Enhanced Monitoring Report on the Implementation of the Standard on Transparency and Exchange of Information on Request 2026 Update (June)

Denmark

(Adopted by the Global Forum in June 2026)

Denmark joined the Global Forum in 2009. Denmark underwent its Second Round of EOIR Peer Review in 2017 (Denmark’s 2017 Report),1 which assessed its legal and regulatory framework in force as at August 2017 and its practical implementation, including in respect of EOI requests received and sent during the review period from 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2016. Denmark received an overall rating of Largely Compliant and the individual Elements were rated as follows:

 

	A.1	A.2	A.3	B.1	B.2	C.1	C.2	C.3	C.4	C.5	Overall
Determinations	i.p.b.	i.p.	i.p.b.	i.p.	i.p.	i.p.	i.p.	i.p.	i.p.	n.a.	LC
Ratings	PC	C	PC	C	C	C	C	C	C	C

Status of implementation of recommendations issued in the peer review report

Denmark received eight in-box recommendations in relation to Elements A.1, A.3 and C.5. Denmark also received five in-text recommendations pertaining to Elements C.1, C.2 and C.3. Denmark had submitted a detailed report indicating that it had fully addressed all in-box recommendations. In 2023, the Peer Review Group of the Global Forum assessed the actions taken by Denmark to address the in-box recommendations issued in its EOIR Peer Review Report and concluded that those recommendations are “considered addressed in the context of the monitoring process (subject to a peer review)”. The Global Forum had agreed that jurisdictions that have been permitted by the Peer Review Group to stop reporting on the actions taken to address the recommendations issued to them under the Methodology for the Second Round of EOIR Reviews will have their individual jurisdiction report published as part of the enhanced monitoring report under the first round of enhanced monitoring, to indicate the progress that they had made to address the recommendations given to them, and that they are no longer required to submit self-assessment reports on the recommendations made in their peer review.

This monitoring report presents the actions taken by Denmark to address the in-box recommendations issued in its EOIR Peer Review Report as considered and accepted in 2023. It also assesses the actions taken by Denmark to address the in-text recommendations and the peer input received for the monitoring period 2023-2024.

The report concludes that in addition to all the in-box recommendations, one in-text recommendation is also “considered addressed in the context of the monitoring process (subject to a peer review)” while four in-text recommendations are “no longer sufficiently material”.

Element A.1: Availability of ownership and identity information

1. Availability of beneficial ownership information

 

Recommendation (A.1, framework)	Denmark is recommended to ensure that beneficial ownership information in accordance with the international standard is available.
Underlying factor	The Beneficial Ownership Act contains several ambiguities the interpretation for which may not be in line with the international standard. First, the record-keeping requirements of the Act relate to documentation of the attempts by an entity to identify its beneficial owners and not to the documentation of the identity of the beneficial owners. Second, the Act permits an entity to fail to identify its beneficial owners but does not clearly elaborate on when this is acceptable. Finally, the Act lacks guidance on what constitutes reasonable measures in identifying beneficial owners. Although these concerns are mitigated by AML rules where applicable, the scope of AML coverage in Denmark cannot be quantified as most entities are not required by law to engage an AML-obliged service provider. (see paragraphs 112 et seq. of Denmark’s 2017 Report for more information)
Summary of actions reported	In order to remedy the ambiguity in the record-keeping requirements regarding beneficial ownership information, the wording of the record-keeping provision was amended with bill 205, which entered into force on 10 January 2020. Bill 205 amended the Act on Limited Companies and Private Limited Companies (PPLCA)- selskabsloven, Certain Commercial Undertakings Act (CCUA), the Commercial Foundations Act and various other acts. Accompanying explanatory notes further clarify that it is all the obtained information when identifying beneficial owners that must be kept and not limited to information on beneficial owners. If the entity concludes that it has no beneficial owners or that the beneficial owners cannot be identified, documentation of what the entity has done in its attempt to identify beneficial owners must also be recorded. This is stipulated in the explanatory notes of bill 205, for instance Section 1 (4) regarding PPLCA Section 58 a (5). In this case, the entity will record its senior managing officials. It is now described both in the explanatory notes to the act and in the Guidance on Beneficial Ownership (item 6) that the requirements regarding identifying beneficial ownership need to be addressed via the cascade model. This implies that all the companies, foundations and associations covered by the beneficial ownership rules have beneficial owners who must be registered. Hence, in the case that no beneficial owner could be established via ownership or control, this failure will lead to the registration of the senior day-to-day management to be registered as a beneficial owner. Denmark clarified that the management of a corporate or other legal entity, i.e. the board of directors, is a profession, which can only be exercised by a natural person. Accordingly, the information required under the last step of the cascade model, i.e. a natural person holding the position of senior management, would be available, which is in conformity with the standard. The explanatory notes to the act implementing the registration of beneficial owners (as well as the Guidance on Beneficial Owners (Section 8)) include now elaborate details and guidance on what constitutes reasonable measures to identify beneficial owners. Section 8 of the Guidance on Beneficial Owners has a whole Chapter on describing reasonable measures to identify beneficial owners. The Guidance lists examples for sources which need to be investigated while identifying the beneficial owner. Importantly, the Danish authorities check the situation of companies that report having failed to identify their beneficial owners
Conclusion	Denmark has taken comprehensive actions to address the recommendation and is no longer required to report. Denmark has clarified prior ambiguities by amending the Beneficial Ownership Acts as well as provided further guidance in the accompanying explanatory note and the Guidance on Beneficial Owners. These amendments have been implemented in practice, and their implementation monitored.
Status determined	Considered addressed in context of the monitoring process (subject to a peer review)
Actions required	No immediate actions required

