New forfeiture legislation
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
S motions for approval of the proposition to give the justice system powerful tools against organized crime 1. V motions for approval but wants to introduce a prescription period and emphasizes legal certainty. SD considers that offensive legislation is necessary to choke the criminal economy 2. C welcomes the proposal but wants to include serious accounting crime and serious money laundering 3. M argues that the law gives the police better conditions by not requiring proof of a concrete crime 4. MP considers that the legislation is complex and wants persons with serious mental disorders and children to be exempted 5. KD considers that independent forfeiture is necessary 6. L considers that the law is good and effective.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Speakers (16)
Lars Isacsson (S)
Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the bill on a new forfeiture legislation which we are to debate today.
The Social Democratic government took the initiative for this reform of the forfeiture legislation. The existing law from the 1960s was not adapted to effectively combat modern organized crime, and therefore we initiated the work on a review of the legislation to provide the justice system with powerful tools to strike at the criminal networks' profits. It is important to strengthen the justice system's capabilities to take away assets from criminals, even if they succeed in avoiding direct criminal convictions.
The purpose of this legislation is to stop the criminal economy by confiscating assets such as luxury villas, expensive cars, cash, and jewelry – properties that are not in proportion to a person's legal income. Crime should not pay. By focusing on the economic resources, we want to reduce both the incentives to run organized crime and the allure for young people to become part of these gangs. The new law targets the criminals at the top of the food chain, those who live luxury lives, often without having worked a day in their lives, and the new forfeiture legislation entails several important changes.
Independent forfeiture: Assets can now be forfeited even without a specific crime being proven. If the owner, for example, cannot explain how he or she can afford his or her luxury villa or expensive car, that is to say if the income is not in proportion to the assets, these can be seized.
Extended coercive measures: Police and prosecutors are given expanded possibilities to seize property, including large bank assets, without having to link it to a specific crime. The court will review each forfeiture, and the prosecutor must show that the property likely originates from criminal activity.
This legislation gives the justice system the opportunity to strike at the large profits from criminal activity and to focus on gang leaders, corporate executives, and others who have previously escaped justice.
Some criticism has been raised against this legislation, particularly regarding legal certainty and property rights. There is a risk that more people could be affected by seizure without being directly suspected of a crime. This is a significant intervention and must be carried out carefully.
But the advantages are all the greater. By giving the justice system the opportunity to seize assets from criminals without a direct suspicion of a crime, we can strike hard at the economy of the criminal networks. This is crucial for reducing their influence and weakening their operations. Organized crime turns over hundreds of billions of kronor annually, and by removing their assets, we can also reduce their power and prevent more young people from being drawn into crime.
Even though this legislation is an important step forward, we must continue to develop our tools against organized crime. The Economic Crime Authority has proposed that more types of economic crimes, such as serious bookkeeping offenses and serious money laundering, should be included in the forfeiture rules. This can make the justice system even more effective in seizing assets hidden in complex corporate structures and thereby strike at the criminals' business models.
If the next step is to follow the Economic Crime Authority's advice to include aggravated accounting crime and aggravated money laundering, and in the upcoming bill Bolag och brott, which is being handled by the Committee on Civil Affairs, add proposals for reintroduced auditing requirements and increased share capital at the start of a limited company, then we are on our way towards a Swedish anti-mafia legislation. Then we can, as Eliot Ness did against Al Capone, strike at the money.
We have here a bill on new forfeiture legislation that the Social Democrats initiated and support. But the repressive measures are not enough. We must also break the new recruitment. Recently, we have received alarming figures showing that the number of children under 15 who have been involved in murder plots during the past year has tripled.
We need to do so much more here. To address crime, many different measures are required in a multitude of areas. Crime policy can never bear the entire solution. It is about both crime prevention and crime-fighting measures - harsher punishments and more police as well as a better school, more social workers, developed psychiatry within primary care and youth psychiatry, and measures to quickly identify children and young people who risk becoming criminals.
