Response to interpellation 2024/25:113 on a new Swedish mafia law

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Teresa Carvalho has asked me whether I and the government intend or exclude to investigate the introduction of a Swedish mafia law.

Let me begin by stating the obvious: Organized crime is one of our time's greatest societal problems. For far too long, far too little was done – too little to stop the violence, too little to choke the criminal economy, and too little to break the recruitment of children and young people into the gangs.

The grim result speaks for itself. Fatal gun violence more than tripled in Sweden between 2012 and 2022. The criminal economy is estimated today to turn over 100-150 billion kronor. The capital failure when it comes to children and young people can be described in different ways; one example is that 90 percent of minors who are sentenced to closed youth care and have connections to the gangs are estimated to reoffend.

This is the reality that the Social Democrats left behind. In the 2022 election, we received the voters' mandate to seriously tackle crime and bring order to Sweden. We were clear that it will take time to reverse the development, but that it will happen if both the politics and other relevant actors in society are prepared to do what is required.

The government has also accelerated the reorganization of the policy. During 2023, the assignments for over 50 investigations were appointed or adjusted at the Ministry of Justice alone, and several of the most time-critical measures have been investigated in a newly established fast track. Step by step, month by month, the government's plan to push back organized crime is now being implemented.

We already see that new tools and methods of working are starting to take effect. The number of postponements has decreased since 2022. More and more acts of gross violence are being prevented and deterred. Areas in public spaces that were previously dominated by criminals are now starting to be taken back. At the same time, the risk of new acts of violence and spirals of violence is constantly bubbling under the surface.

I welcome that the Social Democrats now see the need to reach the mafia-like structures and their leadership. I am, of course, also prepared to listen to all good proposals, regardless of which parties they come from. But when the Social Democrats now say they want to see American RICO legislation in Sweden, it is in fact the Tidö Agreement's program against organized crime that they are requesting.

The core of RICO is long sentences for gang criminals and tools that target both gang leaders and so-called enablers such as lawyers, brokers, and auditors. It is also completely central to attack companies that are used as instruments for crime.

Now the government is implementing what can be described as a Swedish model of RICO:

We are investigating both the possibility of criminalizing participation in criminal gangs and double penalties for gang criminals, this in order to reach both the tops and the so-called enablers.

We are now referring proposals to modernize the rules on attempted, preparatory, and stamping offenses in order to be able to reach and convict more.

We enable secret coercive measures to be used preventively against criminal networks, and we design the tools so that we also reach the criminal economy.

We are introducing anonymous witnesses and reviewing the crown witness system so that more people will dare to testify, not least against the gang leaders.

We are mobilizing against criminal companies with, among other things, increased control of companies and a fast-track investigation on extended business prohibitions due to crime.

We are also implementing the new legislation on forfeiture, which goes straight after the mafia bosses' money, luxury items, and other assets.

The government has received the voters' mandate to push back organized crime. To succeed, our entire society must mobilize on several fronts simultaneously: strike against gross violence, choke the criminal economy, and break the recruitment of children and young people into the gangs.

The necessary realignment of policy has begun with full force but is still only in its beginning. I hope, of course, for broad support for all the reforms that the government is now and in the future placing before the Riksdag.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! Yesterday we woke up to a Black Monday with two explosions and three shootings, one of which was in a shopping mall in Stockholm where the shooter was once again a 14-year-old boy on the run from a HVB home. It is evident that Sweden is in a national crisis and that much more needs to be done to push back gang crime with acute measures beyond the ordinary.

In that situation, I can think that the Minister for Justice's answer feels a bit calm, a bit as if he is satisfied with the state of affairs. We were told that the policy is now biting. His boss, the Prime Minister, has repeated all autumn that things are brightening on the horizon. I think that it is a provoking description of reality when it looks the way it does and the violence continues to creep further down into the ages and paralyze our society.

It is obviously very good that new tools, which have been developed by both the previous S-government and the new government, can finally begin to be used. But it is completely obvious that it is not enough. It is obvious that no government, neither the previous nor the new, has succeeded in reversing the development.

