An expanded criminal liability for attempted, preparatory, and labeling acts as crimes

Mattias Vepsä (S)

Mr. Speaker! I say good morning to everyone following the debate from the gallery or in front of the web-TV.

Today we are debating the Committee on Justice's report, "An expanded criminal liability for attempted, preparatory, and branding acts." It is a report that a unanimous committee has stood behind.

For four years, the government's focus in crime policy has been to toughen the penalties. The realignment of crime policy that was initiated under the Sledda governments was necessary to meet a changed criminality, and we see bright spots. January was the first month in many years when Sweden did not experience a fatal shooting in a gang environment, which is extremely positive.

However, the fact that the fatal shootings are decreasing does not mean that we have won the fight against organized crime and serious crime. The situation is still very serious. On Monday, a young person in my former hometown of Eskilstuna lost their life in a fatal shooting. Four young men, all under 18 and two under 14, are suspected of the crime. 2025 was a terrible year when it comes to the number of explosions and fires. When the shootings decrease, the methods for intimidating, threatening, harming, and influencing change.

We know that organized crime is ready to exploit every weakness and opportunity that society allows. The criminal economy has proven to be even more extensive than we have previously seen. In a recently released report, it is pointed out that the criminal economy turns over a staggering 350 billion, with crime profits of 185 billion kronor. We need to update the legislation where required, continue to expand the police, and review which tools are effective.

When crime becomes increasingly organized, crime policy must be accurate and legally sound. Today, we will make a decision that means we are closing a number of gaps in the legislation, and this means, among other things, that criminal liability for attempted, preparatory, and incitement to crime is expanded. This is important. As technology and crime schemes develop – and as a larger part of crime occurs in organized form online, on digital platforms and in chats – the legislation must keep up.

The decisions and changes we will make decisions on here today will give the police and other authorities fighting serious crime better opportunities to act and avert serious crime even before it is committed. This includes, among other things, that the police and other authorities should be able to exchange drugs or weapons for harmless substances or replicas. Due to an interpretation of the law, weapons and drugs have not been exchanged to the same extent as before, and the working methods have changed for the worse. With the legislative change, the possibility for the police and other authorities to intervene and avert serious crime earlier is clarified.

It will also simplify interventions on digital platforms to prevent anyone from committing a serious crime. In recent years, we have seen how criminal networks advertise and recruit online. Crime is organized in chats, and we see how recruiters succeed in involving ever younger children in more serious crime. It is imperative that those who organize the crimes can now be held under stricter criminal liability.

It is also about expanding the criminal liability for preparation and marking so that more acts become criminalized already at the planning stage. When crime occurs to an ever greater extent in organized form and in networks, it is reasonable that preparations which are assumed to be part of larger criminality and crime planning, for example mapping and collection of information that is important for the crime to be carried out, are also punishable.

Mr. Speaker! A unanimous committee stands behind today's proposal for a decision, but that said, we still need a holistic view in crime policy. The government's and SD's great failure during this parliamentary term is that recruitment into the gangs is allowed to continue. We have witnessed a completely unacceptable development where more and more children and young people are drawn into serious crime. Since 2022, the number of children and young people under 15 years of age who are involved in murder cases has increased by a staggering 500 percent.

This week, we also received news about more unserious companies with criminals in the management who operate across the entire country and claimed to work on helping children and young people out of crime. They have sold services such as exit programs, housing support, and other interventions that were supposed to help the most vulnerable and were able to continue operating in a welfare market.

SD and the government have also spent nearly four years increasing the inequalities in Sweden. Poverty has doubled. Child poverty is growing. Unemployment hits very hard. Over 100,000 more people lack jobs, and a quarter of the country's youth are in unemployment. In addition, it should be mentioned that one pursues an economic policy that has indebted the people but forced schools and social services to make large savings.

One must ask oneself, Mr. Speaker, whether it counteracts crime and criminality when the sense of community is allowed to slowly crumble. But it is clear: If a holistic view is lacking, perhaps new strategies and paper products are sufficient.

