Controls of cash at the internal border
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 S thinks it is important to expand Tullverket's ability to control cash at the internal border to combat organized crime and tax evasion 1. 1 S emphasizes that it is crucial that Tullverket receives additional funds as the authority risks lacking resources and technology 1. 2 S argues that Tullverket needs significantly higher appropriations than what the government has granted to combat crime and the export of stolen goods 2. 2 3 S believes that the government has prioritized tax cuts over effective customs operations and that the current appropriations are insufficient for staffing, tools, and dog training 2 3. 4 SD believes that the proposal is an important step to choke the criminal economy and regain control over Sweden 4. 5 M argues that the bill is a necessary step in a coherent system to hinder the financing of crime 5. 6 M argues that the government is implementing a systemic shift against the criminal economy by strengthening Tullverket's powers and intelligence work 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Patrik Björck (S)
Madam Speaker! It is the Committee on Taxation's report, Controls of cash at the inner border, that is being debated here today. I begin by moving to approve the Committee's proposal.
We Social Democrats think it is truly important that we make this change and that we expand Tullverket's ability to control funds at the internal border. It is therefore about Tullverket being given the opportunity to control the import and export of cash at the borders with other EU countries. This is the difference compared to what applies today.
The regulation that is proposed mainly corresponds to that which applies today for the control of cash funds in relation to countries outside the EU. It is therefore proposed that there be a reporting and disclosure obligation for cash funds with a value of at least 10,000 euro if they are transported across the border to another EU country. That is what is new.
It is proposed that Tullverket shall have the authority to take measures to monitor reporting and declaration obligations and have the right to temporarily withhold cash for further inspection. A criminal liability is also proposed, which means that those who violate reporting or declaration obligations can be sentenced to a fine. The regulatory framework enables inspections of imports and exports even when it concerns the internal border. It is an important and purposeful complement to the various initiatives that have been taken to combat organized crime and the criminal economy. This, we Social Democrats naturally believe, is important.
The proposed rules are a prerequisite for the authorities to be able to detect, prevent, and hinder cash being taken out of Sweden to the extent that occurs today. Since it appears that the Riksdag can be in agreement on this important proposal, we believe that the legislative change can enter into force on 1 April 2026, Madam Speaker.
This is not a small concern. The exact extent of the import and export of cash is difficult to assess. But there are assessments that it involves billions, at least, being moved out of the country in various ways – often with very shady motives, one could say. It is therefore important that the authority is given the opportunity to simply keep track of the movements of funds so that they do not mean that we support money laundering or that criminal profits and other things are being moved out.
As has been said, it is appreciated that this activity involves billions. It is therefore absolutely not an insignificant or minor problem.
Even though we Social Democrats support this idea and all proposals that counteract crime, criminality, tax evasion, various forms of misappropriation of funds, or whatever it may be, and even though we agree with the government and other parties in the Riksdag on implementing this, it is important to point out something, Madam Speaker. It is about the authority succeeding in carrying out the assignments it receives, hopefully from April 1, 2026, with the expanded powers. There is, of course, a concern from the authority's side. Will they be able to manage to do what we politicians demand of the authority? One can look at Tullverket's budget request earlier this year. They have realized that they face many different proposals from politics regarding what they should occupy themselves with and regarding additional roles. We are expanding Tullverket's situation, so to speak, in terms of being involved in combating organized crime. In that case, it is important that funds are also added moving forward, so that Tullverket has an opportunity to do this important work.
One can look at other parts of the Swedish Customs' work, for example, the fight against drug smuggling. The Swedish Customs has raised the alarm on several occasions. I am looking at a newspaper from Gävle. There it says:
"Is the drugs pouring into Sweden via the port of Gävle?"
It is impossible to know. For even though the customs have been in place for several years, one has still not received the necessary tools required to scan incoming containers.
If Tullverket receives a lot of new tasks but does not receive the resources to carry them out, there is, of course, a small risk that it will be a shot in the air. That is what we Social Democrats are worried about.
