Companies and crime

Jennie Wernäng (M)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating companies and crime, and I begin by moving for the approval of the government's bill.

In today's Sweden, it has been noted in recent years that companies are increasingly used and systematically exploited within organized crime. Illegal activities are camouflaged with false identities, front men, and straw men. And it does not stop there, but companies are also used by laundering money from drug sales or thefts. It is also about condominiums being bought up and profits financing other activities. This is one side.

The other side - what does it contain then? Yes, it is all those entrepreneurs who strive to follow laws and regulations. What has been done for all these companies, other than having introduced more rules - often a rule that is supposed to stop another rule? We have bureaucratized our entire Swedish business community to pieces with complicated rules that simply exist for all those entrepreneurs who do not behave.

So this is what we have to work with: one side and the other side.

The proposition Companies and Crime is about balance. It is about waiting where EU directives are ongoing, starting at one end to await another, working quickly where it is needed and awaiting effect, creating regulatory simplification where possible and supporting and protecting those who need it.

The Moderate-led government has made it one of its most important tasks to push back organized crime and restore safety in Sweden. This involves three parts: striking against gross violence, breaking the recruitment of children and young people into gangs, and strangling the criminal economy.

Companies and crime

Criminal activity in Sweden generates approximately 150 billion kronor. I think we should give that sum, 150 billion, a little extra attention and consider how much more the companies could have worked with development and innovation for these funds. How much of these tax funds could be used for welfare and for a safer Sweden?

Madam Speaker! There is a lot of talk about drug sales in Sweden, but did you know that the proceeds from fraud are currently greater than the proceeds from drug sales? It shows the extent of the whole thing.

With the government's bill, which we are debating today, additional tools are proposed to stop criminals from using companies as tools for crime. I shall read out parts of the proposals:

Bolagsverket's control function is strengthened with a new tool regarding personal appearance but also a clear provision concerning the deletion of incorrect information in the company register.

Corporate crime is criminalized. We propose doubled penalties for crimes against the goalkeeper prohibition, strengthened control of economic associations, and expanded protection for crimes in foundations.

The proposals now being submitted are an important part of the government's crackdown on the criminal economy. The legislative changes are proposed to enter into force in January 2025. Compared to the commission's proposals, this represents an advancement of six months. The advancement reflects that this government is determined to implement measures that make a difference in the criminal economy.

Madam Speaker! I return to my words again: one side and the other side.

Economic crime is harmful to Sweden and to society as a whole. We lose an incredible amount of money that could have been used to build a safer and stronger Sweden. In addition to this, our business owners are subjected to unfair competition where they risk being wiped out by actors who do not follow the rules.

All measures being considered must be assessed based on both the positive and the negative consequences they may entail. The measures taken must be effective and hit the criminal economy accurately. We shall not proceed with blunt tools where we cannot draw any certain conclusions. It would increase red tape and impair the competitiveness of our Swedish companies.

We therefore proceed instead with proposals that are significantly more accurate and that target where the problems are without placing obstacles in the way of all diligent entrepreneurs who create jobs and generate tax revenues for the welfare system.

In conclusion, I want to say that it is always about one side or the other. As a Moderate, one always stands on the entrepreneur's side. Together, we shall help each other to strike against the criminal environment without increasing the bureaucratization and red tape for all of you diligent entrepreneurs out there. Together, we shall increase the competitiveness for our Swedish companies and build Sweden strong again.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Madam Speaker and Jennie Wernäng! I request the floor to underline that we Social Democrats stand behind the proposition in all essential respects, which is the result of an investigation that we Social Democrats initiated.

I also want to ask a question to Member Jennie Wernäng. How does this trade-off - on one hand, on the other hand - read when it concerns the question treated in the investigation regarding an expanded and reintroduced audit obligation also for small limited companies? Skatteverket, Åklagarmyndigheten, Ekobrottsmyndigheten, Polismyndigheten, Kronofogdemyndigheten, Brottsförebyggande rådet, Ekonomistyrningsverket, Juridiska fakultetsstyrelsen vid Lunds universitet, Svenska Bankföreningen, Svensk Inkasso and Svensk Försäkring advocate for a reintroduced audit obligation.

These referral bodies, which are thus positive towards the proposal, argue that this would contribute to increased order and clarity in the business sector, be favorable for diligent companies and firms, and contribute to countering the use of companies for criminal activities. Against that background, Madam Speaker, we argue that the government should have taken note of, for example, the Swedish Tax Agency's referral response, where a concrete legislative proposal is submitted on how the audit requirement could be expanded.