Sweden has not become safer. More and more innocent Swedes are affected in their daily lives by increasingly violent violence. And as has been said, it is creeping further down into the ages. In the last year alone, the number of children under 15 years old who are involved in murder cases has increased by 200 percent. This has, therefore, occurred during Gunnar Strömmers time as Minister of Justice.

I therefore think it is somewhat interesting that the Minister for Justice now emphasizes that this will take time. He asks for the Swedish people's time and patience. It is time and patience that did not exist during the previous parliamentary term. Given the high tone that the Tidö parties had before the election, the voters probably expect the development to be reversed quite quickly now. But halfway through the parliamentary term, we see that it is, on the contrary, continuing to develop in the wrong direction in several respects.

We Social Democrats believe that a completely new approach is needed to combat gang crime and break the grip it has taken on our society. A continuation of increased penalties and investments in the entire justice system is absolutely necessary. But it will not be enough. We must also ensure that we break the new recruitment and put away the gang leaders, who consistently go free.

The Minister of Justice says that he is ready to listen to all proposals. That is commendable. One thing that we Social Democrats have proposed to get at the gang leaders is a Swedish mafia law. But when we have presented the sharp proposal on the Riksdag's table, the Tidö parties have said no to it.

The Minister of Justice also gave the impression that the Tidö Government is actually already doing this. But that is not in accordance with the truth. We have not seen any smoke of such a bill.

I therefore want to ask Gunnar Strömmer again: Is he prepared to introduce a Swedish mafia law, or does he rule out doing so?

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

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Madam Speaker! We are debating an interpellation from the Social Democrats regarding the proposal to introduce RICO legislation. I believe that a certain truth is completely missing from the Social Democrats' side in the debate.

Proposals for the introduction of RICO legislation in Sweden have been in the Riksdag since 2012 on the initiative of the Sverigedemokraterna. It has, therefore, been there since 2012. The Socialdemokraterna had eight years in government to do something with that initiative from the Sverigedemokraterna. But the Socialdemokraterna rejected the introduction of RICO legislation in Sweden during those eight years.

I just want it said in this debate. Now that they are in opposition, they are suddenly pretending that they have been proposing to introduce RICO legislation in Sweden for a year now and that the government is now saying no.

Furthermore, it is not true. The Government is not saying no to Swedish RICO legislation, but on the contrary. It is included as a separate point in the Tidö Agreement. The very essence of a RICO law, namely participation in criminal organization, is included in the Tidö Agreement.

The only thing the Social Democrats have contributed to this debate is to open the doors and, furthermore, lie about the government's position on the issue. It is not worthy of this debate.

I would like to ask a question to the Social Democrats. Do the Social Democrats think that Morgan Johansson has been an asset or a burden to Swedish politics when, during his eight years in the government, he voted no to the introduction of Swedish RICO legislation, which the Social Democrats now say is important to tackle organized crime?

Morgan Johansson has also voted no to proposals on anonymous witnesses, which the Social Democrats now say they want to implement. And Morgan Johansson has voted no to detention sentences and detention penalties, which you only the other day turned back on and now want to introduce. You have also, during eight years in government, voted no to double sentences for gang criminals plus a lot of other sentence increases and regulatory simplifications that make it easier to tackle organized crime.

I think the Social Democrats are showing a shamelessness in the criminal policy debate when one has a high level of tail-wagging in opposition but stood for zero implementation and one hundred percent opposition when one sat in the government.

Please feel free to comment on whether you consider Morgan Johansson, who during eight years in the government has voted no to so many legislative proposals, including those regarding RICO legislation, has been an asset or a burden.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank you for the opportunity to discuss these important issues in the chamber today.

I want to repeat that I, of course, welcome that the Social Democrats have now woken up and realize the seriousness of the situation we find ourselves in. As I have said several times, I am undoubtedly prepared to listen to all concrete proposals and measures that can be useful in the fight against the criminal gangs.