There is another newspaper article that addresses the large drug seizure a few weeks ago. It states: No Swedish port has fixed equipment today to X-ray containers in the hunt for drugs smuggled into the country. The Swedish Customs Service must wait for new technology.
One can constantly observe that the new tasks being placed on Tullverket are not followed up with responses to the needs that exist for the authority to be able to fully carry out this.
Even though this is only, so to speak, in the short term, we can see that there is also reason to be worried in the long term. We can state this after the Fiscal Policy Council's report. If it has been stingy with money for new reforms, it is apparently, according to the Minister of Finance, empty in the barns, and the money is finished. If we are to be able to realize the intentions that exist and the decisions we are to take today, we must naturally have a government that is capable of managing the state's finances, so that the Swedish Customs Service can take on the new tasks it receives, for example when it comes to having control over the import and export of cash – or for that matter, drugs. Even though the debate today does not concern drugs, it is precisely the same problem. One receives expanded tasks and expanded responsibility, but the government is lagging behind in providing funds.
I want to draw the attention of those listening to the debate today to this. Yes, the decision is good in substance. I have nothing to object to regarding it. But there is a great concern over how the sitting government manages the state's finances. Consequently, there is a great concern everywhere in the country in many different operations in many agencies that one will not be able to meet the requirements that are set when it comes to performing the work fully. It can concern everything from healthcare to the customs service.
We have high demands on public society. We have high demands on our authorities. We should have that, but then those who are to do the work must also be given an opportunity to actually do the work. There is much else to wish for.
I move, as I have said, for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.
Bo Broman (SD)
Madam Speaker! Today we are debating a report and proposal that may appear technical on the surface but which in fact concerns one of the most decisive issues of our time: How do we choke the criminal economy and regain control over Sweden?
Today, there are rules regarding the control of cash at the border with third countries. There, customs can check cash funds and intervene. But against other EU countries, the same clear tools have been lacking. The government therefore now proposes that an obligation should be introduced to report the import and export of cash funds with a value of at least 10,000 euro even for travel to and from other EU countries. The person who brings such amounts shall immediately report this to Tullverket and make the funds available for inspection.
Furthermore, it is proposed that Tullverket shall be given explicit powers to verify that the reporting and disclosure obligations are followed, as well as the possibility to temporarily withhold cash for further inspection. Anyone who violates the obligation may be sentenced to a fine.
Madam Speaker! We know that organized crime is cross-border. We know that large amounts of cash are being taken out of Sweden. And we know that cash is central in money laundering schemes, in the financing of terrorism, and in the reinvestment of crime profits into new serious crime – not least drugs and weapons smuggling.
Behind every criminal network, there is an economic cycle. The money must move. If we do not attack the very bloodstream of the criminal economy, we will never get to the root of the problem.
We Sweden Democrats have for a long time pointed out exactly this. We have consistently pushed to strengthen Tullverket – regarding both powers and resources.
The Customs is not an administrative back-office agency. It is a law enforcement front-line agency. It stands at the forefront in the encounter with international crime.
For many years, the customs' tools were insufficient in relation to the crime development we saw. We in Sverigedemokrater have criticized that. We have wanted to change that. For us in the Tidösamarbetet, the fight against organized crime is one of our absolute most prioritized issues. This bill is completely in line with the direction we have long advocated for.
Madam Speaker! It is important to emphasize the proportionality of the proposal. It is not about casting suspicion on ordinary people. It is not about making normal travel within the EU more difficult. The limit is set at 10,000 euro, a level that already applies at the external border. It is therefore a question of larger amounts, such as those that are typically relevant in contexts where there is a risk of money laundering and other serious crime.
Organized crime is today system-threatening. It undermines trust, it corrupts structures, and it challenges the state's monopoly on violence. Striking against firearms is important. Striking against drugs is important. But striking against the money is strategic.
This bill may not be dramatic in its design – it is factual, and it is technical. But it is an important step in closing a concrete and identified gap in our regulatory framework. And it sends a clear signal: Sweden shall not be a transit route for proceeds of crime.