2. Monitor implementation of legal provisions for ownership information of bearer shares

 

Recommendation (A.1, practice)	Denmark is recommended to monitor the implementation of new legal provisions requiring the registration of minor possessions of bearer shares.
Underlying factor	Legal provisions requiring the registration of owners of bearer shares holding less than 5% of the share capital or voting rights were recently enacted and their implementation could not yet be fully assessed. (see paragraphs 152 et seq. of Denmark’s 2017 Report for more information)
Summary of actions reported	Since 1 July 2015, it has not been possible to issue new bearer shares and there is no longer an exemption for owners of bearer shares holding less than 5% of the share capital or voting rights to not be registered. Additionally, owners and acquirers of existing bearer shares cannot exercise the rights of an owner unless they are registered in the IT system of the Danish Business Authority or they have notified their holding of bearer shares to the company. The monitoring of these new legal provisions shows that by August 2020, 52 companies have registered bearer shares (including approx. 65 natural persons, who have registered their bearer share holding). This constitutes 0.15% of the total number of public limited companies in Denmark, which could previously issue bearer shares (52 companies out of approx. 33 700 companies). It is important to note that since 2014 all legal owners of companies (with or without bearer shares) with significant shareholding (over 5%) were already obliged to be registered in the Information Technology system of the Danish Business Authority. Given that companies were struck off from the company register if no ownership information on all significant shareholding was provided, it is highly likely that those 52 companies, which registered bearer shares, constitute the whole population of remaining bearer share issuers. Additionally, Denmark noted that since the bearers of existing bearer shares must make themselves known to the company to be able to exercise their rights, Denmark further assumes that those public limited companies that have registered information on bearer shares, de facto constitute the total population of companies with existing bearer shares. The Danish Business Authority noted that it will monitor the compliance of companies that issued bearer shares through its spot checks. These checks generally cover all entities that are obliged to register beneficial ownership information (which includes the public limited companies which have issued bearer shares). The Danish Business Authority examines that if the company has issued bearer shares, its ownership information has been registered correctly. However, so far in no spot check of a public limited company were bearer shares discovered. Furthermore, the Danish Business Authority stated it is looking into the possibility of completely abolishing the remaining bearer shares.
Conclusion	Denmark has taken comprehensive actions to address the recommendation and is no longer required to report.
Status determined	Considered addressed in the context of the monitoring process (subject to a peer review)
Actions required	No immediate actions required

3. Accurate and up-to-date beneficial ownership information

 

