Purposeful assessment rules and expanded distance assessment
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
SD supports the government's proposal to raise sales prices on seized property, faster debt restructuring, and increased confidence in the enforcement system 1. SD considers that expanded remote enforcement strengthens the possibility of securing assets against organized crime and that modernized sales forms benefit both creditors and debtors 1. SD argues that a cohabitant's income should be taken into account in wage garnishment 1. S supports the majority of the bill but opposes that cohabitants should receive an indirect financial responsibility for debts through a statutory proportionality principle 2. S considers that the debtor themselves should bear the debt 3. M supports the streamlining of remote enforcement to counter criminal economy 4. M considers that modern sales forms are reasonable modernizations that can raise sales prices 4. M considers that the bill does not involve any changes in reality regarding wage garnishment when the cohabitant has debts 4. M argues that the costs are distributed proportionally according to income and that it is a reasonable arrangement 4. M considers that wage garnishment should be based on a realistic assessment of the household's actual economy 4. M considers that the changes strengthen both efficiency and legal certainty 4.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Rashid Farivar (SD)
Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Civil Affairs' report on the Government's Proposition 2025/26:224 Purposeful auction rules and expanded distance auctioning, which aims to ensure that a higher selling price for auctioned property can be achieved, that more debts are paid faster, and that confidence in the enforcement system shall increase.
We in the Sweden Democrats support all of the government's proposals for legislative changes in points 1–6 of the bill. I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision and rejection of the follow-up motion from the Social Democrats as well as the reservation that the Social Democrats and the Green Party have submitted.
Madam Speaker! A functioning society is built on the basis that agreements are kept and that debts are paid. If the person who is entitled to compensation – it could be entrepreneurs, private individuals, or crime victims – cannot receive payment, there is a risk that confidence in the entire justice system will be eroded.
At the same time, the seizure procedure is an intrusive tool. Therefore, it must be effective, legally secure, and adapted to today's society. This is precisely what the government's bill is about.
An important part of the proposals is to expand the possibility of so-called remote seizure. Today, it is an effective tool for identifying and securing property. Through the proposal, more law enforcement agencies will have the opportunity to assist the Enforcement Authority, including the Swedish Customs, the Coast Guard, and the Economic Crime Authority.
This is important for several reasons. It strengthens the possibility of quickly securing assets before they disappear. It means that more creditors get paid. But it is also a step in the work against organized crime.
Criminals should not be able to hide assets or live well on proceeds from crime while evading payment liability. Not least, this can strengthen the possibility for crime victims to actually receive the damages they are entitled to.
Madam Speaker! The bill also contains modernizations of how seized property is sold. Today, some rules may be outdated and lead to property being sold at a lower price than necessary. Therefore, it is proposed that properties should be able to be sold through, for example, e-auctions and that condominiums should be able to be sold to a greater extent through private sale via, for example, real estate agents.
It is not about technical details for their own sake. If a residence or other property can be sold for a higher price, everyone involved benefits. The creditors get a greater opportunity to get paid, but the debtor also benefits because a higher selling price can mean that a smaller remaining debt remains after the sale. It is simply a matter of creating a more purposeful system.
Madam Speaker! The Government also proposes that the principle of proportionality and the principle of the best interests of the child shall be clearly written directly into the Penal Code. It is an important signal. When the state intervenes in people's finances and life situations, it must always occur with reasonable considerations. Especially when children are affected, their situation must be taken into account.
Madam Speaker! The supplementary motion submitted by the Social Democrats does not actually concern the main part of the bill. On the contrary, there is broad agreement in the committee on almost all parts.
The Social Democrats are turning against what in practice is a few words, namely the wording "or is a cohabitant" in the proposed amendment of Chapter 7, Section 4 of the Penal Code. The question concerns the so-called proportionality principle in wage assessment.
The Council on Legislation has raised objections to the fact that a cohabitant's income should be able to be taken into account and argues that this could mean that a cohabitant could indirectly be held responsible for the other cohabitant's debts.
I share the government's assessment that the criticism does not hit the mark. It is not about making the cohabitant liable for someone else's debt. No cohabitant will be obliged to pay another person's debts.
It is instead a matter of considering reality. Two people living together normally share housing costs, food costs, and other shared expenses. It is usually more economically advantageous to live together than to bear all the costs alone.
When the Enforcement Authority is to assess a person's actual ability to pay, it must reasonably be possible to take that into account as well. Furthermore, it is a principle that has already long been applied in practice. The Government's proposal primarily means that clarity and predictability are created by writing this directly into the law.
There are strong reasons to treat spouses and cohabitants in an equal manner. Otherwise, we risk creating strange differences where it becomes more advantageous to be a cohabitant than to be married, even though the economic reality often looks very similar.
