The lawyer who was in dialogue with Jeffrey Epstein and assisted the married couple Rød-Larsen/Juul with their controversial property transaction received an honorary prize last year and was appointed chair of the Financial Supervisory Authority’s Complaints Board.

The former owner of the prestigious apartment at Drammensveien 42 in Oslo, shipping magnate Morits Skaugen Jr., says he was threatened by Epstein into selling at half the presumed market value.

Emails in the Epstein archive show that when lawyer Kåre Idar Moljord (72) wrote to Epstein noting that Nordea wanted information about the origin of the purchase sum, Epstein replied: “Careful.”

“Yes,” Moljord responded.

In another email to Moljord, Epstein described the tactic he planned to use on Skaugen: that he would “tighten the noose slowly.”

Law professor Sverre Blandhol told Dagens Næringsliv (DN) that if a lawyer knows someone is using threats and coercion to obtain for a client something they have no right to, it is “highly likely” a violation of Rule 1.3 of the Rules for Proper Lawyer Conduct (on objective and correct behaviour).

“That could expose the lawyer to criminal liability for complicity in extortion,” says Blandhol, who lectures in ethics at the University of Oslo’s Department of Public and International Law.

– Appeared relieved

Having served for many years as head of the Bar Association’s disciplinary committee—earning the moniker “disciplinary general”—Kåre I. Moljord received Oslo krets’ honorary award for 2024. The prize, per its rules, goes to those who have “particularly contributed to raising the standing of the legal profession.”

“Kåre I. Moljord has made an exceptional effort in this area and is a thoroughly qualified and deserving recipient,” said Trygve Staff, chair of Oslo krets, during the award ceremony.

Last year, Finanstilsynet also named Moljord chair of the Financial Supervisory Authority’s Complaints Board. The Ministry of Finance says it had no knowledge of Moljord’s involvement in the deal.

“Epstein’s phrasing is down to him, but I observe that Skaugen emailed Epstein post-meeting, seeming relieved and describing it as a ‘good conversation’,” Moljord told DN.

“M” and “T”

On 9 April 2018, two days after what Morits Skaugen experienced as a dramatic meeting with Epstein in Paris, Moljord wrote to Epstein outlining further progress in the real estate transaction.

Here he made it clear that any potential loan from “M” (code name for Morits Skaugen Jr.) to “T” (Terje Rød-Larsen) would need to be secured, but not with a charge on the apartment. This was allegedly to “avoid future problems”.

Reacts to handling

Law professor Blandhol reacts to how Moljord dealt with questions about the origin of the funds.

“If you assist in a transaction where a significant sum comes from a source reluctant to disclose its origin, it will highly likely be a suspicious transaction that must be reported regardless of client confidentiality.”

Jeppe Normann from the Lawyers’ Act Committee reminds us of the obligation to report suspicions about the source of funds to Økokrim (Norway’s Authority for investigation and prosecution of economic crime).

Here he made it clear that any loan from “M” (the code name for Morits Skaugen Jr.) to “T” (Terje Rød-Larsen) had to be secured, but not with a mortgage on the apartment. Apparently, this was to “avoid future problems”.

Reacts to handling

Law professor Blandhol reacts to Moljord’s handling of questions about the origin of the money.

If you assist in a transaction where a significant amount of money comes from a source that refuses to disclose its origin, it will most likely be a suspicious transaction that must be reported regardless of the duty of confidentiality.

Jeppe Normann from the Lawyers’ Law Committee reminds us of the duty to report to Økokrim in the event of suspicions about the origin of the money.

The former diplomat claimed that the option was still valid in 2018, due to an oral agreement.

Skaugen was initially negative, but according to Moljord, the email exchange shows that he nevertheless formulated conditions for a sale at NOK 14 million, allegedly because he wanted to help Rød-Larsen.

– Good routines

Moljord denies to DN that the money transaction with Epstein was problematic.

The law firm had good routines for carrying out property transactions and there was no uncertainty about the origin of the money.

The lawyer notes that there is no consistency between Skaugen’s new statements that he did not sell the apartment voluntarily and the fact that he has also emphasised that it was “a completely ordinary transaction with full settlement” in line with ordinary practice in Norway.

Senior advisor Cecilie Skjennald at the Ministry of Finance will not draw conclusions based on the media coverage of the case.

Document has submitted the article to Kåre Moljord for comment.