We do, however, know that the best way to push back organized crime, break the recruitment to the gangs and reduce crime generally is to invest in a stronger society and at the same time strengthen the legislation and expand the justice system with a more powerful toolbox. Sweden needs a new direction.

(Applause)

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

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the government's bill A expanded criminal liability for attempted, preparatory, and branding of crimes. The bill is part of the Tidö Agreement, which the Sweden Democrats drafted together with the governing parties, and I can state with pleasure that the proposals are now becoming a reality.

During the course of the debate, we will likely hear a very broad overview of what the legislative proposals mean in practice, so I will instead stick to a part of the legislation that I have personally pushed hard, together with my party, during the past parliamentary term.

For the last five years, the organization Dumpen's revelations have engaged hundreds of thousands of people across Sweden. From the side of the establishment and from other established parties, we have seen a constant silence or direct distancing from Dumpen's methods. But I can honestly say that I am not ashamed for a second to admit that I think Dumpen is doing an incredibly important job. I believe that the enormous support the organization has from hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of Swedes shows that I have every right to feel that way.

The funny thing in this context is that the same people who cheered when Expressen knocked on doors and filmed pensioners who had written mean things on the internet, or when TV3 with Robert Aschberg at the helm did the same thing, today do not even want to touch Sara Nilsson and Patrik Sjöberg with a ten-foot pole when they expose pedophiles, that is, people who set out to assault children. Is it more reasonable to out someone who has written mean things on the internet during prime time on TV than to expose people who are in the process of assaulting children? I can never understand that reasoning.

What does that have to do with this? A strange thing with Swedish legislation is the following: When Dumpen has pretended to be a child and an adult man meets with the fictitious child, whom he believes is a child, and subsequently travels to a location to meet the child and commit a sexual assault – with the knowledge that he might be met by Patrik Sjöberg with a video camera in full swing – the man is not convicted, because there is no crime victim. The child that the man is to meet does not actually exist.

We are changing this now. One will therefore be able to be convicted for attempted sexual offense against a child even if the child is only fictional. The police will be able to work in a way that resembles the Dump's method of work. With this, Swedish legislation will become more similar to that which exists in many other places around the world.

In the autumn of 2025, I visited England together with, among others, Patrik Sjöberg and Sara Nilsson. There, we met organizations whose methods of work resemble the way Dumpen operates in Sweden. The big difference there is that the individuals are sentenced to long prison terms when they are exposed.

The Sweden Democrats want to see a zero vision for sexual offenses against children, and this is a step in the direction of that vision. Otherwise, we are pushing to change the defamation legislation so that it shall not be illegal to warn against pedophiles and other sexual offenders. We are also pushing for pedophiles to be locked up for an indefinite period. Chemical castration shall also be part of their treatment. Furthermore, on July 1 of this year, it will become possible to convict an adult who creates an account on a forum for young people, poses as a child, and seeks contact with children to commit sexual offenses.

Time and again we have seen how persons who have committed sexual offenses against children have continued to accumulate enormous amounts of abuse images of children or in other ways acted to commit new crimes as soon as they were released. There is simply no remedy that works fully. Therefore, society needs to do everything in its power to ensure that these persons never come into contact with children again, whether it is in the physical or in the digital environment.

Like much else, what we are presenting now, which will become law moving forward, is not a universal solution that will solve everything. There is much left to do. I am, however, absolutely convinced that this is another step in the right direction to protect children from dangerous people.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

Ludvig Ceimertz (M)

Mr. Speaker! This is a good bill. My contribution could be summarized by saying that this is a very good legislative proposal. The broad support that exists for the proposal also demonstrates exactly that.

The rules on attempt, preparation, and stamping as crimes are old. They are fundamentally designed for another time. Crime today is not analogous in the same way, but it is to a greater extent digital and network-based. Today, it is to a greater extent about commissioned crimes.