Madam Speaker! Here, SD and the government show in their budget proposal that they do not prioritize a better school, more social secretaries, developed child and adolescent psychiatry, and measures to quickly identify children who risk becoming criminals. With a record-large reform space that SD and the government have taken for themselves, it is tax cuts that matter. It is a budget for rich men, where 60 percent of the tax cuts go to 5 percent of the population.
Many Swedish politicians speak warmly about Danish crime policy and Danish punishments, but they do not speak nearly as much about the Danish systematic, costly, and responsibility-demanding crime prevention work. Both are needed, the repressive and the crime-preventive, and it must also be included when prioritizing in a budget.
Gudrun Nordborg (V)
Madam Speaker! I will also largely move for approval of the bill, but I also move for approval of reservation 2. Vänsterpartiet naturally stands behind the other reservations that we have signed.
What we face now is to pass a decision on a legal innovation in Swedish law. But we also face new challenges in the application. By now accepting independent forfeiture of property, it shall become possible to forfeit it when we believe it derives from criminal activity without us simultaneously conducting a process regarding a criminal liability. The forfeiture is decoupled from a specific crime. It is not at all necessary and shall not be required.
The ambition is, of course, the important thing, namely to break up the criminal economy by creating opportunities to seize the assets of criminals that come from what we believe is criminal activity.
I believe everyone is in favor of crime not paying off. It is common sense, but there is also a basis in research - which is not always present in the legislative proposals that the bourgeois government puts forward. But this also stems, as we heard just now, originally from another government's proposal and initiative.
Brå highlights international research showing that attacking assets is an important and powerful tool against organized crime. But it also points out that we must be prepared for the criminals to quickly adapt to changed rules and authority strategies. We should therefore expect that the criminal actors will do their best to comply with the new legal rules and, to an even greater extent, try to hide their money and their property. But this is also something that we can consider as a complication in the criminal activity in that we create increased costs for the criminals. According to Brå, this is also a crime-preventing effect.
In summary, this is a form of forfeiture that would constitute an effective and strategic complement to conventional crime fighting.
Then we have the rule of law perspectives. We are moving quickly. The legislation is to enter into force on November 8, despite that an entirely new institute is being established and with a partially complex body of rules.
At the same time, we can say finally. It is 50 years since we revised the body of rules, and certain things are being done that will absolutely simplify the application by merging rules and coordinating them under one roof in the Penal Code with few special provisions instead of an enormous flora of such.
It is easy to start this. It is enough for someone to make a report, leave a tip or similar, and for the police and prosecutor to think there is reason to assume that there is criminality behind a person having certain property. Here, it is of course important that one does not work with trying to scan certain groups or areas because one believes there is something there. That is one of the warning texts when it comes to the application. It must be fair and equal for everyone. What one should try to get warning signals about is what is called unexplained assets that are not in proportion to what a person can reasonably have acquired through legal activity, sources of acquisition, or wealth conditions. I believe strongly in independent forfeiture, but there are also warning signs for how it is applied.
So, one does what can be done to make the legislation as uniform and as effective and purposeful as possible. But there are also warning signs.
It is about, for example, cases where several people could be owners of the property. How does one do that? It is said that one should follow presumption rules for who should be considered the owner. Among other things, the person who has movable property, legally speaking – things, one could say, that is to say such things as are not real estate – in their possession shall be the owner. But there, complications can arise, especially if many live together and it might be complicated to determine who is actually the owner.
The intervention shall therefore be directed at the property or capital itself that is found, in contrast to what applies in other situations.
It is also said that this shall begin to be applied immediately when the law enters into force. And when is that? Yes, on November 8. Then we can consider when the crime occurred. We do not know that. We do not always know when the property ended up with the person in question. There may be signs that it was just now, but there may also be other signs. Here, in the legislative process, something has been considered that is actually a prohibition in the entire Swedish legal system. We shall not have retroactive legislation.
Now we face this, and I believe it is necessary that we complete this legislation. But against the background of how it looks in this way, I would wish that we also, in accordance with the reservation, introduce a prescription period, something that several of the referral bodies have also commented on.