Unfortunately, I am still forced to conclude that the new proposals that have so far come from the Social Democrats in opposition have been quite shallow, poorly elaborated, and difficult to do anything concrete with, for example this matter regarding RICO. It was a proposal for a committee initiative with four points on a single A4 page. Not even their own supporting parties could vote for it when it was discussed in the committee.

The fact is that the Social Democrats' only chance to vote for an offensive policy in this area is probably to support the Moderates leading the government and that we, with the support of our majority in the Riksdag - Sverigedemokrater, Liberaler and Kristdemokrater - can present offensive proposals here in the Riksdag.

We have not even come to the Social Democrats' government base. In September, Dagens Nyheter reviewed how the opposition has positioned itself here in the Riksdag regarding the government's proposals when it comes to crime and migration. Pleasantly enough, the Social Democrats have largely voted for the government's proposals. But your supporting parties have not. Miljöpartiet has voted no in 60 percent of the cases. Vänsterpartiet has voted no in more than 70 percent of the cases.

It is a reality that during your time in government, you blocked proposals on anonymous witnesses. You blocked proposals on the criminalization of participation in gangs, that is to say, the core of the RICO legislation. I welcome that you have changed your stance. But we have lost at least four years in the fight against the gang leaders because of that.

Then we also come to the reality that concerns precisely your government base, if you get the chance to come back. We see that you lack your own serious, well-elaborated policy and that the government base, judging by everything, will stop everything that can actually have a clear effect against the criminal networks.

I welcome a good dialogue. We truly must continue that. I also welcome broad majorities for the proposals that we present here in the Riksdag. The situation is undoubtedly still very serious.

I want to remind that the Moderaterna already before the election, not least Ulf Kristersson himself in an interview in Svenska Dagbladet, pointed out that it might take 15-20 years before we have succeeded in reversing this development, given the depth, breadth, and seriousness of the problems.

We have consistently pointed to the experiences in New York and in Denmark where it took approximately ten years to push back and gain control over the gangs. Now we are two years into that ten-year journey. One thing is certain: We can succeed, but that presupposes that we do the right things. The Moderates and this government and our collaborations here in the Riksdag are a guarantee that it will happen that way.

The situation is undoubtedly extremely serious. We must strike against violence, choke the criminal economy, and break the recruitment of children and young people. Now we are delivering the laws, tools, and resources required to do that job. That work has only just begun, and we will not slow down until we can seriously look the citizens in the eye and say: Now freedom and safety are restored. Now we have gotten Sweden in order.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! I welcome much of what the government is now doing to combat gang crime. A good deal of what Gunnar Strömmer mentions is also something that we Social Democrats began the work on. Let me take a concrete example that was mentioned here: the forfeiture legislation, which Gunnar Strömmer himself has described as one of the most important criminal policy reforms in 60 years. Very good! But it is not a Swedish mafia law.

What has been successful, not least in the USA, and which we have been inspired by when we say that we want to see a Swedish mafia law - now I want the Sweden Democrats' representative here in particular to prick up their ears - has been the collective approach but actually also several central components that are completely missing from the government's repertoire.

We Social Democrats have indeed submitted a committee initiative with four concrete points in the Committee on Justice. We believe that the government needs to investigate how they can be implemented in a Swedish legal context, but of course, there may be more things that could very well be investigated to collectively lead to the development of a Swedish mafia law.

What we have specifically pointed out is first and foremost a point concerning punishment and evidence. More specifically, all gang members shall be able to be convicted as accomplices if others within a criminal organization commit sufficiently serious crimes that one as a member or affiliated with a criminal gang has had or should have had insight into. For such crimes, longer sentences shall, of course, be imposed.

The second point concerns an expanded crown witness system. I want to be clear that we Social Democrats introduced a crown witness system already during the previous parliamentary term. Such a system does exist. But as it is used in the RICO legislation in the USA, it is even more focused on reaching the gang leaders. There is also a connection here to the previous point. Through collective criminal liability, stronger incentives are created for more people to report those who are higher up in the hierarchy.

