Section 104 of the Norwegian Penal Code

Section 104 of the Norwegian Penal Code was the provision used to frame the alleged conspiracy involving the group called Einsatzgruppe in 1997. It addressed collective efforts to disrupt social order or influence public affairs through illegal means; in this case, its application turned on disputed evidence about the group’s intentions, preparations, and access to weapons.

Scope and Penalties

The provision concerned participation in a conspiracy to “disturb the order of society or gain influence in public affairs by sabotage, use of force, or other illegal means.” The ordinary maximum sentence described in the account was two years. For grave offenses, the maximum could rise to six years.

The distinction between ordinary and grave offenses mattered to the authorities’ treatment of the alleged group. An armed unit would constitute a grave offense, so investigators had reason to establish whether the group possessed the weapons and capacity attributed to it. The provision therefore connected the alleged political purpose of the conspiracy to the practical question of whether its members could carry out violent action.

The 1997 Case

In April 1997, five young men were arrested at Hemnes, a small community 60–70 kilometers from Oslo. The arrests followed a police raid on the night of April 8; investigators reported uncovering further information about the group over the next three days. The case was presented publicly as involving a neo-Nazi group, and the allegations placed Section 104 at the center of the legal response.

Police said the group was a dangerous terrorist organization preparing attacks on Norwegian public figures. They pointed to lists containing private addresses of bishops, government figures, and Oslo police commissioner Ingelin Killengreen, which they characterized as death lists. The defense disputed that interpretation, arguing that the addresses were intended for sending propaganda. Investigators also cited a magazine article containing photographs of the figures’ homes and sketches of the military camp at Heistadmoen near Kongsberg, including the location of its arms depot. These materials formed part of the contested evidence about whether the group sought to influence public affairs by force or other illegal means.

Weapons and the Question of Severity

The inquiry also focused on the group’s weapons. Police had found shotguns and dynamite; a later raid uncovered a 7.62 mm military-style battle rifle, a pistol, another rifle, and an old Russian AK-47 Kalashnikov. Parts of a submachine gun were also reported, alongside rumors that further weapons existed. The account notes that the number of firearms held by Norwegian rightist groups was difficult to estimate, despite strict gun controls, and that automatic weapons could be obtained from National Guard depots. It also refers to small arms, explosives, anti-tank launchers, and hand grenades circulating in the Norwegian underworld.

Those findings were relevant not merely as evidence of possession but to the statutory distinction between an ordinary conspiracy and a grave offense. The police characterized the group as an armed force preparing violence; the defense offered a nonviolent explanation for at least some of the documentary evidence. The account records the allegations and the competing interpretations, but does not establish a final judicial finding under Section 104.

Significance in the Book’s Account

The case marks a shift in the book’s description of the relationship between black metal figures and organized political extremism. Before 1997, similarities between figures such as Varg Vikernes and extremist movements appeared largely in shared slogans and symbols; the account says this changed when Vikernes’s example began to inspire members of the revolutionary right. Section 104 supplies the legal frame through which the authorities treated the alleged group’s plans as a conspiracy to affect public affairs by illegal means, while the disagreement over the address lists illustrates how the same evidence could be read either as preparation for violence or as propaganda activity.