My question to Jennie Wernäng is therefore: How has the government reasoned?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jennie Wernäng (M)

Madam Speaker! All measures being considered must be assessed based on the positive and the negative sides. It is about one side or the other and the consequences the measures may entail.

The measures being taken, we believe, should be effective and strike accurately at the criminal economy. Reintroducing the audit requirement for smaller limited companies is not such a measure.

It is not possible to draw any firm conclusions regarding whether and, if so, to what extent an auditor in this case, as stated in the investigation, can prevent crime. This applies particularly to the possibility of countering tax evasion crimes in companies. The benefit can at least be questioned in the very serious and more common cases where companies are hijacked and operated for several years solely for the purpose of generating criminal profits. Against that type of crime, auditing is a very blunt tool.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Madam Speaker and Jennie Wernäng! All these heavy referral bodies, which still and for a long time have advocated for the reintroduction of the audit requirement even for small limited companies, mean that this is an important piece of the puzzle, not least in the fight against the increasingly widespread economic welfare crime, where companies are often used as tools in the handling.

These referral bodies also emphasize that changes have occurred in the reality surrounding auditing since the auditing requirement was removed for the smallest limited companies. The auditor's role has changed, it has become increasingly common for companies to be used in organized crime, and it has also become increasingly easier to start limited companies with the de facto lowered requirement for minimum share capital.

I want to clarify that we Social Democrats make a different assessment than the government. I wonder a bit how Member of Parliament Wernäng views the fact that so little attention is paid to the long list of referral bodies that advocate for measures even in this area - with all respect for the fact that it can only be one piece of a broad puzzle of measures to tackle crime.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jennie Wernäng (M)

Madam Speaker! As I believe I have explained, we stand on the side of the entrepreneurs, and it is clear that the reintroduction of the auditing requirement would become costly for all honest entrepreneurs across the country. According to calculations in the investigation, the reform would cost over 11 billion kronor per year. This would mean competitive disadvantages for Swedish companies and diminished opportunities, especially for small companies, to grow and hire more.

The existing requirements for the audit obligation are also already among the highest within the EU. There are only three countries that have more far-reaching rules than Sweden has.

We now move forward with proposals that are more accurate and with the point aimed at the criminals without placing obstacles in the way of the responsible companies that create jobs and generate tax revenues. I think this is sufficient reason to exempt small limited companies.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Madam Speaker! Economic crime through companies is harmful to society. Significant tax revenues are lost to the public sector. Individuals suffer great economic losses. Diligent business owners run the risk of being driven out by competitors who do not follow the rules. Trust in companies and confidence in the social system can be weakened. Economic profits that are generated with companies as tools for crime also finance other serious crime. Serious economic crime committed through companies is to be regarded as a threat to the system.

It was against this background that the Social Democratic government in December 2021 commissioned a special investigator to consider and propose measures aimed at countering the use of limited companies and other corporate forms to commit crimes and other irregularities. The investigation submitted the report *Bolag och brott - några åtgärder mot oseriösa företag* on June 30, 2023.

The Government is now presenting the bill Companies and Crime. We Social Democrats welcome the proposals for expanded powers for Bolagsverket as part of expanding Bolagsverket's controls of company registers and strengthening the agency's role in the fight against crime in companies, that corporate hijacking shall be criminalized, that the penalty for crimes against the goalkeeper prohibition shall be tightened, and also other proposals for tightening of rules regarding annual reports and association law regulation of foundations. We will therefore vote for all of this.

Furthermore, we Social Democrats believe that the government's bill should be supplemented with an additional number of measures: additional resources for Bolagsverket, expanded audit requirements for small limited companies, and an increased minimum share capital in limited companies. All the proposals aim to prevent and deter companies from being used as criminal tools. We are prevented from raising the proposal on increased share capital in the current follow-up motion, but we will return to it in another context during the parliamentary year.

The investigation into companies and crime was tasked with reporting the advantages and disadvantages of reintroducing the audit requirement for smaller limited companies. In the present proposition, the Government makes the assessment that there are currently not sufficient grounds to reintroduce the audit requirement for small limited companies.