When several people plan a murder via a chat, it is too late to intervene when the weapons have been fired. When a recruiter posts assignments to a 14-year-old, it is too late to intervene when money has changed hands. When adult men systematically seek contact with children over the internet, it is too late to intervene when the abuse is completed. The rule of law must be able to intervene earlier, and that is exactly what this is about.

These are proposals that clearly target organized crime. Fundamentally, it is about expanding criminal liability for various preliminary stages of a crime – attempt, preparation, and branding. It may sound technical, but in practice, it is about something very concrete: giving law enforcement authorities the opportunity to intervene earlier and to break processes before serious crimes have been completed.

It means, for example, that the police can replace drugs or weapons with harmless substances or replicas without risking that the prosecution fails. It means that one can act on digital platforms when someone tries to recruit or commits to committing serious violent crimes. It also means that more acts at the planning stage – such as those that today can fall between the cracks – become punishable.

This is a crucial difference, Mr. Speaker. If we are to tackle organized crime, it is not enough that we prosecute the one who pulls the trigger, we must also reach the one who plans, the one who recruits, and the one who orders. With this, we reach a larger group of individuals in organized crime.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, a proposal is being prepared for an amendment to the constitution to make it possible to criminalize participation in criminal gangs. It will make a decisive difference and mean that we can take even further steps. Unfortunately, we lost four years because the Social Democrats were previously strongly opposed to this, but it is pleasing to see that we now seem to be able to reach a broad consensus on this issue. It is very positive.

Mr. Speaker! In connection with this bill, I can mention the famous weapon replica. The Supreme Court's ruling in the weapon replica case had consequences that I do not believe anyone in here is satisfied with, which is clearly manifested in the form of the unanimity regarding this proposal. The police replaced real weapons with a replica to protect people and remove the possibility of completing crimes. This led to the fact that the person who had intended to commit the crimes could not be convicted, because the danger itself had been removed.

It is not reasonable that the police cannot protect people against serious crimes without the prosecution failing. We are changing this now. If a person believes they are retrieving a live weapon, or drugs, it is their intent and their criminal plan that shall be judged – not whether the police have succeeded in preventing or precluding the crime.

We want the police to prevent and deter crime. In that case, the intent needs to be assessed. Therefore, we are now introducing a clear rule. If the danger is ruled out as a result of an authority's action to combat crime, punishment can still be imposed. It is a reasonable, delimited, and necessary change that strengthens the police's possibilities to use controlled deliveries, exchange weapons or drugs, and protect threatened persons without risking that the entire criminal case falls. We strengthen the possibility to prevent and deter serious crimes before they occur and without weakening the possibility of prosecution.

Mr. Speaker! In order to combat organized crime, we must break the new recruitment. This bill targets a part of it when it comes to the recruitment of children. When gang criminals lure and exploit children and promise large sums of money or other means of payment, we must be able to act more clearly. Today, it is required that payment has actually been made or received for it to count as preparation, but we are changing that now. It shall be sufficient that payment is promised. The person who posts a mission involving gross violence that is directed at young people on social media shall not be able to hide behind the fact that the money has not yet been paid.

We also meet those who procure aids, use encrypted phones for planning, or compile instructions for crimes. We shift the focus to the individual's role in the crime plan and make it harder to be an organizer in the background. It makes it harder to be a client, and it is this link we need to strike.

Mr. Speaker! Today, according to the legal text, it is required that someone, in consultation with someone else, decides on the act for it to constitute incitement to a crime. This has unfortunately been interpreted relatively narrowly, which has meant that more informal or progressively developed agreements have sometimes fallen outside the punishable area. That is changing now.

In its place, a clearer criterion is introduced: The person who agrees with someone else that an act shall be performed can be convicted of incitement when such liability is prescribed. It is therefore no longer required that there be a formal or explicit decision; it suffices that the parties have reached a mutual understanding.