Another issue concerns the children. The Children's Ombudsman, along with others, has directed criticism that children should have the same position as adults and, of course, refers to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the best interests of the child. Legally, children essentially lack independent ownership rights to property located in the family's residence. How are we then to handle the seizures? They must not affect children, and above all, we must not direct coercive measures against children. There is the law on young offenders as a certain safeguard. Furthermore, as I assume many know, a special investigation is underway on how we should treat children who have not reached the age of 15. Perhaps we will be able to maneuver even with these gaps.
In conclusion, I want to say that I believe this will become important legislation, but I would have wished that more work had been done on issues of legal certainty and, of course, that we had followed other countries and worked much more seriously with preventive activities in the whole of society, which includes all of us. We must take a stand against what may be tendencies toward bullying, harassment, and other irregularities in order to intervene as early as possible so that young people do not enter into criminal careers.
Katja Nyberg (SD)
Madam Speaker! Today we are debating a new forfeiture legislation.
Sweden has, in a few decades, gone from being one of the world's safest countries to something completely different. Gang crime and organized crime are now part of everyday life. Sweden has gone from being a pioneer country when it comes to safety and security to being a cautionary tale.
Despite the fact that the government, with the Sweden Democrats at the forefront, is slowly but surely working to shift the balance of power, the problem with gang crime, with recurring shootings and explosions, remains enormous. More and more innocent people are losing their lives in the gangs' settlements.
Madam Speaker! Crime should not pay, and a further step to push back organized crime is to choke the criminal economy. Characteristic of organized crime is that its main driving force consists of the desire to make economic profits.
The police assess that organized crime turns over 100-150 billion kronor annually. Targeting the criminals' assets is an effective way to strike at the gangs' upper echelon and reduce the incentives for children and young people to act as henchmen for gang criminals.
Madam Speaker! Swedish crime fighting has primarily focused on the prosecution of individual crimes. The extensive assets existing in contexts that can be linked to organized crime are therefore mainly addressed within the framework of the prosecution of individual crimes. The crime developments of recent years show that there is a need for forfeiture legislation that is better adapted to today's conditions.
An effective forfeiture legislation can reduce the opportunities for criminal networks to make profits from their criminal activities, limit their opportunities to build up resources that can be reinvested in new criminal schemes or in the legal economy, and contribute to breaking the recruitment of young people by reducing the incentives to commit crimes. More offensive legislation is necessary in today's Sweden for us to achieve success when it comes to combating organized crime.
"Go for the money" or asset-oriented crime fighting is an internationally well-known strategy for combating organized and economic crime. The new forfeiture legislation is intended to ensure that crime never pays.
Madam Speaker! The Government's proposal for a new forfeiture legislation is one of the largest reforms in the field of criminal law since the Penal Code was introduced 60 years ago. It will involve a reforming of the forfeiture legislation so that it can constitute an effective tool in crime fighting. Through the proposal, it will be possible to forfeit property that is not in proportion to a person's income.
In the new legislation, there will be no requirement for suspicion of a crime or that the person shall have been convicted of a crime. The standard of proof is that it must be clearly more likely that the property originates from criminal activity than that it does not.
The new law will, in other words, mean that forfeiture can be carried out without any connection to either proven criminality or identified criminal profits. Such an expansion will give the law enforcement authorities the opportunity to confiscate property and money to a greater extent and thereby increase the pressure against organized and economic crime.
The Tidö parties are working jointly on a long series of proposals that will hit organized crime hard. The new forfeiture legislation, together with already implemented and planned legislative changes and increased penalties, will make a difference. But it will take time to reverse the negative crime development – time that we actually do not have due to previous governments' failures.
But our signal is clear. When crime spreads, we will meet it and push it back. The time when the state looked the other way and stepped back instead of taking a step forward is over.
Ulrika Liljeberg (C)
Madam Speaker! I want to begin by establishing certain basic principles and perspectives from my and the Center Party's side. Our starting point is always that what you do with your life is your own business. All your personal integrity and freedom is yours. All the money you earn is yours. This is the starting point.