Madam Speaker! We will also continue to push for Customs to have the resources, the staffing and the tools required to meet increasingly advanced and international crime. The legislation must be developed in step with the threats.
Today we take another step in the right direction. I am pleased that the committee is in agreement on this issue.
Against this background, I move for the committee's proposal for a decision to be approved.
Marie Nicholson (M)
Madam Speaker! Cash has always had a clear place in society. It has stood for simplicity and for everyday payments. Today, however, cash has taken on a different meaning, not in the lives of ordinary people but in organized crime. Cash has become a tool to move criminal profits quickly, anonymously, and across borders, a way to avoid oversight and evade control. It is that change that we must contend with, and that is where this debate begins.
Madam Speaker! The crime we see today is not limited to one place or one country. It is mobile, international, and to a large extent economically driven. Money from drug trafficking, human trafficking, fraud, and other serious crime rarely stays where the crime was committed but is forwarded and moved across borders, away from scrutiny. Once the money has left the country, society loses much of its opportunity to intervene. Investigations become more difficult, evidence is lost, and the criminal activity can continue to be financed. That is why Sweden's border is so important. There is, in fact, a concrete opportunity there to control and intervene against large criminal profits before they are forwarded out of the country.
Madam Speaker! It is against that background that the bill we are now considering should be understood. The bill practically entails three things. For the first, the person who brings in or takes out large amounts of cash will be obliged to report this to Tullverket, even when the journey takes place within the EU. For the second, Tullverket will receive a clear legal basis to check these cash funds when there are grounds to do so. For the third, the authority is given the possibility to withhold money that can be linked to criminal activity so that it can be further investigated.
So, it is not about controlling ordinary travel, but about giving society the opportunity to intervene when large amounts of cash are transferred across borders and risk being used to finance crime. This is a necessary but not an isolated step. During the mandate period, the Government has chosen to take a collective grip on the criminal economy. The starting point has been clear: As long as proceeds from crime can be moved, hidden, and used without significant risk, organized crime will continue to grow.
That is why new legislation has been targeted at the money flows. The legislation against money laundering has been tightened to make it more difficult to hide criminal profits in the financial system. The rules against unauthorized financial activity have been strengthened because criminal networks often use informal systems to move money outside the banks' control. At the same time, the work against abuse of the payment system has been intensified. Loopholes where criminal profits could previously pass without sufficient oversight have been closed. The EU's common regulatory framework contributes to strengthening control along the entire chain.
The government has also clarified and strengthened the Customs Service's law enforcement role in order to be able to act more accurately where the risks are greatest. Overall, it is a shift in how the state meets the criminal economy, from individual measures to a coherent system, from reacting to crime to preventing and hindering the financing of it.
But legislation in itself is not enough. It must also be usable in practice. Therefore, parallel to the legislative changes, the government has chosen to strengthen the law enforcement authorities through the budget, not through temporary investments but through long-term reinforcements that provide stability over time.
For the Swedish Customs, this has meant increased appropriations to be able to build up and develop its crime-fighting work. It is about strengthening the capacity for analysis, about working more systematically with intelligence, and about having perseverance in the work against organized crime. The budget reinforcements are crucial for new powers to have real significance.
Cash controls at Sweden's border do not solve all problems, but they close a clear loophole. Controls make it more difficult to move proceeds of crime unnoticed, increase the risk of detection, and reduce the profitability of serious crime. It is part of a clear and long-term direction.
This government is acting against a criminal economy that has long been allowed to grow undisturbed, and the proposal we are discussing today is an important step in that work. It strengthens society's ability to follow the money and strikes directly at the economic drivers behind organized crime.
Patrik Björck (S)
Madam Speaker! I have a question that the member might be able to answer. We agree on the proposal in substance here today, but I stated in my speech that there is a great concern that funds will not be allocated that make it possible for the Swedish Customs Service to actually carry out the new tasks it receives, tasks which we here in the Riksdag agree are important.
