Juicy Fields: Lawyer Olofsson Fails In Attempt To Get Zuckerberg In Front Of Swedish Prosecutors

Well who knew that so many people in Europe actually read Cannabis Law Report!!

We have on and off over the last 12+ months tried as openly as possible highlight what has happened and left many small investors bankrupt.

Swedish Lawyer  acting for a number of clients and specifically in this case  on behalf of Thomas Delbåge Lars Olofsson decided to test the waters with a legal move by hooking in the biggest fish, Mark Zuckerberg, as  an enabler via advertising carried on social media.

Court documents detail that he was unsuccesful in this approach

Luleå TR B 3533-22 Slutligt beslut (ej särskilt up_230516_080835



THE CASE Separate indictment (aiding and abetting aggravated fraud, etc.); now inadmissible. _____________

The District Court states the following. Lars Olofsson has filed a private lawsuit against Mark Zuckerberg on behalf of Thomas Delbåge. He claims to have filed the same charge on behalf of 473 other plaintiffs. The offenses alleged are aiding and abetting serious fraud or failing to disclose and prevent serious fraud.

The complaint also states that each of the plaintiffs is bringing an individual action against Mark Zuckerberg.

The court asks Lars Olofsson to supplement the statement of claim with, among other things, a certificate from the prosecutor’s office stating that the prosecutor’s office has dismissed the case. Public Prosecutor’s Office to be attached, stating that the Public Prosecutor’s Office has decided not to prosecute the alleged criminal offenses alleged in the complaint. Having reviewed the record in this case, the district court announces the following


The district court dismisses the complaint. Reasons for Decision The plaintiff may not prosecute an offense that is subject to public prosecution unless he or she has reported the offense and the prosecutor has decided that no prosecution will take place (see Chapter 20. 8 § Rättegångsbalken). If it is an offense that the injured party can only prosecute if the prosecutor has decided not to prosecute, a certificate stating that such a decision has been made must be submitted together with the application for summons (see Chapter 47, Section 2, Paragraph 4 of the Judicial Code). If a subpoena application is incomplete, the court shall request the aggrieved party to remedy the deficiency (see Chapter 47, Section 3 of the Code of Judicial Procedure). The application for summons shall be rejected if the plaintiff – despite being ordered to do so – fails to submit, inter alia, the certificate referred to in paragraph 4 of Section 2 of Chapter 47 of the Code of Judicial Procedure (see Section 4 of Chapter 47 of the Code of Judicial Procedure). If the injured party has also included an individual claim arising from the crime in the application for a summons and fails to remedy a defect in the application with respect to the liability claim, this should result in the application being rejected with respect to the individual claim as well (see Commentary on Section 4 of Chapter 47 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, JUNE. 4 of the Rules of Judicial Procedure, JUNO, updated as of October 1, 2022). Aiding and abetting aggravated fraud is a criminal offense subject to prosecution. Failure to disclose or prevent serious fraud, on the other hand, is under Swedish law. There is no specific provision in Chapter 9 of the Criminal Code stating that failure to disclose or prevent an offense is punishable under that chapter (see 23 Chapter 6 of the Criminal Code). Plaintiffs have not – despite request – submitted to the District Court a certificate stating that the prosecutor’s office has decided not to prosecute Mark Zuckerberg for aggravated fraud against them. them.

The complaint is therefore inadmissible. INSTRUCTION FOR THE COMPLAINT, see Appendix 1. A notice of appeal addressed to the Court of Appeals for Upper Norrland must be filed no later than January 9, 2022.

Primary Sponsor


Karma Koala Podcast

Top Marijuana Blog