The third point concerns accessing the mafia's activities but also other companies that do not themselves engage in criminal activity but which feed the criminal economy and the mafia-like organizations by doing business with them. This is taken far too lightly within Swedish business today. It is here that the possibility of prosecuting legal entities comes into play.

The fourth point concerns how the authorities shall work based on such legislation. We specifically point to the Swedish Economic Crime Authority, which may need a special mafia unit, but here, naturally, different alternatives need to be considered.

I would like to take this opportunity to state that the Swedish Economic Crime Authority needs to be developed, not abolished. I say this specifically because rumors have begun to circulate that the government's investigators plan to propose a shutdown of the Swedish Economic Crime Authority. That would be completely devastating for the fight against organized economic crime in our country.

I simply ask again: Is the Minister for Justice prepared to investigate the introduction of a Swedish mafia law based on these four points, or does he exclude these points?

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

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Madam Speaker! This is merely a well-rehearsed theatrical performance from the Social Democrats' side. They have made the analysis that they cannot win the voters' trust in crime policy on their own crime policy. Therefore, they are now checking off point by point in the Tidö Agreement and want to make it their own policy. I think it is pathetic.

Introducing RICO legislation is nothing new on the Riksdag's table. I have said it before and I say it again: It has been on the Riksdag's table since 2012 on the initiative of Sverigedemokraterna. The Socialdemokraterna have justified their rejection of exactly that legislation which they now say they want to introduce. Then it stands in the interpellation that they indeed came up with the proposal a year ago and that the government is against it. It is a pure lie.

Let me go through the points that the Social Democrats have placed on the Justice Committee's table. In addition to the essence of criminalizing participation, which is now ongoing as part of the Tidö Agreement – one leaves an open door – it states in point 2 that the crown witness system needs to be strengthened and that the investigation needs to review today's system with crown witnesses. Wow! Revolution in the making here, or? To review the crown witness system says nothing about what one wants with it.

Let me give you a tip! When I write something on X one day, you end up copying it as your own policy the next day anyway. It has happened in reality. I can prove it. Take the proposal to double the sentences for gang criminals and put it in relation to how the crown witness system can function; it explicitly hits the gang criminal environment and you get a fairly large return on the crown witness system. That is my tip in this context, now that you are so eager to copy policy from the Tidö Agreement and the Sverigedemokraterna. If you double the sentence for gang criminality, you will also get a large return on the crown witness system.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! I also want to encourage a reading of the Tidö Agreement, as these points are largely a demand for the policy that exists there.

Let me, however, stick to the concrete points that have been highlighted. Once upon a time, it was a Social Democrat who spoke about a napkin sketch. I believe it was about a budget that time, but it is also a quite apt description of this committee initiative. It is four points on a single A4 page.

The first point is that everyone shall be able to be held accountable. Yes, it is a combination of criminalization of participation in criminal networks and a reform that modernizes our legislation regarding the so-called non-independent forms of crime, that is, preparation, branding, attempt, and so on. It is that part that produces such an effect.

With a much broader criminalization, one hits very many more around the main crime. With those tools, it also provides an opportunity to work one's way up the system when someone commits the serious crime at a proper and comfortable distance from the leadership. Then, so to speak, one can reach those who are behind and orchestrating the serious crime via the back way.

Let me say something about crown witnesses, which has just been addressed in the investigation on anonymous witnesses. The investigation points to the combination of the crown witness system, where there is much more to give in terms of the application of the existing system, anonymous witnesses, and targeted sentencing increases against the criminal gangs' criminality. Through such a combination, one achieves a trade-off on today's system with crown witnesses in a different way.

Corporate liability was also a point. I just want to remind that the question of criminal liability for legal entities was investigated by the Social Democratic government. The investigation concluded that, in that case, it concerns fines. It is difficult to throw an organization number in prison, so it must be about economic sanctions. The investigation also concluded that our system of corporate fines is more effective than trying to implement a criminal liability in the form of fines, that is, the same type of sanction, in the Swedish model. The Social Democratic government chose to stick with the system of corporate fines. I suppose I can give you a compliment for that – on good grounds.