Since then, we have collectively decided as elected representatives on common rules of the game, such as that we do not exercise violence, coercion, or threats against others, in the same way as we have decided that we shall pay in a part of our money in taxes for everyone's common basic security as an insurance. But the basis is that it is your money and your things. If you follow the rules, you should not have to explain, account for, or tell anyone about your life.
But with that said, we have serious organized crime in our country. We need to prevent, combat, investigate, and prosecute it. The serious organized crime is driven, as many here have said, primarily by economic profit interests. That makes it an important part of combating crime to choke off the access to money and take back the proceeds of crime. We therefore welcome the government's proposal and view positively the powers and tools that are now being given to the justice system, all to increase the security and safety for all of us in Sweden.
Madam Speaker! The proposals concern, among other things, expanded forfeiture, where property can be forfeited when one is convicted of certain crimes and it is predominantly likely that the property originates from criminal activity. Furthermore, the introduction of independent forfeiture is proposed, where property can be forfeited even if it cannot be linked to a specific crime but if it is more likely that the property originates from criminal activity than that is not the case.
We consider this to be a step in the right direction for Sweden. But we in Centerpartiet nevertheless have two reservations aimed partly at including more serious crimes, and partly at the follow-up of the legislation for the sake of legal certainty.
In accordance with the commission's proposal, we believe that gross accounting crime, gross money laundering crime, and gross commercial money laundering should be added to the crimes that can trigger extended forfeiture. We believe that these could be crimes that can certainly yield profit and thus fulfill the requirement in the new Chapter 36, Section 6, second paragraph of the Penal Code. We believe that it should not be solely attributed to the new independent forfeiture.
To exclude serious economic crime in this way from a central regulation aimed at crime profits from organized crime and refer it to a new, still untested and partly unclear regulation on independent forfeiture, we believe risks creating more delays than the fight against organized crime needs right now.
This with different types of forfeiture may seem like a detail, but the fight against serious organized crime needs straight and clear legislation right now, not new and unclear requirements for which it takes time to create practice. The Economic Crime Authority also emphasizes in its referral response that it would have been a welcome addition to include these crimes, which the government now excludes, as it would, among other things, reduce the authority's investigative efforts. Such a change could help the law enforcement authorities to coordinate resources and simplify complex cases.
Madam Speaker! The Center Party's second reservation concerns precisely the introduction of independent forfeiture. It should be said that we are in favor of the introduction of the proposal as it lies on the government's table, but we still believe that it should be reviewed in the near future. It can be improved, among other things, based on criticism from several referral bodies.
As JO notes in its referral response, the proposal for independent forfeiture entails a significant risk of infringement of personal integrity, particularly for those who, without being suspected of a crime, become the subject of an investigation that in large parts is to be conducted in the same manner as a preliminary investigation of a crime. For such far-reaching measures to be justifiable, they must be both necessary and proportionate. JO emphasizes that the proposal fails in analysis in both these aspects as well as from a legal certainty perspective. JO also considers that the guarantees presented by the investigation are insufficient. The Council on Legislation is also on the same point and says that the endeavor to give the legislation a clearer design in certain respects appears to have yielded to the interest of providing the law enforcement authorities with flexible instruments.
We always return to the balancing act between personal privacy, legal certainty, and effective coercive measures. It is a balancing act where we need to make judgments. I think it is unfortunate that in a time when we urgently need tools to tackle the gangs, it is left to the courts and law enforcement authorities to clarify and specify the balancing act. It is primarily a responsibility that rests with the government. The government therefore needs to urgently follow up and address this issue and review any ambiguities to ensure that the legislation gains the robustness and strength it needs.
Madam Speaker! I am trying to remember which expression the Speaker wished for us to use instead of "for time's sake", but I am actually becoming a bit unsure. In order to save everyone's time when we gather to vote and to facilitate matters for the Chamber Office, I move for the approval of reservation 1 only.