Mr. Speaker! I will also mention something about the extensive news reporting of recent times regarding sexual abuse against children and how adult men systematically seek out children in digital environments, often in various forums and chats intended for children specifically. There, the men build relationships, instruct, manipulate, and plan gross abuses.

With this bill, the point of intervention in society is also moved when it comes to sexual crimes in a digital environment. We make it clearer that crime planning online is not a gray area. The person who compiles or spreads manuals on how sexual abuse against children should be carried out can be guilty of preparation. The person who obtains an account, acts under a false identity and seeks contact for the purpose of committing abuse can be punished for preparation liability. The person who, in chats, reaches a consensus that abuse shall be carried out can be convicted of incitement.

We also ensure that the person planning to commit an offense can be convicted even if the police have succeeded in detecting and taking over the communication. One shall therefore not be able to go free just because the police have taken over the communication. It is a crucial change that one can now act and intervene before the damage is done.

The government's work against sexual crimes against children is, however, much broader than what is covered by this bill. We are tightening the penalties, and we are strengthening the possibility of using secret coercive measures to a greater extent. We are also reviewing the possibility of using provocative measures, and an investigation has been presented to develop new measures. We are also working for better information exchange.

Just this bill contributes by moving forward the point of intervention so that abuses are stopped before they occur and before crime victims are created. We shall not only judge in hindsight.

Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the bill and conclude, just as I began: This is a very good bill.

(Applause)

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! I move for approval of the committee's proposal and thus of this important government bill. The Left Party, therefore, does not always say no, but we support reasonable and well-motivated proposals such as this.

The Council on Legislation has also been positive towards the bill but has made a number of comments in the text submitted to the Council. The government has accepted these. Some errors in the wording can be seen, which indicates that there was once again a great deal of haste in the Government Offices. This deficiency has, however, been rectified.

An important comment is that the bill is completely gender-neutral – I would like to say gender-blind. It is obvious that it primarily targets organized crime, but as so often before, it hides what can also be achieved in relation to abuse against women and children, which we obviously also need to prevent. I searched for "women" in the bill and got four hits – and then only in the referral response from the National Organization for Women's and Girls' Shelters in Sweden. So we should not have it that way. We should instead highlight the gender perspectives in different ways, also when it concerns honor-related violence and oppression.

So, regarding the background to the bill. The so-called dummy weapon case in the Supreme Court was just mentioned from the rostrum. The police had swapped weapons in a basement storage room for dummies. Since it took four months before the dummies were removed, the Supreme Court ruled that there was insufficient connection with the intent to use these weapons. This becomes almost a bit laughable in collision with reality. Everyone probably thinks that it is a reasonable and important method for the judicial authorities to be able to swap out dangerous items in order to set a trap. Now this is permitted, which means that one has committed a crime in those cases where it is possible to convict for attempted crime. It does not apply to all types of crimes, but when it comes to serious crimes, it is usually possible.

The Supreme Court's interpretation of the law was based on old preparatory works from 1949, and therefore the government's action for a reform is wise. Even if one is critical of the Supreme Court's actions, it probably could not have done much else at that time.

Sometimes, however, the Supreme Court's interpretations favor our objectives. Yesterday, we learned via the media that a person was convicted of incitement to murder for having attempted to recruit "climbers" online for good pay. Despite the fact that no contact was established, the sentence was harsh. It was positive.

The reform we are to vote on this afternoon concerns the expansion of criminal liability for attempted crimes so that crimes are not excluded because an authority has taken measures to combat crime. What is required is that there must have been a danger that the act would lead to a completed crime. Crime-fighting measures can be to replace weapons with replicas or drugs with harmless substances. It can also be to allow deliveries of illegal goods to continue under surveillance to map out the recipient. Attempting to postpone an intervention in these different ways can increase the conditions for collecting important evidence. Perhaps other serious crimes or more persons participating in the criminality can also be prosecuted.

Another important factor for the law enforcement authorities is to gain access to information at an early stage, which in the best case leads to crimes being prevented.

