk etikkpris og jobb for Finanstilsynet
The other lawyer who receives criticism is Moljord’s colleague, lawyer Erling Høyte. He was responsible for the financial settlement of the sale. The two colleagues’ assignment lasted from March to September 2018.
Lacked risk assessment
Høyte tells Advokatbladet that he had no particular reason to assume that the information provided to him by buyer and seller was incorrect.
In an e-mail from the Epstein archive Epstein writes that he would pay four million kroner, while Rød-Larsen was to pay ten according to the plan, and Skaugen the remaining four that were required in order to have a mortgage in DNB deleted.
In a letter sent to Arntzen Grette on Wednesday, the supervisory authority writes that the lawyers violated the requirement for customer due diligence in the 2009 version of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (hvitvaskingsloven), which applied at the time of the assignment.
It appears that the law firm itself informed the supervisory authority that it did not possess documentation fulfilling the requirement. No legally required risk assessment or classification could be presented. No separate case was created in the lawyers’ case management system, nor was any letter of engagement issued.
Questions Epstein’s role
In the letter the supervisory authority writes that “Jeffrey Epstein’s role in the case appears unusual and strange”. In the press copy of the letter the more detailed justification has been redacted.
– I accept criticism for the matters concerning case registration, engagement confirmation and insufficient documentation to which Advokattilsynet has pointed. The reality of the case is that there was no risk of money laundering, inter alia because I was aware that the entire settlement of the sale would go from Norwegian bank to bank, Moljord writes to Dagens Næringsliv.
Høyte is critical of the assessment.
– In the documents I have received from the settlement, there are no traces of Epstein or of foreign involvement. The entire purchase price came from the Norwegian bank Nordea, and it was entirely a loan, the lawyer says, according to DN.
He points out that Nordea had registered a mortgage bond (pantobligasjon) on the apartment corresponding to the purchase price, and therefore believes that no money-laundering risk existed.
Nevertheless, the supervisory authority criticises the fact that Høyte submitted the deed for registration, even though he had “good reason to assume” that it contained incorrect information regarding the document duty.
Both Moljord and Høyte have left Arntzen Grette. The management of the firm will not respond to inquiries.
Closes the case
Advokattilsynet has authority to impose sanctions and revoke licences to practise law, but chooses to shelve the case. It refers to the fact that “the circumstances lie relatively far back in time”, and that it is assumed that “both the individual lawyers and the firm have strengthened their routines, their understanding of risk and their compliance with the regulations” subsequently.
The prosecuting authority may initiate an investigation of breaches of the Anti-Money Laundering Act independently of the supervisory bodies’ assessments. Violations of certain provisions of the Act may be punished with fines or, under aggravating circumstances, with imprisonment for up to one year.
Slik drev Epstein utpressing av skipsreder etter Rød-Larsens eiendomskupp