Business prohibition as a result of a prohibition to conduct business activities notified in another state
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the proposal that courts should be able to take into account business prohibitions issued in other states when assessing business prohibitions in Sweden. SD argues that the current proposal is too weak because it only provides the possibility to consider foreign prohibitions without imposing a requirement to do so 1. SD considers it unreasonable that persons with tax debts or previous fraud in other countries should be allowed to run businesses in Sweden 1. SD wants foreign business prohibitions to always be considered and given great significance during the assessment in order to curb fraud against companies and private individuals 1.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Martin Westmont (SD)
Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of our reservation.
What we are debating in the chamber right now is a proposal that the court, in its assessment regarding a business prohibition, shall be able to take into account the business operator's actions in another state.
The government's hope is to reduce the risks of crime. The proposal as it stands is a small step along the way but does not change much from how it is today in terms of preventing the occurrence of unscrupulous business activities.
The Sweden Democrats argue that there should be a requirement that the business owner's actions in another state shall be the basis for the court's decision. The current proposal does not imply a requirement to consider business prohibitions and derogations abroad in every individual case, but only that there shall be an opportunity to consider these circumstances during the review.
Madam Speaker! It is unreasonable that an entrepreneur who has large tax debts in a country where he or she has been prohibited from conducting business is granted permission to operate a company in Sweden, just as it is unreasonable that an entrepreneur who has deliberately cheated and defrauded consumers is given the opportunity to continue that activity in another country.
This type of fraud is carried out many times by individuals with the help of a registered company to give the appearance of being a serious actor that the consumer can trust. One procedure is so-called scam invoices.
We can see that frauds in various forms are increasing sharply. We see that small businesses are being hit hard. Another vulnerable group is our elderly.
If we seriously want to curb these types of frauds, we must also make it harder for criminals to operate behind a registered business, regardless of whether it takes place in Sweden or in another country. A basic prerequisite for carrying out invoice frauds against our companies or against private individuals is often that one has a registered business that gives the appearance of a serious operation.
We cannot control how other countries act, but in Sweden we must be clear that if you have conducted business in another country that has had such large errors and deficiencies that you have been issued a business ban, you should not be able to come to Sweden, register a new company or buy a new corporate structure and conduct business.
Does it then mean that we close the door completely to running businesses in Sweden for persons who have been issued a business prohibition in another state? No, Madam Speaker, the door is not closed, but a first step for it to be opened is that one fulfills one's obligations in the country where one has mismanaged things to such an extent that one has been issued a business prohibition.
The government also agrees with the expected picture that the proposed change will not result in an increase in the number of business bans - this in a time when we see that the number of frauds where companies are used as tools is high.
Business prohibition as a result of a prohibition to conduct business activities that has been issued in another state
The problem of companies being used as tools for crime to such an extent is in many ways a legacy of a passivity from the Social Democrat-led government. For the Sweden Democrats, the issue of countering crime is central. We have for a long time pursued a sharp policy regarding business bans for those who conduct criminal activities; we want, for example, that persons with gang-criminal connections should receive business bans.
If we receive warning signs in the form of a person having been issued a business ban in another state, this must, of course, be a parameter that the court shall take into consideration. The importance of diligence and serious business activity shall be emphasized in Sweden, and this is achieved, among other things, by ensuring that those who have not fulfilled their obligations in other countries cannot move to Sweden and continue to conduct an unserious business. We must make it more difficult for fraudsters to defraud Swedish citizens and Swedish companies.
The new regulation is a step in the right direction, but to counter further crime, we believe that an expansion of the regulation is justified. Therefore, an expansion of the EU directive in this case may be justified to further counter crime in line with the Sverigedemokraternas policy.
Madam Speaker! The Government should therefore, according to our reservation, return with a legislative proposal which entails that business bans abroad shall always be taken into account and be of great significance during the actual assessment.
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.