Fredrik Kärrholm (M)
Madam Speaker! The systemic shift continues. Now, the police will be given significantly better conditions to seize property from serious criminals with simplified and more effective forfeiture legislation. This is very significant in the fight against crime. We know, after all, that money and consumption are the driving force and the attraction of organized crime.
The bill concerns, among other things, a new form of forfeiture, which makes it possible to seize assets of criminal origin from criminals to a significantly greater extent. It will no longer be required for the police and prosecutors to prove that someone has committed a specific crime.
Here is a notice from the Swedish Parliament to violent criminals: Now your easy life is over! The next time you are stopped by the police, your cars, your watches, and your money may be seized and forfeited. It will no longer be required for the police to prove that you have committed a specific crime. If you have no legal income and cannot explain where the items come from, they are gone. My tip to you who have not bought your car with honestly earned money is, therefore, to start looking on Blocket right now for a cheap used bicycle.
This is, in fact, a very practically effective law. If it is significantly more likely that property originates from criminal activity than that it does not, the property shall be confiscated. A fully reasonable presumption rule is also introduced: The person who has movable property in their possession shall be considered the owner of the property unless it appears that it belongs to someone else. Gross criminals who drive around in a car in the million-kronor class but have never earned a single krona in an honest way in their entire lives can no longer claim that the car they drive around in and which is parked in their garage is actually just borrowed from a buddy.
At the same time, legal certainty is ensured. An independent forfeiture shall be tested in court, and the investigation shall be led by a prosecutor. In certain cases, the individual shall also have the right to be represented by a legal counsel.
The report contains further important changes. The scope of money seizure is broadened in such a way that it becomes a generally applicable coercive measure. The regulatory framework regarding corporate fines is also modernized and streamlined - again with good regard for legal certainty.
The proposed changes regarding extended forfeiture and independent forfeiture constitute some of the largest reforms in the field of criminal law since the introduction of the Penal Code over 60 years ago.
Madam Speaker! Today we are taking an important measure to remove the very incentives for organized crime. The new possibilities to seize criminals' assets will strike broadly against the gangs and also the leadership levels. With this, we also reduce the attractiveness of crime for children and young people. It is very important that we stop the new recruitment to the gangs, and it will become significantly less attractive to participate in organized crime and join gang structures if one does not receive the material benefits. Now we are choking the criminal economy. Now we are pushing back the clans and the gangs.
Rasmus Ling (MP)
Madam Speaker! The referral to the Council on Legislation that formed the basis for this bill was adopted before Christmas 2023, i.e., in December last year. Just a couple of days after the government decided to send this to the Council on Legislation, the Supreme Court announced a decision that went in the opposite direction, and the Supreme Court's decision is, as we know, precedential, meaning it has an effect for the entire judicial system. The decision from the Supreme Court means in practice that interim seizures are made impossible in those cases where the District Court says no and it is appealed to the Court of Appeal, because then it is no longer a seizure but is given back. It can take time before it is examined in the Court of Appeal, and by then the items could be gone.
This is, therefore, a rather new loophole in the legislation, and I submitted a written question to the Minister for Justice regarding this in February. The Minister for Justice is usually straightforward, but in this case, he was quite vague and answered that there may be reasons to consider a change.
What does Fredrik Kärrholm think? Is this something that will be presented to plug this gap in the legislation?
Fredrik Kärrholm (M)
Madam Speaker! I humbly thank Member Rasmus Ling for the confidence he places in me, seeing competence in me and assuming that I can provide a better, clearer, and more detailed answer than the country's Minister of Justice. But I must unfortunately disappoint Rasmus Ling and refer to Gunnar Strömmers answer to the question that has already been asked.
Let me however state that it is a bit tiring to always receive this type of question from Rasmus Ling. Miljöpartiet was one of the foremost advocates for the policy that has caused the situation in Sweden with appalling gang crime. This is a bit like being a firefighter and being on site to extinguish a fully developed house fire and receiving comments on technical details in the extinguishing work from the pyromaniac. I am doubtful about how genuine the commitment is and wonder if it is not rather about numbing a very bad conscience because one is ultimately complicit in the appalling situation we have in Sweden.