We Social Democrats believe that the government should instead have taken greater note of the fact that a long line of referral bodies - Skatteverket, Åklagarmyndigheten, Ekobrottsmyndigheten, Polismyndigheten, Kronofogdemyndigheten, Brottsförebyggande rådet, Ekonomistyrningsverket, Juridiska fakultetsstyrelsen vid Lunds universitet, Svenska Bankföreningen, Svensk Inkasso and Svensk Försäkring - advocate for the reintroduction of the audit obligation.

These positive referral bodies argue that this would contribute to increased order and clarity in the business sector, be favorable for diligent companies and entrepreneurs, and contribute to countering the use of companies for criminal activities. They also argue that a number of circumstances of great importance for the issue have changed since the audit requirement for small limited companies was removed: the changed role of the auditor, that companies often appear in the type of crime that occurs in organized form, for example welfare crime, and that it has become increasingly easier to start limited companies through lowered requirements for minimum share capital. Add to that the fact that there are long-standing proposals for simplified international auditing standards for small companies.

However, the investigation also clearly shows that a rapid reintroduction of the audit requirement for all limited companies is practically impossible because the number of auditors simply will not be sufficient in the near term. Against this background, we Social Democrats believe that the government should have taken note of the Swedish Tax Agency's referral response, where a concrete legislative proposal is presented for an expansion of the audit requirement to cover more but not all small limited companies, and in the near term return to the Riksdag with such a bill.

I therefore move for approval of our reservation, number 2.

Madam Speaker! Allow me a concluding, more general reflection. It has become a very poor general tendency that both municipalities and regions as well as state agencies are given expanded work tasks without the state providing new funds. This applies, for example, to the municipalities' responsibility for crime prevention work as well as the administrative grants for Försäkringskassan and Arbetsförmedlingen, which do not meet the needs of case management at all, and it applies to the entire financing of healthcare, where we now see staff reductions in a healthcare system that is already in crisis.

What we are dealing with here is only a small but important detail in the construction of society. If we want Bolagsverket to do more, we will most likely also need to invest more in Bolagsverket.

Of course, in every situation we shall try to find effective ways of working. This applies to the entire public sector. But real efficiencies in real organizations are difficult. In public activities, for 30 years now in this country, it has most often become cuts rather than efficiency – and that is not the same thing.

In the private sector, one can raise the price or lower the quality, increase the volume or ration and put customers in a queue. There are no complicated laws that get in the way. But that is not the case in agencies, municipalities, and regions. The operations are governed by legislation. Several legitimate interests must be weighed against each other. It is simply a much, much more difficult task - a task that requires adequate resources.

We Social Democrats therefore welcome the proposals regarding the possibility for Bolagsverket to request personal appearance and the deletion of incorrect information in the registers. Like the government, we assess that they will lead to higher register quality, have a crime-preventing effect, and facilitate the work of the law enforcement authorities in investigating crimes and prosecuting perpetrators.

However, we do not share the government's impact assessment that these changes can be managed within Bolagsverket's existing financial frameworks. Instead, we share Bolagsverket's view on the matter and argue that the agency must be provided with extra resources for these additional tasks and possibilities for action. Not least, we Social Democrats see great opportunities to detect incorrect or alarming information in the agency's registers through machine reading and artificial intelligence. This is a matter of large and important development work but tiny amounts in the state's total budget. Nevertheless, the Tidö government says no. We regret that.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats is the party in the Riksdag that values law and order the highest. If we are to address all the escalating problems with crime, gang crime, and shootings that have emerged in our society, society must act forcefully.

The bill we are debating today, Companies and Crime, contains a number of measures aimed at countering and combating crimes committed in and through companies. It is legislation that now makes it more difficult for criminals to use or take over companies.

Bolagsverket will now have the opportunity to require personal appearance upon application to the company or association register, this in order to ensure the identity or authority of the person who is applying or being applied. Bolagsverket shall also be able to strike out incorrect information regarding a company's representatives from its registers. These measures strengthen Bolagsverket's control function and contribute to the work against crime in companies and with companies as tools for crime.

Furthermore, corporate hijacking will now finally be criminalized. This is long-awaited, as corporate hijacking is completely unacceptable but unfortunately an all too frequent way for gang criminals to both obtain money and obtain companies to commit other crimes. Anyone who unlawfully uses a legal entity's identity details for profit shall be able to be convicted of a crime. The maximum penalty for crimes against the so-called "goalie ban" is doubled, i.e., raised from one to two years of imprisonment. This is also a much-needed and demanded tightening.