Madam Speaker! This is a well-elaborated proposal that streamlines the forfeiture procedure, strengthens legal certainty, and contributes to debts being paid more quickly. This is my concrete view regarding the proposal in the bill. The proposal strengthens both the position of crime victims and confidence in the rule of law.
With this, Madam Speaker, I move again for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of the reservation.
Anna-Belle Strömberg (S)
Madam Speaker! Let me begin by saying that we Social Democrats stand behind the main part of the bill. We want to see a more modern and efficient collection procedure. Debts should be able to be collected faster and in a more legally secure manner, and crime victims should have better opportunities to receive compensation. Furthermore, we view several of the modernizations proposed by the government positively. This includes, among other things, more modern sales methods, auctions, and better opportunities for the Enforcement Authority to work more efficiently.
But, Madam Speaker, there is a part in the bill where we believe the government has gone too far. It concerns the proposal to codify the principle of proportionality even for cohabitants.
When the Enforcement Authority performs a wage assessment, a reservation amount is calculated, i.e., how much a person must retain to cover their own and their family's maintenance. The Government now wants to write into the law that if a debtor lives together with a cohabitant, the cohabitant's income shall affect the calculation.
This may sound like a legal change, but in practice, the consequence is that if a cohabitant has a higher income, that person can be made to bear a larger share of the rent, of the food, of the electricity and of the household costs.
Madam Speaker! Swedish law is based on the principle that each individual is responsible for their own debts. Cohabitation agreements are also based on the fact that cohabitants are economically independent. Cohabitants do not have the same statutory rights and maintenance obligations as spouses.
Therefore, the criticism of the government is not only political. The Council on Legislation has clearly pointed out that it violates the fundamental principle of property law that it is only the debtor, or someone who has explicitly committed to the debt, who should bear the liability for payment. Even the Professional Association for Budget and Debt Advisors shares the Council on Legislation's criticism.
The Council on Legislation also points out that spouses and cohabitants are not the same thing legally. Spouses have a statutory maintenance obligation, but cohabitants do not. Nevertheless, the government wants to treat them as if that obligation exists.
Those who have married have made an active choice and can be presumed to have considered questions regarding what it entails economically. A cohabitation can arise more out of habit or without closer reflection on the consequences. The relationship can also be for a short period – and still be seen as a cohabitation. It may also have been a matter of an active choice not to marry, in order to avoid the risk of having to directly or indirectly pay for the cohabitant's debts.
Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats support a modern and efficient investigation procedure. But efficiency must never take precedence over legal certainty and justice. We say yes to the reform in principle, but we say no to cohabitants in practice being held financially responsible for debts that are not theirs. Therefore, I move for the approval of our reservation.
Rashid Farivar (SD)
Madam Speaker! I thank Member Anna-Belle Strömberg for the presentation.
I actually did not want to request the floor, but I briefly refer to what our parliamentary colleague Alireza Akhondi just said in an exchange of remarks, namely that it is important to have an honest debate.
What the member claims in the rostrum, namely that the cohabitant becomes liable for repayment, is incorrect. A couple of minutes before the member's speech, I explained how it works. The cohabitant's income is included in the calculation. There is not such a large difference between being married or cohabiting as long as one lives together, that is to say that the living costs are lower.
I have the following questions for Member Anna-Belle Strömberg. I believe the microphone worked during my speech, but I wonder if the Member heard how I reasoned regarding the government's proposal. Why is the Member spreading falsehoods about the proposal? One does not become liable for payment when one is a cohabitant.
Anna-Belle Strömberg (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank you for the questions. I heard very well what the member said from the rostrum.
In practice, the proposal means that the one with the higher income has to bear a larger share of the household's expenses in order to free up money for someone else's debt. It is precisely that criticism that both the Council on Legislation and the Trade Union are raising. Therefore, we have sided with the criticism.
The difference is that the government now wants to make the proposal an explicit law. In that case, the proposal must be reviewed legally. That is where the Council on Legislation is clear. Does the member believe that the proposal holds up practically in the law?
Rashid Farivar (SD)
Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer.
Once again, the member claims that the cohabitant becomes liable for repayment, or responsible for payment, for the cohabitant's debts. That is not correct.
One includes income from the cohabitant if it results in higher income in the calculation. One does not become liable for payment or obligated to pay.
It is important that we speak the truth. Member Anna-Belle Strömberg does not do that.
I actually do not have any questions, except for the one I asked regarding why the member of Parliament spoke falsely in the chamber of the Riksdag.
Anna-Belle Strömberg (S)
Madam Speaker! I have not said that the cohabitant becomes liable for repayment, but I have said that the cohabitant becomes indirectly responsible for a debt that the other cohabitant has. We believe that we should adhere to the principle that people should not be held financially responsible for debts that they do not have. The person who is incurred in debt shall also pay the debt.
