Norway's high-profile corruption trial of former industry leader Stein Lier-Hansen has entered a critical phase with his detailed testimony. Lier-Hansen stands accused of aggravated corruption and aggravated breach of trust related to his tenure at Norsk Industri, the Federation of Norwegian Industries.
The Defense Takes the Stand
From the witness box, Lier-Hansen offered a comprehensive defense of his actions. He directly addressed the charges concerning a co-defendant from Østlandet, whom prosecutors allege issued fictitious invoices. The prosecution has emphasized this man did not own a large enough property to offer commercial hunting, and therefore could not sell it.
Lier-Hansen countered this assertion. "When we bought services from him, it wasn't because we were going to carry it out on (the co-defendant's property)," he stated. "But I knew he had access to several hunting areas." He stressed the importance of this distinction for the court and expressed frustration with media portrayal. "The way this is being presented, the media will create headlines that are beyond any reality. It becomes difficult to get the full picture across."
"Everyone Who Wanted to Know, Could Have Known"
A central pillar of Lier-Hansen's defense is the claim that his methods were transparent within the organization. He pointed to hunting and fishing trips as long-standing, accepted tools for relationship building. "It is not credible that it was not known that I used hunting and fishing, and spent a lot of time on it, to build relationships," he told the court.
He made a bold, broader statement about organizational awareness: "Everyone who wanted to know, could have known." Lier-Hansen argued that both the board and employees at Norsk Industri were clear about how he worked. He supported this by referencing audit reports. "There were always clean audit reports. Every report from PWC began by stating there were no indications that the managing director had put pressure on controls or the accounting department."
Building Relationships for Industry Clout
Lier-Hansen outlined what he described as his primary tasks, distancing himself and his colleagues from the label of "wage generals" focused solely on pay negotiations. "Behind me stood a delegation with representatives from the companies," he explained. "It's not so simple that two people meet and hammer out a wage settlement. It took a lot of time, and we didn't do that in all kinds of pubs."
He framed his work as influential lobbying to ensure the best possible competitiveness and framework conditions for Norwegian industry. "That became a main task for me," he said. Lier-Hansen traced this methodology back to 2003, stating that his first relationship-building fishing trip occurred on the Namsen river and was initiated by his then-boss at the Process Industries Federation.
The Cost of Networking
He provided specific details about the early adoption of this strategy. "It cost 50,000 kroner for a day and a half, but then I understood that it was a working method that was apparently okay," Lier-Hansen testified. This experience, he said, led him to continue using hunting in connection with work. He stated he used areas he had access to on Hardangervidda without his employer being invoiced for it at that time.
His testimony attempts to establish a precedent and an accepted culture, suggesting these activities were not concealed but were part of a recognized, albeit expensive, professional toolkit. The prosecution's case hinges on proving these activities crossed a line into unlawful personal benefit or corrupt practices, allegations Lier-Hansen's testimony systematically denies by appealing to transparency and accepted business norms.
The Legal and Ethical Crossroads
The trial presents a fundamental clash between two interpretations of business networking. The prosecution views the expenditure on hunting and fishing through associates, and the associated invoicing, as a potential scheme for corruption and breach of trust. Lier-Hansen's defense constructs a narrative where these were not only known but were effective, audited, and justifiable investments in vital industry relations.
The statement "Everyone who wanted to know, could have known" is a calculated legal and rhetorical maneuver. It seeks to shift the burden from individual concealment to organizational oversight. If the methods were so visible, his defense implies, then the organization itself is complicit in sanctioning them, or at the very least, failing to prohibit them. This places the culture of powerful industry federations directly under the microscope.
The mention of clean PWC audits is another key defensive point, attempting to use the credibility of an external, major auditing firm to bolster his claim of above-board operations. The trial will likely delve into the precise scope of those audits and whether they were designed to catch the type of alleged misconduct now before the court.