An additional measure mentioned in the preparatory works for the bill is that one should be able to take threatened persons into safety in order to prevent crimes such as honor-related crimes and sexual crimes against children at an early stage. To the Sweden Democrats, I want to say that there is an enormous difference between whether the justice system and our law enforcement authorities intervene to prevent crimes and achieve prosecution, and if the Dump acts and, in the worst case, causes the law enforcement authorities to be unable to intervene in these cases.

I want to add that honor-related crimes and crimes against children are mentioned, which is of course important, but unfortunately, one refrains from mentioning that very many women would also receive an enormous amount of help and support if the scope of application were expanded in a clear way and also included them.

This is an area where I truly hope that practice will be developed and that we do not forget women who are exposed to serious and perhaps ongoing abuse. It is not "only" about honor-related violence. All victims, regardless of gender, should be able to be handled here, I mean.

With this, I conclude. We know that the reform will pass now, but I also hope that it will become a good practice in its application.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden today has major problems with serious organized crime, violence and abuse against children and women, as well as crimes against companies and individuals. It is completely natural to want a single simple solution to that – for some strange reason, one prefers to have it on complicated problems, where it is difficult to find a simple solution.

The government and SD often want to give the impression that a single law, for example regarding anonymous witnesses or visitation zones, would solve the problem. It has not turned out to be the case, despite the fact that the referral and motion periods were shortened because it was so important to get it in place quickly.

The Social Democrats, on the other hand, often want to create broad laws with pedagogical names such as the mafia law or the crime victim law. It is also well-intentioned, but it often leads to major legal problems when everything is gathered into one law.

Mr. Speaker! We have legislation being debated here in the chamber on a chilly Wednesday during one of the sports holiday weeks in February, without motions and with a rather long and technical heading that says exactly what it is that we are doing today. Despite the rather undramatic context, it is very important legislation. On the one hand, it will be possible to intervene in crimes earlier, and on the other hand, more participants will be able to be punished, as more acts become part of a criminal act. It is a very stable piece of legislation that expands the responsibility for those who are part of the organized crime that we urgently need to combat.

This also enables authorities, primarily the crime-preventive authorities but also others, to act in a smarter and safer way for the public. The police can, for example, remove the weapon or the narcotics before the handover – it still becomes a crime. However, this should not be confused with provoking crimes, which is an issue that will land on the Riksdag's table during the spring.

In this case, the criminal intent and the criminal act must be present in the perpetrators. The authorities can allow the crime to be completed but without the risks and effects that the crime would have entailed if it had been allowed to proceed undisturbed. It is also welcome that recruitment is seen as branding and that more than money is seen as a means of payment, such as crypto and valuables.

Overall, it is valuable legislation that will be important for the country's safety and security, without a rushed process or a flashy name. The Riksdag and Sweden need more of this.

I vote in favor of the proposal in the committee's report.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my support for the proposal in the report that we are debating today.

It is welcome that the government is now taking a unified grip on the so-called non-autonomous forms of crime. The current applicable law is in large part designed for another time. Society's digitalization and other developments have resulted in changed crime patterns where criminals have quickly adapted and developed new modes in both the planning and execution of crimes.

In line with these changes, the law enforcement authorities have also attempted to adapt their methods and strategies in their endeavor to solve the crimes and arrest the perpetrators. In that context, the current legislation is not always favorable in the operational work.

Mr. Speaker! Several speakers before me have mentioned the Supreme Court's ruling on the so-called weapons trap. It was a major setback. I have for several years worked with investigation and surveillance regarding serious crimes, not least drug offenses. At that time, it was routine for customs and police to intervene in connection with so-called controlled deliveries of narcotics. At an unguarded moment, the shipment of narcotics was replaced with harmless substances. Then the delivery was allowed to proceed, all in the intent to expose and arrest the orderer or the recipient.