Recommendation (A.1, practice)	Denmark is recommended to ensure that information collected pursuant to the Beneficial Ownership Act is accurate and current.
Underlying factor	At the time of the review, although new legal provisions requiring the maintenance and submission of beneficial ownership information had entered into force, Denmark had not yet envisioned a plan of oversight. Further, questions remain as to the accuracy of information collected by entities that are not subject to AML regulations and how such information will be updated. (see paragraphs 140 et seq. of Denmark’s 2017 Report for more information)
Summary of actions reported	The Danish Business Authority has implemented a comprehensive plan to ensure that the information registered about an entity’s beneficial owner(s) is accurate. Measures include the following: Danish Business Authority’s Information Technology solution with automated checks: An IT system makes an immediate and automatic check of the information that is registered into the Central Business Register. Several checks are automatically conducted by the system, including an automated address validation of the beneficial owner covering both domestic and foreign addresses, automated information letter send to the beneficial owner, as well as passport checks. Spot checks: they are carried out on a risk-based approach, focusing on ownership in low-tax jurisdictions, or other high-risk jurisdictions, and where companies have submitted that they cannot identify their beneficial owners. A spot check is mainly focused on reviewing the documentation that the entity has stored. If the documentation or the efforts made are not sufficient, the entity can be compulsory dissolved. Discrepancy reporting: As of 10 January 2020, AML-obliged persons conducting customer due diligence and competent authorities can consult the central register and are required to report to the DBA any discrepancy between beneficial ownership information available in the central register and the beneficial ownership information available to them. AML-obliged persons are not legally obliged to consult the beneficial ownership information in the central register. However, in practice because all the relevant information is registered in the central register, Denmark considers that AML-obliged persons will almost always extract transcriptions from the register, which include the registered beneficial ownership information. Depending on the type of entity subject to the discrepancy reporting, the relevant authority must then take actions to resolve the discrepancies. The relevant authority can either be the Danish Business Authority, the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority- Finanstilsynet, or the Department of Civil Affairs - Civilstyrelsen. As of 23 September 2022, 2 057 discrepancies have been reported to the Danish Business Authority. Sanctions: There are three main types of administrative sanctions, which the Danish Business Authority can impose on entities that are required to register their beneficial owners: administrative fines, compulsory dissolution or striking off. Between 16 July 2018 and 1 August 2021, 736 cases related to entities registration of beneficial ownership information have been carried out, and some are still pending. As a result, 17 entities that had registered beneficial owners, have been compulsory dissolved in 2020 due to a lack or documentation of their efforts made to identify their beneficial owners, or merely due to insufficient efforts to identify their beneficial owners (in 2019, 23 entities were compulsory dissolved for the same reasons). Mandatory annual updating of beneficial ownership information: The mechanism includes a requirement for corporate and legal entities to at least once a year screen the beneficial owner information registered in the Central Business Register and, if necessary, update the beneficial owner information. With the Beneficial Ownership Act, it was already a requirement to carry out an annual investigation, but this was clarified with bill 205, which also introduced requirements for presenting the results of this investigation on the meeting where the annual report is approved by the board of directors.
Conclusion	Denmark has taken comprehensive actions to address the recommendation and is no longer required to report.
Status determined	Considered addressed in the context of the monitoring process (subject to a peer review)
Actions required	No immediate actions required

4. Strengthening supervision of availability of legal and beneficial ownership

 

Recommendation (A.1, practice)	Denmark is recommended to more rigorously supervise legal requirements pertaining to ownership information and to exercise its enforcement powers where necessary.
Underlying factor	Over the review period, no supervision of entities’ record keeping obligations took place. In particular, authorities admitted that the record-keeping requirements of partnerships were not subject to oversight by any regulatory authority. Further, failure to enter legal ownership information upon registration was not punished over the review period. (see paragraphs 173 et seq. of Denmark’s 2017 Report for more information)
Summary of actions reported	Denmark has informed that the Danish Business Authority’s supervision of legal entities and related enforcement measures have been intensified inter alia through the spot-checks, which inspect whether all required documentation is kept by relevant entities. The increased supervision also applies to entities registering legal ownership information. It is no longer possible for an entity to be registered without registering legal ownership information. Likewise, it is no longer possible for an entity to un-register ownership information without being automatically sanctioned if not rectified through registering all required ownership information within four weeks. To address the issue of existing entities that failed to enter legal ownership information upon registration (they were approx. 7 500 entities in September 2017), the Danish Business Authority had sent them letters and notices, notifying their management that, should registration deficiencies remain unrectified, they will be sent to the probate court for compulsory dissolution. The management was provided with a final 14 days to submit the required information. End of November 2017 approx. 2 500 entities had still not registered legal ownership information, which resulted in them being compulsorily dissolved in the period of December 2017 – February 2018. The Danish Business Authority has strengthened its supervision of legal entities and related enforcement actions notably through spot-checks that verify whether required documentation is properly maintained by relevant entities. To cover gap of failure to register legal ownership information, Danish Business Authority has sent letters and notices to management to rectify deficiencies, otherwise a compulsory dissolution process with probate court may be initiated. Nevertheless, partnerships and limited partnerships are included in spot-checks and risk-based audits from Danish tax Agency to ensure these entities keep correct beneficial ownership information and adequate documentation about beneficial owner(s).
Conclusion	Denmark has taken comprehensive actions to address the recommendation and is no longer required to report.
Status determined	Considered addressed in the context of the monitoring process (subject to a peer review)
Actions required	No immediate actions required