In the Customs Administration's budget request to the government, they state that they are happy to accept these new tasks and want to be involved in combating crime. They want to strengthen their preparedness. One should not only hunt according to the classic customs operations, but one should in a more comprehensive way step in to handle crime. We are talking, for example, about the export of stolen goods. It is task after task that is being added, and the Customs Administration states that larger appropriations are needed to be able to carry out this in a way that they themselves want and that they feel a pressure from the Riksdag and the government to do.
That is why I am a bit confounded, Madam Speaker, when the member suggests that the government has met these budget demands, because that is actually not correct. The Swedish Customs' assessment of what is needed in appropriations to manage these tasks is significantly higher than the appropriations that the government has made in the budget.
My question is therefore: Does the member consider that the budget messages that Tullverket came with were something they had thought out in the chamber and that the Ministry of Finance could have answered these questions better? Or has one simply saved away this by preferring tax cuts over an effective customs operation?
Marie Nicholson (M)
Madam Speaker! The Member of Parliament speaks here about the government's work against money laundering and cash smuggling as an isolated issue. But this is not just about the Swedish Customs. It is a misleading picture. We have chosen to go after the criminal economy as a whole, to strike at the money and not just individual crimes.
Here we present new legislation that makes it possible to monitor and stop cash amounts. It is very good that we agree on how important it is. We have also strengthened the Swedish Customs Service's powers and their intelligence work. We have tightened the regulatory framework against unauthorized financial activities used to move proceeds of crime outside the banking system. We have strengthened the work against abuse of the payment system and built up a more unified effort against money laundering throughout the entire justice chain.
This is a systemic shift. It is not isolated measures but a coherent attack on the criminal economy. To claim that we have not invested enough simply does not hold up.
Patrik Björck (S)
Madam Speaker! It is true that it does not only concern the Swedish Customs. But this debate is about the Swedish Customs, and my question concerned what the Swedish Customs needs, for example, in the form of staffing and new tools in light of the new tasks they are receiving. It concerns, for example, scanners and the training of dogs that can sniff out money. Dogs can, after all, not only sniff out drugs but also cash. These are investments that need to be made, because there have been many new tasks in a short period of time.
This is good, Madam Speaker, just as the member states. That is what we agree on, so that is not where the debate arises. The debate arises when those who are professionals in this, who know their job and want to do their job, state that normal budget increases that basically follow inflation, wage development, or something else do not give Tullverket the opportunity to perform these tasks.
The government's assessment when making the budget seems to have been that large tax cuts are most important while the Customs Service's fight against organized crime is not as important, or else the members and the government have made a completely different assessment than the Customs Service has of what they need to fulfill their missions.
Getting an annual adjustment of agency appropriations is nothing unusual. You get that even if you do not receive new tasks. But for Customs to be able to fulfill its tasks in the long run, it would have required substantial appropriation increases, and now the Finance Minister is also saying that the money is finished. The barns are empty. There will be nothing more in the coming years.
Marie Nicholson (M)
Madam Speaker! Patrik Björck brought up the scanners both in his speech and here in the exchange of remarks. I want to start by saying that it is regrettable that the scanners that have been ordered are not yet on site. I can agree that there absolutely need to be scanners on site, but then the question must also be asked back: Where is the Social Democrats' budget commitment for the scanners that the member has raised several times? I have seen the criticism, but I have not seen any concrete appropriations.
The government, however, has acted broadly. It has strengthened the customs' intelligence work in law and budget and by building a stronger national system. In that context, the proposal for a new civil intelligence service shall also be included for better collective analysis, earlier warning, and a stronger basis for decisions against organized crime and other societal threats.
This becomes quite interesting, because Patrik Björck is often quick to criticize the government when he feels things are moving too slowly, but representatives for his own party have expressed doubt regarding precisely the timeline for a civil intelligence service. I think it illustrates the difference: The government is pushing to strengthen intelligence capabilities here and now, and the opposition criticizes but hesitates when the decisions actually have to be made.
Scanners are important, but what decides the outcome is intelligence, analysis, and accuracy. Here, the government continues to deliver.
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.