Ludvig Ceimertz (M)
Madam Speaker! We are debating a bill on appropriate execution rules and expanded remote execution. It is a bill that contains a number of concrete changes to streamline and modernize the execution procedure. The proposals imply opportunities to have debts paid, higher values upon the sale of executed property, and a more appropriate system for both authorities and individuals. Fundamentally, it is about something quite simple: Decisions must be able to be enforced, and when assets exist, they must be able to be secured. If debts are to be paid, the state must have functioning tools to ensure that it happens that way. Here we are debating how the rules can be improved.
Madam Speaker! An important part of this bill concerns remote seizure. Remote seizure is already today an effective tool for identifying and securing seizable property. Now, the possibility of assistance during remote seizure is being extended to more law enforcement agencies. This is an important change. It may seem small, but it is actually an important reinforcement. We know that assets can sometimes be moved quickly when individuals suspect that authorities are about to act. This applies generally in cases of debts and seizures.
Madam Speaker! There is also a clear connection to organized crime and criminal economy. In that case, our law enforcement agencies must be able to work faster and more coordinated. Therefore, it is important that we expand the possibility for the Enforcement Authority (Kronofogden) to take help from more law enforcement agencies. This means that agencies that already today carry out controls and interventions shall help faster with securing property that otherwise risks disappearing.
It can be the case that the police, customs, and the Coast Guard, in connection with inspections, discover cash, vehicles, expensive watches or other valuable property in the possession of persons who have debts and that the assets risk being moved away. Time delays can then arise between different authorities, but now the possibility of acting directly is improved. It strengthens the possibility to execute decisions and collect debts.
It is also important in the work against the criminal economy. We know that organized crime many times is built on assets and money that are moved quickly and hidden from the authorities. It is not just about cash but also about vehicles, boats, jewelry, and other assets that can be moved quickly. If we can become faster at identifying and securing such assets, it will become harder for criminals to build up and retain economic values while debts are left unpaid. This is therefore a fairly good example of how practical changes in the legislation can strengthen the work against organized crime by providing better opportunities to work more efficiently in everyday life. There is a broad consensus here in the Swedish Riksdag, which I am pleased about.
Mr. Speaker! This bill also contains several changes to how foreclosed property shall be sold. Real estate can to a greater extent be sold through modern forms of sale, for example auctions. Condominiums can be sold under hand, for example through real estate agents. These are reasonable and important modernizations. Today's rules are based on older forms of sale that do not always function particularly effectively. If more bidders can participate digitally, the possibility of the property being sold at a better price also increases.
This is important. When the value of the seized property becomes higher, the possibility of settling debts improves. The person entitled to payment gets better opportunities to receive payment, while the debtor can benefit from larger parts of the debt being covered through the sale. This applies in particular to condominiums. It is not uncommon today for condominiums to have very large economic values. In that case, it is also reasonable that the sale takes place in a way that is closer to how the housing market functions, for everyone's sake – both for those who have debts to be seized and for those who are to be paid.
Mr. Speaker! The bill also contains legal changes regarding wage garnishment and the joint costs of cohabitants. Here we must be careful to point out that it does not actually involve any changes in reality regarding wage garnishment when the cohabitant has debts. It is instead about how the Enforcement Authority shall calculate the so-called reservation amount, i.e., how much money the debtor shall be allowed to keep for normal living costs before wage garnishment occurs. It concerns costs for housing and food and other costs that are necessary for life to function.
If a debtor lives together with a cohabitant or spouse in a common household, it affects the costs that the individual has to bear. But, Mr. Speaker, it also already affects how the calculation is made today. The Enforcement Authority does not today assume that the person living as a cohabitant would suddenly be single, but instead looks at the household's common costs and how these should be distributed between the parties. If a cohabitant has an income, it is therefore included in the calculation – not so that the cohabitant should become liable for the debt, but so that one can assess the cohabitant's ability to contribute to the household's common costs, for example, housing costs.
The costs are distributed proportionally according to income. It is a fairly reasonable arrangement. It is not about cohabitants having to pay each other's debts. It is about wage assessment being based on a realistic assessment of the household's actual economy and living costs. Kronofogden already acts this way today. Now this is also clarified in law, which provides better predictability for all parties involved. In the Social Democrats' reservation, this is described as completely incomprehensible. But if one is such a strong opponent to doing it in this way, why does one then not propose changes to how it works today? That is the only thing that is incomprehensible.
Mr. Speaker! Overall, the bill contains several changes that make the forfeiture procedure more modern and efficient. It is about better opportunities to secure assets before they disappear. It is about better cooperation between authorities. It is about more modern forms of sale that can yield higher values and better opportunities to settle debts. It is also about giving the state better practical tools to work against the criminal economy and counteract the withholding of assets from seizure. These are concrete and well-considered changes that strengthen both efficiency and legal certainty.
I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.