Element A.3: Availability of banking information

5. Availability of banking information for all relevant entities and arrangements

 

Recommendation (A.3, framework)	Denmark is recommended to ensure that banking information, including information regarding the beneficial owners of accounts, is available for all relevant entities and arrangements.
Underlying factor	The definition of beneficial ownership as relates to trusts and foundations (under AML) does not cover all beneficiaries, only “particularly favoured beneficiaries”. (see paragraphs 234 et seq. of Denmark’s 2017 Report for more information)
Summary of actions reported	The amended AML Act no longer refers to “Specially favoured persons”. It now includes the wording “special beneficiaries”. Denmark notes that the wording of “special beneficiaries” of foundations, trusts and other legal arrangements does not intend to narrow down who can be considered beneficial owners and should be understood as provided under the AML Directive and the FATF standard. The wording “special beneficiaries” has been chosen with foundations in mind. In Danish foundations, the assets of a foundation are irrevocably separated from the settlor and the power of access must be in the hands of an independent management. Furthermore, Danish foundations typically have very broad distribution purposes of a public-interest or non-profit nature. There may be individuals who receive an amount once in their lives (distribution recipients) but have no control or ownership-like relationship with the foundation in general. The wording “special beneficiaries” should facilitate to include only those persons who have such importance and influence in relation to a foundation that they must be registered as beneficial owners, without capturing persons who receive an amount once in their lives without having any other relation with the foundation in general. Additionally, regarding Commercial Foundations, the board of directors must always submit a register of any recipient of grants from the foundation during the financial year to the foundation authority before the submission of the annual report of the foundation to the Danish Business Authority. Accordingly, the Danish authorities have a list of all recipients of grants from the foundations, which would also capture those recipients, who do not qualify as “special beneficiaries”. With regard to trusts, Denmark stated that same wording has been chosen in provisions, stipulating the general definition of beneficial owners of a trust or other legal arrangement, to use same wording in Danish legislation. Danish Business Authority believes all beneficiaries are covered under the wordings in the AML Act. Nevertheless, Denmark reported that the Danish Business Authority and Danish Financial Supervisory Authority are looking into possibility of amending “special beneficiaries” to “beneficiaries”. Denmark further noted that in the supervisory activities conducted by the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority, the correct identification of all beneficiaries as required under the standard is reviewed, when Customer Due Diligence documentation of trusts and foundations is reviewed. Additionally, the Danish Business Authority, being both the registration authority for foundations and trusts as well as their supervisor, ensures that the definition of special beneficiaries is not narrowed down in practice through carrying out the registration manually. In this context, a check is carried out as to whether the information notified, including special beneficiaries, matches the documents received. Accordingly, the Danish Business Authority controls inter alia the statutes, the trust deed, the list of all the recipients of grants, and the registered information through a risk-based and theme-based approach. Correct registration of beneficial owners in foundations and foreign trusts is part of the Danish Business Authority's ongoing supervision and the controls further ensure that the definition of special beneficiaries is not narrowed down in practice. Since banks consult the central register and are required to notify discrepancies, the supervision conducted by the Danish Business Authority further strengthens that the Beneficial Ownership definition for foreign trusts and foundations is applied correctly in practice.
Conclusion	Denmark has taken comprehensive actions to address the recommendation and is no longer required to report. Based on the details provided by Denmark, it appears reasonable, that the wording "special beneficiaries" will not limit the scope of beneficiaries as beneficial owners of trusts, foundations and legal arrangements. Denmark further showed that in practice adequate supervisory measures facilitate that the qualification of "special beneficiaries" does not inhibit the identification of all required beneficiaries under the standard.
Status determined	Considered addressed in the context of the monitoring process (subject to a peer review)
Actions required	No immediate actions required

