Response to interpellation 2023/24:54 on economic crime and criminals' use of companies as criminal tools

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Lars Isacsson, for the opportunity to discuss these issues this evening!

Lars Isacsson has asked me what measures I and the government intend to take to increase the supervision and regulation of companies within particularly vulnerable sectors, such as healthcare, to prevent these from being exploited by criminal organizations. He has also asked in what way the government and I plan to strengthen the Economic Crime Authority's capacity and resources so that the authority can effectively investigate and combat economic crime and company-related crimes. He has also asked me what initiatives the government and I intend to take to improve cooperation between different agencies, such as the Economic Crime Authority, the Swedish Tax Agency, and the police, to streamline the fight against economic crime, and also whether it is relevant for all agencies to receive a designated crime prevention mandate. Finally, he has asked whether the government and I intend to take measures to strengthen the control of legitimacy in connection with company formation and transactions between companies, especially in the sectors where criminal groups have shown interest.

Let me first state that organized crime in Sweden is a threat to the system. It does not only have serious consequences for individual crime victims, but it also threatens societal values.

To push back the criminal networks, we need to do several things simultaneously: strike hard against gross violence, stop the new recruitment of children and young people into the criminal gangs and, not least, choke the criminal economy. The gangs are driven by money, and the criminal economy shows how crime also infiltrates our legal structures. By choking the economy for the criminals, we can break down the gangs' structures.

The Government views reports that unserious actors are establishing themselves within the health and medical care sector very seriously. The issue is prioritized within the framework of the Government's work against organized crime.

It is important that the law enforcement authorities have the right conditions to be able to act effectively. This applies in particular to the Economic Crime Authority. The Government therefore, in June this year, appointed a special investigator with the task of reviewing the Economic Crime Authority's conditions to combat economic crime in an even more effective way in the future.

The question of giving more agencies a crime prevention mandate is also justified. The crime prevention work must be structured and long-term and involve relevant actors. More agencies will be given such mandates, and the government intends to return to that issue.

In addition to creating effective structures and organizations, it is of course crucial to have close cooperation between all involved actors as well as for these to be able to exchange necessary information. The Government wants to improve the possibilities for information exchange and thereby put a stop to economic crime. In the middle of October, we appointed an inquiry which was tasked to consider and propose a general possibility to provide information covered by secrecy for the protection of individuals to another authority, both upon request and on its own initiative.

I must also mention that the government received the report *Bolag och brott* this summer, in which it is proposed that Bolagsverket should be given a clearer controlling role, including during the registration of new companies, in order to be able to identify criminal schemes. It is important that the information in Bolagsverket's registers is correct and that the agency has the right tools to be able to contribute effectively to the work against economic crime. The report also proposes that corporate hijacking should be criminalized and that the penalty for crimes against the goalkeeper ban should be toughened. The proposals are currently out for consultation. For my part, I am very positive about large parts of the investigation.

Breaking down the criminal economy is of the utmost importance in pushing back the society-threatening organized crime. The Government has therefore placed and will continue to place an extraordinarily large focus on combating economic crime of all kinds.

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

Lars Isacsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer for the answer to my interpellation. I completely agree that serious organized crime is a threat to the system.

In recent years, economic crime and its impact on society have become increasingly prominent. The Economic Crime Authority warns that criminal elements infiltrate business sectors such as healthcare and use companies as tools to launder money and conceal illegal activities. Several reports, including information from Sveriges Radios Ekot, indicate that criminal networks engage in fraud and tax crimes by, among other things, operating healthcare companies and companies within family home care activities.

The Economic Crime Authority informs that signs that criminal groups are beginning to establish themselves within healthcare are visible; this includes the operation of health centers and vaccination clinics. Furthermore, the crime profits from fraud have been estimated to amount to nearly 6 billion kronor per year, which is more than double the crime profits from narcotics. Black money is estimated to cost society 100 billion per year and welfare crime 30 billion per year.

This type of economic crime constitutes a threat to the structure of society, entails significant costs, and largely finances serious organized crime. It is clear that the current situation requires an intensified effort and new strategies to combat economic crime and prevent criminals' influence over legitimate companies.

Based on this, I posed four questions to Minister Strömmer. One of my questions concerned how the government and the minister plan to strengthen the Economic Crime Authority's capacity and resources. To that question, the Minister for Justice has given a fully reasonable answer: A special investigator has been tasked with reviewing the Economic Crime Authority's conditions for combating economic crime. After that investigation, I assume we will be heard more on the issue. I also assume that the government and the minister prioritize taking swift measures once the investigation is complete.

Another of my questions concerned what measures the government and the minister intend to take to increase the supervision and regulation of companies within particularly vulnerable sectors, such as health and medical care. The minister confirms in his answer that the issue is prioritized and highlights the seriousness of the situation with unscrupulous actors in health and medical care. However, the minister provides no description of specific measures to increase supervision and regulation within these sectors. I would like to give a concrete example of how increased supervision and transparency can be achieved.

