Response to interpellation 2023/24:247 on measures to prevent gang criminals from running businesses

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! Mattias Vepsä has asked me what I and the government intend to do to ensure that gang criminals are not given the opportunity to run companies and in that way defraud society of tax money.

Organized crime in Sweden is a threat to society, and the government is placing an extraordinary focus on combating it. The government's work aims to strike hard against the gangs' gross violence, to stop the new recruitment of children and young people and, not least, to choke the criminal economy. By choking off the supply of money to organized crime, we can break down the gangs' structures.

I take the use of companies to commit crimes seriously. This criminality leads to the society losing significant tax revenues and suffering great losses, for example through fraud against the welfare systems. Furthermore, honest business owners risk being driven out when they are forced to compete against actors who do not follow the rules. The profits generated with companies as tools for crime also finance other serious crime. Overall, the infiltration of the business world by serious organized crime is a threat to the system. It is therefore very important to counter the use of companies as tools for crime.

This summer, I received the report Companies and Crime, in which it is proposed that Bolagsverket should be given a clearer controlling role regarding the information in the agency's registers. In the investigation, it is proposed that Bolagsverket should work more systematically to detect so-called "målvakter" (front men) used to hide the real actors behind the criminal activity. The investigation's proposals also imply better opportunities for Bolagsverket to cooperate with other authorities for crime prevention purposes. The report also proposes that corporate hijacking should be criminalized and that the penalty for crimes against the "målvakt" prohibition should be tightened. The investigation's proposals have been out for consultation, and the consultation period expired as recently as last Friday.

Organized crime must be combated with the combined efforts of the entire society. The government therefore wants to improve the possibilities for information exchange between authorities and others in order to stop economic crime.

At the end of October, I received the report Increased information flow to law enforcement. It is proposed there that state agencies, municipalities and regions, as well as schools, shall be given an obligation to provide information to law enforcement agencies. Those proposals are now out for consultation. In the middle of October, we also appointed an inquiry that shall consider and propose a general possibility for agencies to provide information covered by secrecy for the protection of individuals to another agency.

The gangs are driven by money. To push back organized crime, the government will therefore also continue to place an extraordinarily large focus on dismantling the criminal economy and combating economic crime of all kinds. Only in this way can we restore safety and thereby stand guard over freedom in Sweden.

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

Mattias Vepsä (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister of Justice, for your answer! In large parts, I would say in all parts, I agree with the answer. It is good that the government here presents measures in some of the questions where the previous government had appointed inquiries and in other parts describes what the strategy forward could be to prevent criminals from being able to run companies.

What prompted my question and this interpellation debate was a specific news event a few weeks ago where it emerged that one in ten gang criminals runs companies here in Stockholm. We have a long way to go before we have a system where we have control and can ensure that gang criminals' financing is choked off.

I would like to broaden the debate a little bit. I think it concerns several different things. Partly, it is absolutely about corporate forms, company forms, and control possibilities for the authorities. Just as the Minister for Justice mentions, there are a number of proposals in Bolag och brott. They were read from the rostrum and can be accessed in the referral that has been out. They are in large parts interesting, and we will see when a government bill reaches the table.

It is also important to have control in the welfare systems, one of the sectors where more and more people are warning about the development. In SVT's Aktuellt on October 3, it is said that the welfare systems are under attack by the criminal gangs. Is there any point where I think we need to stop being naive, it is precisely when it comes to our welfare systems, which are like an open tap where it is possible to pluck tax money out of the system through free establishment rights, the law on choice systems, and lack of control.

Here in Region Stockholm, which much of today's debate is about, work is now being done to tackle incorrect payments and welfare fraud. Already last year, during the first year with the new majority, they managed to handle 100 million kronor that had previously gone out in incorrect payments or pure fraud. There are figures indicating that 15-20 billion kronor annually can be linked to welfare crimes.

In my first point, I want to ask the Minister for Justice if he shares the view that there are at least two sides to this debate. It is about better control of the systems and rules that apply to how one is allowed to run a company and what control possibilities should exist from the authorities.

But do the minister and the government also see a need to choke off the financing possibilities from welfare? Does the minister, like I do, see that we have a system with free freedom of establishment with difficult control and that there are unserious actors there today? More and more authorities, journalists, debaters, serious entrepreneurs, industry organizations and not least taxpayers wonder when it is time to take back control in welfare and ensure that the criminals no longer have a source of financing.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Mattias Vepsä, for the opportunity to discuss these important issues today!

When we are now to push back the heavy organized crime, it is important to do so on several fronts simultaneously. Therefore, the government's plan rests on three distinct parts.