In the weapons case, the Supreme Court stated that the circumstance that the police replaced the weapon meant that the crime could not be completed and therefore did not entail criminal liability, according to current law. It was a so-called frustrated attempt. In this case, it was a weapon, but in other cases, it can be drugs.

The ruling clearly represented a major setback for Customs and Police, not least in the fight against drugs. An already challenging mission suddenly became much more difficult.

With the now submitted report, it will once again be possible to use the methodology. It is now clarified that it is a punishable attempt even if, as it stands in the legal text, "the danger of the crime's completion has been excluded as a result of an authority's action to combat crime."

From April 1, customs and police can work more effectively again with the support of the new legislation, as was done previously. As a former police officer, I naturally think that this is one of the more important changes in the report that we are debating today.

Mr. Speaker! Another important change is that the concept of aids in crime is being broadened. Currently, a direct connection to the crime for the purpose of committing or promoting a crime is required. As has been said, digitalization has changed much even in the criminals' world. Now we have crime as a service and a bit of a brokerage activity where one, as an intermediary, arranges and establishes contact with enablers and others without personally taking possession of the aids that are requested, while simultaneously being well aware of the purpose and objective of the procurement.

Now the criminal liability for aids is being expanded to also include acquisition and transfer. In other words, it is required that the act is punishable even in cases where one has not had physical contact with or possessed the aid in question. This is, of course, welcome.

Mr. Speaker! A relatively new phenomenon, which has been touched upon by the previous speaker, is the extensive recruitment of young people who are sought for murder missions and other serious violent crimes. It is a recruitment that has been made possible through the digitalization of society and access to media platforms. Now, crime in Sweden can be led, organized, and conducted outside the country's borders. We are now opening up an opportunity to intervene against those who promise compensation for a crime. The recruitment will now be seen as a punishable preparation.

Mr. Speaker! Last but not least, the criminal liability for what is called solicitation is now also being broadened. By solicitation is currently meant that someone, in consultation with another, decides to commit a crime or that one tries to hire someone or offers oneself to commit it.

This concept and the requirement for consultation have caused legal problems, but in the new legislation, the criminal branding does not need to be linked to a clear decision. It is sufficient that an agreement has been reached to commit a crime.

Mr. Speaker! It is my hope that the changes in the legislation now presented provide the police and prosecutors with better conditions to intervene at an early stage and prevent life and property from being wasted, and that we can continue to increase the pressure on gang criminals and organized crime, restore safety, and stop the reprehensible and cynical recruitment of young people who are encouraged to commit murder and other violent crimes.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! If a law clashes with reality so that reality becomes worse because of the law, I and many others believe that the law should be changed. That was the case with the so-called weapons crime.

The police discover a weapons cache, let's say in a basement. The police see and understand that they are live weapons and that they will probably be used to kill someone. The police, of course, want to get their hands on the person who has hidden the weapons there. But one does not dare to let the live weapons remain on site, so they are replaced with non-live weapons, with replicas, with dummies. Then you sit and surveil the location to see who comes and picks up the weapons. When a person then arrives at the location and takes these weapons, i.e., the dummies, that person is arrested. He is prosecuted for a weapons offense because in his world and in the police's world, they were live weapons that he was there to pick up. Logical, I think, the police think, and the prosecutor thinks.

But it was not that easy. Because the man had been arrested with an innocuous weapon, i.e., a non-lethal weapon, he could not be convicted of a weapons offense according to the defense, which appealed. The Supreme Court agreed. The man was acquitted of the weapons offense.

This is a good example of reality and common sense having to take a backseat to the law. The Minister for Justice promised after this that he would review the judgment and the legislation and see what we could do about it.

Now we are doing something about it. Now the government is changing this law. Now we are making it so that the police and other law enforcement agencies can, for example, replace weapons or drugs without it affecting the preparation of crimes or attempted crimes. Now it will be considered preparation or attempted crime even when the weapon has been replaced with a blunt weapon.

This, Mr. Speaker, is yet another example of how the government sees a problem, identifies a problem, and solves a problem.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 19.)

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