Rasmus Ling (MP)
Madam Speaker! I believe many of us would appreciate it if Fredrik Kärrholm held back his emotions and instead was a bit more objective in the discussions. These issues are real, and that Fredrik Kärrholm becomes emotional instead of discussing this concretely, I can only regret.
Madam Speaker! Fredrik Kärrholm and everyone else here in the chamber have the opportunity at 4 p.m. this afternoon to take a position without asking the Minister of Justice for permission. There is, in fact, a reservation, number 7 - which I also take this opportunity to move for approval - which would mean that an announcement is directed to the government to close this loophole in the legislation so that interimist seizures are no longer rendered impossible in the way they have been since December 2023. With such an announcement, the government and the Minister of Justice are forced to respond. If Fredrik Kärrholm does not want to do this, I hope that he can at least take the question further if he thinks this would be a good idea.
Fredrik Kärrholm (M)
Madam Speaker! Member Rasmus Ling and all of us can be assured that the Ministry of Justice and the Minister for Justice are closely monitoring this issue and will handle it in a judicious manner.
Now I look forward to voting today for one of the biggest reforms in the field of criminal law since the Penal Code was introduced over 60 years ago. This will provide incredibly powerful tools to combat serious organized crime.
May it be necessary for the legislation to be adjusted further in some parts? Yes, absolutely, and I have full confidence that the Ministry of Justice and the Minister of Justice will handle this.
Rasmus Ling (MP)
Madam Speaker! We are now debating and will later this afternoon vote on a solid and complicated legal matter: a new forfeiture legislation. The bill is over 900 pages long, and the Council on Legislation's opinion is 76 pages long. Not everyone may read all of the Council on Legislation's opinions, but they are usually not that long. The referral to the Council on Legislation was adopted in December last year, so it has taken quite a long time. I do not say this to claim that the government is dragging its feet – that others in the opposition can state – but I say it to emphasize that it is complex matter and difficult questions that need to be handled very carefully and seriously. When the state is to take property from citizens, one needs to be sure that there is a legal basis for it and that it is processed according to all the rules of the art, for it is a very far-reaching thing to do. Nevertheless, this is important in cases where the property comes from criminal activity.
Madam Speaker! Going after the money is the key to reaching the gangs. That was a strategy the S-MP government had, and to a large extent, this is something the Riksdag and the government have a consensus on, which the current government is also proceeding with.
The Green Party wanted the legislation to look different in certain parts. We think that persons with serious mental disorders and children should have been exempted, which many referral bodies state. The measures are linked to coercive measures that are very intrusive and far-reaching.
Madam Speaker! The Green Party, on the other hand, would have liked to go further, which I pointed out in the exchange of views just now, and close the loophole that still exists in the legislation and which means that the district court can deny seizure. We believe that goods can be under seizure until the judgment has gained legal force. During the appeal period before the case is taken up in the next instance, the goods should therefore still be under seizure. It has been impossible since the Supreme Court announced its decision in December last year, and it has quite extensive consequences.
I think that what the Minister for Justice has said in his written reply to me, namely that there may be reasons to consider the matter, is not sufficient. Therefore, I think that the Chamber this afternoon should direct the announcement in reservation number 7 to the Government so that the Ministry of Justice can prepare a law, process it, and lay it before the Riksdag. These are matters that take time, and it is therefore all the more important to begin the work as quickly as possible. Now, more than half a year has passed unnecessarily. If we are to get anywhere, one must therefore start with this as soon as possible.
Torsten Elofsson (KD)
Madam Speaker! This is what the police surveillance leader in Rinkeby said: Colleague Mille has during the summer done some mapping of those in the Headshot League who have done time in prison. Abtin was released at the beginning of the year, and unlike the others in the league, he seemed to have a fair amount of money saved when he got out. He bought a really fat Mercedes-AMG that is worth nearly a million. It became the league's prestige car, and they used it when they drove around to various meetings.