Of course, one can import ideas from other countries. We have been very open to doing so, not least from our Nordic neighboring countries. Anonymous witnesses, safety zones, stay bans, and double sentences for gang crime are largely imports from other Nordic countries. But one cannot import them directly. If they are to have an effect in our legal system, they must also fit into our legal system. There must be a Swedish model for anonymous witnesses or safety zones.

Regarding the criminalization of legal entities, the Swedish model is to develop and strengthen the system of corporate fines, that is, the position that S held as recently as a few years ago and which I nevertheless agree with – one can possibly consider it a workplace accident. It was a correct assessment. It is the effective way to handle the issue in our legal system.

The bottom line is that the forfeiture legislation is not the only thing in a RICO legislation. But that, together with all the other things, for example the criminalization of participation, the system of cooperating witnesses and anonymous witnesses, the mobilization in the form of corporate fines, business bans and other such things, will create an effect equivalent to the one we have seen in other countries with similar legislation. It is the effect we are looking for. If S wishes to return with sharper, even more relevant and more thoroughly worked-out proposals in that part, I of course welcome that.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! Sweden is in a national crisis and needs to be treated as such with acute measures beyond the usual ones. To break the grip of gang crime on our society, a completely new approach is required. We need to continue to toughen the penalties and invest in the police and the entire justice chain. But that is not enough. For this to have an effect, new recruitment must be broken, and the gang leaders, who order the explosions and shootings, must be convicted.

For a year, we Social Democrats have pushed the issue of a Swedish mafia law to get at the gang leaders. Gunnar Strömmer is now pretending that the government is about to introduce a Swedish mafia law, but everyone can see that it is not true. We have not seen any smoke of such a bill, and it is not included in the Tidö Agreement at all. I note, however, that Adam Marttinen is so offended that he loses his cool over the fact that we Social Democrats are pushing an issue he thinks is good—all while he himself and his party are constantly withdrawing their own policies.

Combating the violent gang crime and restoring safety is the most important task resting on us politicians in Sweden, and I urge the Minister for Justice to look up from the Tidö Agreement and do everything that is required. We have a development where children murder and are murdered, and then the entire society must be prepared to do much more. Above all, a sitting government in a crisis situation like this must be prepared to do and have the strength to do even things that are not in a two-year-old agreement.

In conclusion: Does Gunnar Strömmer agree that we are in a national crisis?

(Applause)

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Once again, thanks to Teresa Carvalho for the opportunity to discuss these important issues!

That Sweden is in a crisis regarding crime and a number of other social problems linked to crime is something we have pointed out for a decade. It was actually this insight among the citizens that caused the Social Democrats to leave government power after eight years and gave the opportunity for a new alternative to, by the citizens' mandate, put Sweden in order.

One can say a lot about the criticism of the government, but it often sounds as if we are doing too much and breaking patterns, that it is going too fast and that we are doing things that we have not done before. But this reflects the seriousness of the problems, and the measures must be accordingly.

I welcome the Social Democrats joining this chorus, but precisely because we find ourselves in such a serious situation, the answer cannot be, if the expression is allowed, a rather pompous rhetoric and hot air when it comes to the concrete proposals. Teresa Carvalho said that everyone can see that the government is not implementing new mafia legislation. Well, it is probably rather that everyone can see that what exists regarding mafia legislation from the Social Democrats is four rather airy points on a single A4 page that even your own government base did not think it could vote for. That is what everyone sees.

I am truly ready to listen to substance and feasible reforms that are credible and will have an effect and that do not occupy the rule of law or the social welfare state with things that are not tailored to achieve a real effect that can push back violence, stifle the criminal economy and break the recruitment of children and young people.

It is great that we are discussing these issues, and it is fine that we can get broad majorities for an offensive policy. But today's conclusion is that the Social Democrats' only chance to vote for such is that the Moderates rule and, with their majority, present it in the Riksdag.

(Applause)

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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