Madam Speaker! I would like to ask the Minister how he views the removal of secrecy barriers between private welfare companies and municipalities and regions. It is unreasonable that municipalities and regions are not allowed to have insight into the welfare companies that they finance. In previous interpellation debates, we have had a consensus on the importance of removing secrecy barriers between municipalities and authorities in crime prevention work. I would like to see that we could also have a consensus when it concerns the principle of public access and welfare companies. In this exceptional, unacceptable situation, the government parties also need to reconsider their policy and better protect municipalities and regions against unserious or criminal actors in our shared welfare.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Lars Isacsson for the opportunity to discuss these issues today.

I first want to agree with the description of the extent of the problem. This can be described in a number of different ways, naturally. The police estimate that the crime profits from the criminal networks now amount to a staggering 100 to 150 billion, that economic fraud has overtaken drugs as the main source of income, and that the fraudulent activity ranges from such activities targeting our elderly parents all over the country by telephone to the very systematic activity that is often conducted in corporate form targeted at our welfare systems.

Everything only underscores the description of this as a system-threatening crime. In addition to the large economic values that we are talking about, there are other, very essential societal values that are jeopardized in this way, not least the citizens' trust in the integrity of our welfare systems and, for that part, that tax funds go to what they are intended to go to. Citizens are prepared to pay tax if they know that it goes to, for example, the common welfare.

There is no doubt whatsoever that it is significant to strike at the criminal economy, to strangle the criminal economy, both in order to drain the economic resources of the criminal networks and, in conjunction with that, to safeguard the citizens' trust in the welfare state and in our open and free society.

This must be done in different ways. Some parts that I myself judge as extraordinarily significant concern secrecy. Now, secrecy is being torn down in all directions, I was about to say. A government bill from the Ministry of Finance will soon arrive which specifically concerns the cash register. We recently appointed an investigation that wants to use the model proposed there generally when it comes to information sharing between authorities.

I find it very interesting to see who is most driving that work. It is Försäkringskassan, Arbetsförmedlingen, Skatteverket and other agencies that in different ways have opportunities to contribute to choking the criminal economy through better interaction.

I myself received a few days ago an investigation concerning the relationship of various other social actors to crime-fighting authorities, where it can be said somewhat simplified that we are moving from a model where one should not share information to a model where there is an obligation to share information in order to prevent and preclude crime.

May I also just touch upon the question of the private actors. There, I can say that we will return a bit more systematically to the question of what should be done. I belong to those who think that there is great value in both entrepreneurs and civil society actors contributing to our common welfare and offering a choice to the citizens. However, there is no doubt whatsoever that the model, which also largely relies on trust, is being exploited by criminal actors. Lars Isacsson has mentioned some of the contexts where we now see this. It ranges from health centers and pharmacy operations to foster homes and defector operations.

There is no doubt whatsoever that we must address this in different ways, through permit requirements, effective supervision, and through a strengthened principle of public access. Exactly how this will look concretely, the government intends to return to in the near future.

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

Lars Isacsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer! I share the Minister for Justice's view that this threatens trust in the welfare state and that it is serious. I also share the view that we have agreed to tear down secrecy in all respects, as the Minister expressed it. I appreciate that the Minister for Justice also opens up for looking at the secrecy between private welfare companies and municipalities and regions. I believe that is a necessary step forward.

I also had a question about what initiative the government intends to take to improve cooperation between different agencies such as the Economic Crime Authority, the Swedish Tax Agency, and the police, and whether it is relevant that all agencies receive a designated crime prevention mandate. In the answer, the Minister states that the government wants to improve cooperation between the agencies that combat economic crime. The Minister mentions an investigation to increase the possibility of information exchange. That is good. Something that I often hear when I meet employees from, for example, the Economic Crime Authority is precisely the possibility, or rather the lack of possibility, for information exchange with, for example, the Swedish Tax Agency.

Regarding the question of giving all authorities a crime-prevention mandate in the exceptional situation we are in, the answer is that the question is justified. I choose to interpret it very positively. I believe that it is not a symbolic question. I believe that it is a question that would give additional focus and weight to this important issue for our country. Bolagsverket is an important key in this. The proposals on the criminalization of corporate hijacking and harsher penalties for crimes against the goalkeeper ban that the minister highlighted are good.

In the investigation report Companies and Crime, which the Minister mentions, there is also a reasoning regarding the reintroduction of the audit requirement that is not mentioned in the response. The Economic Crime Authority analyzed in 2016 and 2020 what effects the abolition of the audit requirement had had on economic crime. Some of the observations made were that there were indications that the reform may have facilitated economic crime and tax evasion and that the abolition of the audit requirement is a risk factor for companies being used as tools for crime.

Madam Speaker! My question to the Minister for Justice is now about the audit obligation - is a proposal in the investigation report Bolag och brott something that the Minister for Justice wants to proceed with?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me take hold of some of the legitimate questions that Lars Isacsson raises.

When it comes to interaction between different agencies, I really want to emphasize the, as I perceive it, genuine will to cooperate that exists between state agencies. To begin with those who are immediately affected by the issues we are discussing, Skatteverket, Försäkringskassan, Arbetsförmedlingen and Kronofogden can be mentioned again, and one can continue very broadly.