I think this is an illuminating example of the need for new forfeiture legislation and a regulatory framework for the independent forfeiture of unexplained assets. It cannot be compatible with the common people's sense of justice that a person who has served a long sentence in prison for serious crimes can drive around in a car in the millions after serving their sentence. The compensation from the Prison and Probation Service is surely not so generous as to allow that.
Madam Speaker! Crime should not pay. This has been said here in the rostrum by several people today. It is important - not only from a justice perspective. It is just as important to reduce the incentives to commit crimes.
A distinguishing feature of organized crime is the drive governed by the desire to make economic profits which, in the long run, enable more power and influence. The crime developments of recent years involving organized and cross-border crime show that the current regulatory framework for forfeiture is outdated in certain parts and that there is a need for forfeiture legislation that is better adapted to today's conditions.
We Christian Democrats believe that the proposed forfeiture legislation will reduce the opportunities and make it more difficult for criminal networks to make profits from their criminal activities. The law enforcement authorities will now receive an additional tool to limit criminals' capacity and ability to strengthen their financial resources, which can be used for increased power and increased influence in both the criminal world and the legal economy.
The major change is that the new legislation enables independent forfeiture where, unlike in the current law, no direct connection to a crime is required. In an independent forfeiture, the investigation is primarily not aimed at investigating or establishing a person's liability for a specific crime or whether the assets derive from proceeds of crime. Instead, the assets are placed in relation to the person's financial status in the form of established income, etc. What is practically forfeited is what is referred to in the bill as unexplained assets.
Madam Speaker! It is clearly stated in the forfeiture provision that it is possible for an individual to foresee whether a certain ownership of property may give reason for forfeiture. When it has been established that the ownership of property is not in proportion to legitimate sources of acquisition, the individual must, in order to protect the ownership, show that the property in question was obtained by legitimate means.
Strong reasons speak for introducing the aforementioned forfeiture sanction, which targets a form of ownership that does not require that assets can be linked to a crime directly or indirectly, something that is now required in so-called extended forfeiture and is today a prerequisite for forfeiture to be possible. The European Court of Justice has in its statements considered that forms of forfeiture designed in a corresponding manner fulfill the requirements for legal certainty and further emphasizes that states must be given a relatively large margin of maneuver to ensure that illegitimate assets cannot be used in a way that risks harming society.
Madam Speaker! There are also a number of other international legal acts and recommendations, issued by among others the Council of Europe, the UN and the Financial Action Task Force, which require member states to take necessary measures to ensure that there are effective forfeiture sanctions. It is important that Sweden lives up to the requirements that follow from our international commitments.
Regarding evidence, it is proposed that it should appear "clearly more likely" that the property in question was acquired through a crime. In order for the standard of proof to be met, the collective picture presented by the prosecutor must convince the court that it appears clearly more likely that the property sought to be forfeited has its origin in criminal activity than that is not the case. We believe that the concept "clearly more likely" meets the standard of proof that enables forfeiture.
In summary, there is an expressed need for legislation that makes it possible to confiscate property already on the basis that an individual's assets are not in proportion to legitimate sources of acquisition or wealth conditions in general. It opens up a possibility to strike at persons who are higher up in the criminal hierarchy. These are persons who direct and control a large part of the crime that affects both individuals as well as business and welfare systems but who do not participate in the actual execution of the crimes.
I vote in favor of the government's bill on new forfeiture legislation.
Martin Melin (L)
Madam Speaker! The new forfeiture legislation is about making it less attractive to commit crimes that yield criminal profits. The starting point for the reform of the forfeiture legislation is that the regulatory framework should become effective and meet the challenges of our time. The government writes this clearly and distinctly, and that is good, because it is high time that a change of 36 § Penal Code occurs. The old law was outdated and had not aged well. If there is something we legislators must do, it is to keep up with developments, not least when it comes to crime and the laws that exist to prevent it.
Crime should never pay. It may be common sense for many, but it is worth repeating. Crime should never pay, and one way to put a stop to it is effective legislation. That brings us back to today's matter for debate, namely the new forfeiture legislation. I think it is a good law. I also believe that in the long run it will result in fewer people being lured into crime when they see that crime does not pay. The authorities will, in fact, take the money you have earned from your criminal activity. You know what? They will also take your necklace, your car, your boat, and your watch.