6. Ensure effective application of third-party practices and AML provisions

 

Recommendation (A.3, practice)	Denmark is recommended to monitor new legal provisions relating to third party reliance (introduced business).
Underlying factor	Over the review period, rules allowing banks to rely on the CDD and KYC of third parties were not sufficiently rigorous. Information collected by third parties was not required to be made immediately available to the relying institution. Since June 2017, Denmark has a new AML law that strengthens introduced business requirements, but such provisions are too new for their application to have been assessed. (see paragraphs 240 et seq. of Denmark’s 2017 Report for more information)
Summary of actions reported	The Danish Financial Services Authority examines whether the obliged entities have procedures and policies in place for customer due diligence being carried out in accordance with the AML Act - which covers also the information obtained from a third party. Section 22 (1), nos. 1-3 of the AML Act stipulates that the third party must be subject to AML requirements equivalent to the requirements of the EU 4th Anti-Money Laundering Directive and that the third party is subject to supervision to ensure that it complies with the regulation. Additionally, the AML Act states that the information collected by third parties is required to be made immediately available on request (Section 23 (3)) and, that, in any event, the responsibility stays with the obliged entity/relying institution (Section 23 (4)). Against this background, compliance with these requirements is part of the checks performed in a Danish Financial Supervisory Authority inspection. Prior to an inspection, the obliged entity is asked to provide the DFSA with its policies and procedures, which should include information on how the CDD is carried out in case of third-party reliance. To ensure that the obliged entity carries out adequate CDD in practice, the DFSA asks the obliged entity to provide a full list of their customers. Based on the list, the DFSA selects, both randomly and specifically, customer samples with the aim of determining whether the obliged entity in practice complies with the obligations in the AML Act, such as carrying out sufficient CDD procedures and a risk assessment of the customer. The number of samples depends on how many customers the obliged entity has. The number of on-site inspections of the approximately 100 banks located in Denmark were 14 (2018), 15 (2019), 16 (2020) and 18 (2021). Only in one case, the DFSA is aware that an entity was relying on third parties. The entity uses brokers (third parties) to acquire customers. Some of these brokers also conduct CDD procedures, while other third parties only refer customers to the entity. Denmark noted that identity and beneficial ownership information was available in this case.
Conclusion	Denmark has taken comprehensive actions to address the recommendation and is no longer required to report.
Status determined	Considered addressed in the context of the monitoring process (subject to a peer review)
Actions required	No immediate actions required

7. Supervision of banking sector

 

Recommendation (A.3, practice)	Denmark is recommended to implement a more rigorous system of oversight of its banking sector.
Underlying factor	Denmark has a fairly large banking sector in terms of assets. During the period under review, the FSA had only four staff in the unit responsible for AML supervision of banks and conducted only ten on-site inspections over a three-year period. Further, serious AML violations were identified, but in only two cases (of repeat offences) were disciplinary actions taken. Among the AML violations identified were those relating to customer identification, record-keeping and correspondent banking. (see paragraphs 250 et seq. of Denmark’s 2017 Report for more information)
Summary of actions reported	Denmark has strengthened its system of oversight of the banking sector through various measures. In 2017, the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority established a separate AML/CFT division and increased the number of employees from an average of 3.5 employees in 2017 to 20 full time equivalents in 2020. As a result of the increase in resources, the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority has significantly increased its number of inspections (see the number of bank inspections in para 65). Whereas the Round 2 Report mentioned that during a three-year period only 10 on-site inspections were conducted in total, now between 2018-2021, 63 on-site were conducted in total. A new level of fines has been implemented, increasing fines for larger entities up to 700% compared to the previous level. Furthermore, the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority can now levy administrative fixed penalty notices. The minimum level of a fine depends on the net turnover of the entity. These fines, levied at the entity level, do not prevent applying sanctions to natural persons (including directors and management). Denmark further noted that the new sanction regime aims to create a greater correlation between the fixing of sentence and the coarseness of the offence, considering the size of the entity. When assessing the gravity of the offence, the duration, frequency, and the gravity of the offence is considered. Since 2017, the DFSA has considerably increased the number of sanctions issued to AML-obliged persons and reports made to the police. Since 2015, the DFSA has issued 705 orders to AML-obliged persons for various violations of the AML Act.
Conclusions	Denmark has taken comprehensive actions to address the recommendation and is no longer required to report.
Status determined	Considered addressed in the context of the monitoring process (subject to a peer review)
Actions required	No immediate actions required