The first is, of course, to strike against the gross violence - the shootings and the bombings. It is A and O to strike against that. The second is to strangle the criminal economy, that is to say, that which drives the crime and feeds the criminal networks. The third is, of course, to break the new recruitment of children and young people into the criminal gangs. We must work methodically on all three fronts.

One year after the election and with a new government, I can state that we have taken an enormous number of initiatives in each of these three parts, dedicated to being able to reverse the development and push back crime moving forward.

When it comes to economic crime and the criminal economy, we know that drug trafficking is a primary source of income for criminal gangs. But economic fraud has to a large extent surpassed drugs as the primary source of revenue for the criminal networks. It is a breadth of activities where companies are used, not least, as tools for crime. But it is also about fraud in other ways, for example, very systematic fraudulent activity targeted at elderly people and so on.

I can assure Mattias Vepsä that this government will not hesitate to do what is required to push back and strangle the criminal economy. We will do this through new and effective tools for crime fighting, in order to be able to strike against the criminal economy, but also by in other ways strangling access to public funds.

A new payment authority will soon be in place, dedicated to gaining control over public payments, making it more difficult to commit fraud and exploit the public grant systems, and safeguarding the taxpayers' money.

It is also about increased supervision and licensing requirements in more cases, also when it concerns private actors' involvement in public welfare. We are open to doing what is required. In that part, however, I would like to make an objection. I have no problem at all with licensing requirements, effective supervision, strict rules, auditing, everything that can ensure that taxpayers' money is used for welfare and not for anything else. This applies regardless of whether it concerns public or private actors in welfare.

However, I must say that the reference to Stockholm unmistakably clarifies a difference. I perceive that the Social Democrats would like to use the fight against crime as a kind of excuse to achieve something else that the Social Democrats would like to achieve: to stifle the citizens' influence over welfare. It is about the individual's and the family's opportunities to influence, through their own choices, where they should go to the dentist, which preschool the children should attend, and which health center they should go to.

It is important to understand that the core of the Swedish welfare model is, on one hand, the public funding, which ensures that it is not a matter of the wallet, and on the other hand, the citizen's opportunity to personally influence the most important life choices that also concern welfare. What I have seen as a citizen in Stockholm over the past year is unfortunately not a campaign against crime driven by public interest reasons, but an ideologically conditioned closure of the citizens' freedom of choice. This applies to everything from anorexia care to ambulance care and other things.

If that is what the debate is to be about, I want to assure Mattias Vepsä that we have a conflict. Because it will not push back crime. It will, however, undermine the citizens' own empowerment and freedom of choice.

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

Mattias Vepsä (S)

Mr. Speaker! Stockholm is large. If we look at the entire Stockholm region, we can take a little time to turn our gaze towards Södertälje. It is a municipality that for a long time has worked to tackle the challenges that serious organized crime of quite a large scale entails for a municipality.

We can look at the Pax report that was released almost a year ago. I believe there is a fairly broad consensus regarding the strategy across party lines. Both Moderates and Social Democrats, who now govern Södertälje, agree that there are major challenges. For example, the introduction of LOV led to quite substantial cost increases in elderly care. Unserious actors were able to trick their way into millions at the expense of the elderly. Instead of providing home care and care in the home, criminals were able to trick their way into money.

At the local level, we agree that it is about being able to offer the opportunity for good welfare with different elements of choice, but also about addressing the naivety involved when one has a largely open tap from the welfare systems connected to the companies' opportunities to establish themselves. In that, the unserious companies can trick their way into millions. In that sense, I do not see that we have a government that, when it comes to the crunch, does everything to get order, tidiness, and control in the welfare system.

Sometimes when I stand in the rostrum here in the Swedish Riksdag or occasionally take part in the debate outside, I get a feeling that while the government is acting powerfully to deal with the gross organized crime. As I said, we share the view that one must choke off the financing, eliminate the violence, and break the new recruitment. But as many times before, I also feel here today that on one hand, one talks about the powerful work, but on the other hand, one does something completely different.

In recent weeks, there has been a debate about the government now presenting a proposal to amend the parental insurance so that it will be possible to transfer parental leave days to virtually anyone. What do the government's own agencies say on the matter? The Economic Crime Authority is sounding the alarm and says that it massively increases the vulnerability in our welfare systems and that the welfare system has become an ATM for those who are not serious.