If you are a criminal, you can forget that you get to keep the things that you have not paid for with honestly earned money. If you want something, you have to work for it, just like we others do.
It must end that criminals carry around large bundles of banknotes in their pockets and have expensive watches on their wrists and in that way show the children in the area what one can get if one sells hash, helps with robberies or in the worst case murders. This must come to an end, for real. It is serious. One can say that the law in that way is also crime-preventing. It sends a clear signal: You should not believe that you will become rich by committing crimes.
As we heard earlier, it is often wealth, power, and respect that are the driving forces for those involved in organized crime. This applies to all levels, from the leaders sitting in Dubai or Marbella to the 14-year-old selling hash in Bredäng. They want money - they want "para".
The law is designed so that it will hit both high and low. The child soldiers will not be able to flash their money, and the individuals in the leadership will find it much more difficult to invest their money in companies and in that way launder money. It will become much harder to use their criminal profits.
Madam Speaker! I would like to speak a little bit about the form of forfeiture that in the law is called independent forfeiture. It concerns whether if a person in their possession has property or cash that can be suspected to come from criminal activity and the person cannot provide a legitimate explanation as to how he or she has come into possession of the money, they will be forfeited.
The standard of proof will, as we have heard previously, be "clearly more likely", which means that if it is clearly more likely that the property or the money originates from criminal activity, it shall be forfeited.
This is not, as we have also heard previously, about who has committed a criminal act but about establishing whether the property or the money can be traced back to a criminal act. In other words: If you are a criminal and have money or property that you cannot explain where they come from, then from now on we will take them away from you.
Rasmus Ling (MP)
Madam Speaker! I intended to take the opportunity to ask the same question that I asked Fredrik Kärrholm earlier, which Martin Melin surely heard, both then and in the speech I gave. It concerns the decision from the Supreme Court which practically makes interim seizures impossible.
I have had good experiences previously of debating with Martin Melin. When we disagree, we can have tough debates, but when one is not in disagreement, I do not think one needs to play theater for the sake of it.
I have a genuine question: Is this something that Martin Melin and Liberalerna will push forward and address, or is it considered that it is not needed?
I also want to ask if it is conceivable to support reservation number 7 when we vote on this this afternoon. Even though I suspect that I will receive a negative answer, I still want to ask the question. If it is not conceivable, will you be able to pursue the issue in another way?
Martin Melin (L)
Madam Speaker! When there are holes in the legislation, I always think that they should be plugged. We have seen before when laws have been hammered through in this chamber that it has been observed afterwards that they did not work as intended. There are several examples of this.
As far as I understand, the investigator has also received directives to investigate what Rasmus Ling raised. It is the same thing with the HD judgment that exists, regarding the police's exchange of live weapons for fake ones, drugs and so on. There is a directive to look into this in order to be able to supplement it afterwards. So that is how I have understood it, in any case.
To answer your first question, Rasmus Ling: I agree that this is something that must be looked at and that there is a problem here - absolutely!
To answer your second question: No, I will not support the reservation that Miljöpartiet has today.
Rasmus Ling (MP)
Madam Speaker! I naturally regret the later announcement, but I welcome that one at least takes this issue more seriously than the representatives of the Moderaterna seem to do. I appreciate that.
I have not understood it as being in any investigation. This was not said by the Minister for Justice in February, and I have not seen anything have come out about it since then. This is something that has been undiscussed and that one previously has not wanted to move forward with.
Madam Speaker! I mean that, now that there is a clear position from the Supreme Court, one should do something about it to avoid ending up in situations where the district court says no to a seizure but it is appealed and not examined in a higher instance and the seizures are instead lifted. I hope that Martin Melin succeeds in breaking the Moderaterna on this.
Martin Melin (L)
Madam Speaker! I will absolutely look into this and delve into it to see what we can do about it.
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.