There is an interaction between authorities regarding serious economic crime that has come a long way. The demand that exists now is to obtain even more effective tools and that various obstacles to interaction should be dismantled. We have an important common task to achieve that.

I would like it to be said that we know there are conflicting interests when it comes to confidentiality issues. There is privacy-sensitive information at the other end. It must be done in a legally secure and balanced manner. I still feel quite secure when the request comes from authorities of this kind that have a great deal of experience in handling it and that operate in an environment where we value both publicity and confidentiality very highly.

Let me also say that we will return to the Riksdag with a new national strategy against serious organized crime. A very important part of that will be about choking the criminal economy and in different ways supporting better cooperation between different actors in this area.

Regarding the crime prevention mandate, the member was entirely correct that it was perhaps a somewhat rounded formulation in the answer that it is a legitimate question. It is.

I do not want to scatter these assignments here and now, but let me just confirm that a couple of the agencies that Lars Isacsson has mentioned are also such that they have requested a clearer crime-preventive mandate. Bolagsverket belongs there. I have met Lantmäteriet, which has a very important role when it comes to real estate-related issues. I know that real estate purchases are an excellent way to launder money. One can also be surprised when one realizes how weak the regulation surrounding real estate purchases is when it comes to, for example, the control of the underlying identity of both companies and private individuals who purchase real estate.

Both the issues that these authorities monitor and the authorities themselves speak out for more authorities should be given such a mandate. Then it should take place in close interaction with the relevant authorities so that it becomes correct, efficient, and goal-rational.

But let us return to the concretization of the answer to the very justified question. The audit obligation, I think, is a very interesting question, because here we also see a conflict of objectives. The background to those reforms has, of course, not been about making it easier for criminal actors to get in and use companies as tools for crime, but it is that we as a country have a very strong interest in creating long-term good conditions for entrepreneurship, growth, and strengthened competitiveness.

The underlying motives regarding changes to the audit obligation are easy for me to understand and agree with. I can also note that there are observations that may indicate that a lower degree of control has also been used by criminal actors to enter into business, and I think the questions that Lars Isacsson raises are justified in that area as well.

Exactly how this shall be handled going forward, we will have to return to, but it is a reality that auditing and supervision, also of private business activity, is an incredibly important matter for the individual companies but also to avoid companies being used as tools for crime.

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

Lars Isacsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister of Justice, for the debate! It is clear that combating economic crime is a priority for the Minister.

I am thinking about this matter of auditing. As a former municipal council member, it was not always the case that one thought auditing was great when they came and asked a lot of difficult questions. But it is also a matter of quality for both municipalities and companies to have auditing.

I think we need to increase the pace when it comes to combating economic crime. As a constructive and responsible opposition, we would like to push forward this work with several concrete proposals. I believe that one would need to look more at an increase of the minimum share capital in companies. We lowered it from 50,000 to 25,000. It would make it more difficult for criminals to establish shell companies and increase the companies' financial stability.

I also believe in an integration of municipalities and regions into MUR, where 22 authorities cooperate to combat economic crime. This would strengthen the collective work against crime in the welfare systems, which is highlighted by both Försäkringskassan and the Crime Prevention Council.

I also believe that we would need to have stricter regulations regarding company formation. This would prevent companies from being formed for illegal purposes.

And so we have that which is perhaps most important of all, namely to increase transparency in public procurement, implement an open database of all public procurements and limit the number of links for subcontractors. It would reduce the risk of corruption and crime in public procurement and white-collar crime, and it would also be a great help for municipalities and regions to be able to take the responsibility that they need to take.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to say a big thank you to Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer for the debate. I look forward to returning to the issue.

(Applause)

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Lars Isacsson, for the opportunity to discuss these issues this evening.

I think it is once again important to confirm that we see the societal problem from our respective perspectives and that we agree on the importance of mobilizing with full force against the criminal economy.

I say it again: Beyond the enormous economic values at stake, it is ultimately about the citizens' trust in the welfare systems and, if one could imagine, ultimately from this, the trust in our democratic system. It is therefore of incredibly great importance that we succeed with this.

When we then return to our concretization in the issues where I may have answered somewhat vaguely, I am convinced that Lars Isacsson and others who have a genuine commitment to these issues will perceive the seriousness of the approach and the sharpness of the measures.

I think there are some trade-offs that are a bit tricky. I can, for example, take the concrete proposal that Lars Isacsson mentioned, to raise the minimum contribution from 25,000 to 50,000 upon the formation of a company. One can naturally say that the criminal actors we are talking about now sit on economic resources that mean they will have no problems handling such an increase. But the question is what it would mean for the small, honest entrepreneur who wants to get started.

It is such trade-offs we must make when it comes to the long-term conditions for entrepreneurship and competitiveness on one hand and effective tools against those actors who want to use our systems for criminal purposes on the other.

I am convinced that we will find a common way forward, preferably in the spirit that has characterized tonight's exchange of views.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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