We have, therefore, a debate here today on preventing gang criminals from running businesses and on ensuring that we have control and order in our welfare systems. I agree with the Minister for Justice's commitment to the issue. But I wonder why the Minister for Justice, on the one hand, is pursuing a hardline campaign while the Minister for Social Insurance, on the other hand, is opening up the welfare systems in such a way that their own agencies are sounding the alarm and saying: This is anything but having control. This is anything but choking off the organized criminals' opportunities to take more money out of the welfare sector.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! I am happy to take Södertälje as a starting point. Södertälje is an incredibly interesting municipality. For a long time, work has been carried out methodically and systematically against serious organized crime. Almost all the problems we are now discussing, also regarding economic crime, can be found in Södertälje, including – I want to emphasize – successful measures to push back that crime.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the major measures we are now taking regarding the possibilities to create increased protection for employees in the public sector are based on experiences from Södertälje and other municipalities. The measures we are now taking regarding making it possible for municipalities and others to perform background checks on employees, in order to ensure that one does not get crime on the inside of the operations, are based, not least, on the experiences from Södertälje.

There is no doubt whatsoever that in parts of the welfare sector where it has been possible to establish oneself freely, major problems have also arisen. One such very tangible problem concerns the assistance allowance. It is important that the rules for procurement and establishment include both auditing and control as well as supervision and licensing requirements in cases where it is appropriate, but I want to emphasize that there is an important dividing line here. That is, we must, of course, continue to strive to design the welfare systems so that they also function well for the honest citizen.

How a family should divide its time in a situation where the children are small is a very pressing welfare policy issue regarding achieving better balance, greater freedom, and the opportunity for the family to make ends meet. We cannot set this in opposition to control, audit, and supervision, for then we jeopardize other values.

I think it becomes difficult when just Stockholm - not least the new government in the region - is pointed out as an example. Under the pretext of wanting to counter, for example, crime, one closes down an activity that is immensely appreciated and very successful among the citizens, which is dedicated to anorexia care. One also targets private companies that have contributed to ambulance care and takes back a healthcare consultancy that has been conducted in a very successful way in private ownership without having a plan for how it should be handled when the public sector now takes over.

It is, therefore, not an expression of a well-thought-out strategy to push back either gross organized crime or individual business operators who engage in dishonestly cutting in line in the welfare system, but it is something else. It concerns a very classic issue, namely reducing the citizens' freedom of choice, empowerment, and opportunities to influence their own lives.

I am prepared to discuss every day of the week the involvement of private actors in the welfare system and what requirements we must set to ensure that taxpayers' money goes to welfare and not to criminal profits, but I do not intend to take that as a pretext to undermine the citizens and their own empowerment and freedom of choice.

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

Mattias Vepsä (S)

Mr. Speaker! If the government had, in every instance, protected welfare, they would not have driven 21 of 21 regions into a healthcare crisis. Then they might have met the requirements to compensate the regions and especially healthcare for the rising costs resulting from inflation. We Social Democrats have seen this, and in our alternative budget, we also point this out as important. We include a specific, new principle to compensate welfare for rising costs resulting from inflation.

It is possible to prioritize ensuring that the welfare is protected, if we are to have a welfare policy debate. But this is primarily about combating serious organized crime and the gangs' ability to take money from the welfare sector.

I am not quite satisfied, because I received no answer on how the Minister views the fact that the government's own agencies are alarming about the vulnerability in the example concerning making the parental leave reform and making it possible to transfer parental days as is proposed. It would be difficult to control. More and more people believe that our welfare has become an ATM that sustains gang criminals in their activities.

I request a proper answer from the Minister on the question of what the government intends to do to plug the leak. We share the view that one must have control, and that is why Region Stockholm has stepped forward and taken responsibility for 100 million. Södertälje has, under Social Democratic rule, made a number of interventions during both Social Democratic-led and Moderate-led governments. We must do more. We agree on that, but what is the government doing to stop the leakage from the welfare system?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! Once again, thank you, member, for the opportunity to discuss these important issues today! We must, as said, both strike against the gross organized violence and strangle the criminal economy. We must, of course, break the new recruitment of children and young people into the criminal gangs. We must do all this simultaneously to break the development of a very destructive and system-threatening crime.

When it comes to choking the criminal economy, we must do several different things. It is about providing effective tools to law enforcement so that it can prevent and preclude but also detect and solve this type of crime and prosecute those who engage in such criminality. We must, of course, with supervision, licensing, and the payment authority - the tools at the state's disposal - ensure that the control over how welfare funds are used becomes so watertight that criminal actors cannot act in such a way that taxpayers lose money and important welfare is undermined over time, as well as perhaps the trust in the welfare system. It is extremely important.

It is also important to draw a line against reforms that do not have such purposes. What I mean is that we as citizens in Stockholm have seen over the past year a number of examples of attacks against actors, also private, who truly contribute to the welfare and in no way engage in crime or behave in a shady manner. It concerns everything from anorexia care to healthcare information and ambulance care, and it is something completely different from what we are talking about today. It is an ideologically motivated restriction of the citizens' own empowerment and freedom of choice, and I will never ally myself with that. On the other hand, I can every day of the week discuss how we should tackle the unserious elements and the companies that engage in deceiving citizens and the welfare system.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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