Element C.5: Effective exchange of information

8. Provision of status updates

 

Recommendation (C.5,practice)	Denmark should provide status updates in all cases where requests take longer than 90 days to fulfil.
Underlying factor	The competent authority did not provide status updates in all cases of requests taking longer than 90 days to answer. (see paragraphs 345 et seq. of Denmark’s 2017 Report for more information)
Summary of actions reported	The procedure to send status updates has been improved since 1 January 2018 through detailed measures. Accordingly, Denmark indicated significant improvement in EOIR statistics post-review period. The rate of status updates after the review period of 1 July 2013 – 30 June 2016 rose sharply, from 9% to 93.75%. Denmark further provides that where status update was not sent within 90 days, a reply was sent shortly after expiry of 90 days.
Conclusions	Denmark has taken comprehensive actions to address the recommendation and is no longer required to report.
Status determined	Considered addressed in the context of the monitoring process (subject to a peer review)
Actions required	No immediate next steps. In its next self-assessment, Denmark should provide updated statistics on timeliness and status updates for the corresponding monitoring period, according to paragraph 29 of the Enhanced Monitoring Methodology.

EOIR experience

Over the monitoring period 2023-2024, Denmark received 509 requests and sent 828 requests. Germany, Norway and Poland were the top three partners in respect of incoming requests. Lithuania, Norway and the United Kingdom were the key partners in respect of outgoing requests. Denmark reported providing full and final responses in 98% of all the requests received and indicated only 2% as pending.

Seventeen members provided peer input on Denmark. Peers reported general satisfaction in respect of their EOIR experience with Denmark. However, one peer indicated status updates are sent “sometimes” but not in all cases. Denmark acknowledged that status update was not provided in one case due to oversight, while in two other cases, the requested information was provided shortly after the 90-day period; thus no failure to the standard is identified. The matter was considered resolved bilaterally.

Status of in-text recommendations

Denmark has taken necessary actions to address the five in-text recommendations made in its 2017 Report. Since the issuance of the Report, none of the issues pertaining to these in-text recommendations have had more than a negligible impact on EOIR in practice. Based on the actions taken by Denmark to address these in-text recommendations and the absence of change in the materiality of the identified issues, one of the five in-text recommendations is considered addressed in the context of the monitoring process (subject to a peer review) while four are considered no longer sufficiently material.

New developments having a bearing on the EOIR standard

Denmark has reported that while the Competent Authority of Denmark previously managed the full workload pertaining to EOIR independently, external support from auditors outside of the Competent Authority has been introduced in response to (i) the growing volume of incoming and outgoing requests over the years, and (ii) changes in staff. This dedicated group of auditors handles parts of the collection of information. The Competent Authority continues to assume formal handling of responses and responsibility over all tasks.

Next steps

The eight in-box recommendations and one out of five in-text recommendations made in the 2017 Report of Denmark are “considered addressed in the context of the monitoring process (subject to a peer review)’’ while four in-text recommendations are considered “no longer sufficiently material”. The following next steps are expected from Denmark:

• Denmark is exempted from reporting on these recommendations in its next self-assessment in 2028.

• Denmark must, nevertheless, continue submitting a self-assessment report under the enhanced monitoring process to

  • report any new domestic developments (legal, administrative or any judicial pronouncement) that may have a bearing on the implementation of the EOIR standard in the self-assessment report,

  • report statistical information on its EOIR experience during the monitoring period.

  • provide a response on any other matter having a bearing on the EOIR standard when specifically requested.

• Further, Denmark’s response on any issues with broader implications on compliance with the standard, raised in peer input, will continue to be sought under the enhanced monitoring process.

• Denmark must report actions to address any future recommendations pertaining to the EOIR standard that may be issued to it under the Global Forum’s monitoring and review processes.

Views/response of the monitored jurisdiction

Denmark agrees with the conclusions of the report and would like to express its appreciation for the constructive cooperation with the Global Forum secretariat and the assessment panel.

Note

← 1.  OECD (2017), Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes: Denmark 2017 (Second Round): Peer Review Report on the Exchange of Information on Request, Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264283732-en.