The purpose of the proposals is therefore to push back organized crime, which systematically utilizes companies as tools in its criminality, among other things to obtain or launder money.

We want, as the government has chosen to express it in the bill, to hinder criminals in an effective and accurate way as well as to safeguard healthy competition.

We Sweden Democrats welcome all parts. These are long-awaited and necessary changes. We see, however, that in order to truly tackle crime, one could have gone further than the bill. If we mean business with our desire to truly stop the criminal gangs on all levels, there is no reason to limit ourselves unnecessarily.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats maintain a clear line against all forms of crime, including corporate crime. We have long advocated for zero tolerance towards so-called corporate gatekeepers, and we believe that the Swedish Companies Registration Office should also be given the opportunity to deny the registration of business activities when there are suspicions that gatekeepers are involved. The Sweden Democrats believe that even attempts, preparation, and branding for corporate hijacking should be criminalized. It is logical to make these actions punishable, as it contributes to preventing crime at an early stage.

Furthermore, we argue that the unauthorized use of identity information should be punishable even if the purpose is not profit. It is insufficient to limit criminal liability to actions that occur for profit. Instead, the fact that the action causes damage or inconvenience for the company or its owners should be sufficient grounds to impose punishment. For what reason would it be in order and not punishable to use identity information incorrectly? One might ask that.

One must act forcefully against this type of crime. The measures must truly be effective and palpable.

Regarding the increased late fees, which are also part of the bill, we are positive about the increase. We also believe that these increases can advantageously be combined with our proposal to decriminalize late annual reports.

Finally, Madam Speaker, we are also positive that the government has chosen to refrain from introducing an audit requirement for small companies, which would have entailed an additional cost and administrative burden for smaller firms.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to move for the approval of our reservation, which is reservation number 1.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! The debate is divided from one side to the other. I am, of course, part of the other side.

It is not an unimportant subject we are debating – the use of companies as tools for crime. I want to begin by emphasizing that the absolute majority of all companies do their best to follow the laws and regulations that exist. But then we also know that there are companies that are used for, or even formed for, criminal activity, or that are exploited by unscrupulous actors, sometimes to be able to hide other criminal activity, for money laundering, or to finance serious organized crime.

According to the Swedish Police Authority, crime profits are one of the driving factors behind organized crime. As we have already heard in the debate and as the police also point out, the criminal economy in Sweden accounts for 100-150 billion kronor in crime profits every year. Criminals today make larger profits from labor-related crime, welfare crime, and fraud than from narcotics activities.

By criminals withholding taxes or cheating to obtain compensations or benefits, society also loses money that could otherwise have gone to important parts of the Swedish welfare system. Unserious companies damage trust and confidence in society at large, and when they compete with ordinary businesses, they risk knocking out the companies that behave properly.

Madam Speaker! It is evident that corporate crime gives rise to a number of serious effects. I and Miljöpartiet stand behind the proposals that the government presents today. However, we believe that one should have gone further.

One task of the government investigator was to look at the effects of abolishing the requirement for auditors for smaller companies in 2010. The investigation does not take a position either for or against, as that was not the investigator's mandate, but states that if the audit obligation is to be reintroduced, it should apply to all companies that had an audit obligation before 2010 in order to sufficiently fulfill the crime-preventing purpose, which is indeed what we are aiming for today.

The investigation does not take a position, but many others do, as we have heard today. Skatteverket, Åklagarmyndigheten, Ekobrottsmyndigheten, Polismyndigheten, Kronofogdemyndigheten, Brottsförebyggande rådet and Ekonomistyrningsverket all advocate for a reintroduction of the audit requirement. These authorities point out, among other things, that society has changed since the audit requirement was removed, that the crimes committed within organized crime today often presuppose access to companies, and that there is more crime in companies lacking auditors than in companies that have auditors.

Companies and crime

They also highlight several positive effects of a reintroduced audit requirement, not least that it increases confidence in the business community and that criminal activity can, of course, be detected faster, not least through increased transparency in small limited companies.

But despite the important role auditors have, the government chooses not to reintroduce the audit requirement for small companies. The matter we have to take a position on today concerns taking a crack down on corporate crime. If we truly mean business, we need to use all the different tools we have available. I believe that the audit requirement is one of these tools and something that could contribute to tackling organized crime. Therefore, I move for approval of the Miljöpartiets reservation on this in the report, reservation 3.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 13.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)