Response to interpellation 2024/25:330 on business bans when crimes are committed
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns business bans in cases of crime. M argues that the government is conducting broad work to sharpen the focus on economic crime and make it more difficult for criminals to use companies as criminal tools 1. M wants to expand the business ban to include persons who have committed organized or systematic crime and extend the duration to a maximum of 15 years 1. M emphasizes that the penalties must reflect the severity of the crimes 2. M argues that the government is carrying out an offensive against the criminal economy 3. S wants the Minister for Justice to quickly return with a proposal based on the investigation 4. S hopes that the government considers business bans under other circumstances to strengthen trust in the welfare state 4. M considers it important to tackle the criminal economy in order to push back organized crime.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Peder Björk has asked me if I and the government intend to take the initiative for legislation aimed at tightening the penalty scales for tax crimes and money laundering crimes, and whether the legislation on business prohibitions should be tightened for economic crime beyond organized or systematic crime.
We know very well that companies are increasingly being used for criminal purposes and are systematically exploited to commit crimes, not least within organized crime. The Government is therefore carrying out extensive work to sharpen the focus on economic crime and to make it more difficult for criminals to use companies to commit crimes. One example is that we have tasked Brå to more closely study how companies are used as criminal tools by actors in the criminal environment. The assignment also includes providing further proposals on how this crime can be countered.
Through the bill that Peder Björk mentions, new measures aimed at preventing and combating crimes committed in and through companies have been put in place. Among other things, a new penal provision regarding corporate hijacking has been introduced in the Penal Code. The maximum penalty for crimes against the so-called goalkeeper ban has been increased from one to two years of imprisonment. Bolagsverket has also received better opportunities to delete incorrect information in the company registers and the possibility to request personal appearance for the inspection of suspected incorrect information.
Furthermore, we are reviewing the business prohibition. In January this year, the Minister for Energy and Business received proposals from an inquiry on how the business prohibition can be tightened. According to the proposals, the scope of persons shall be expanded to include those who have committed organized or systematic crime, regardless of whether the person conducted or had a connection to business activities at the time of the crime. This shall also apply to persons who commit crimes systematically but who lack a connection to organized crime. In addition to this, it will be proposed that the duration of a business prohibition be extended from a maximum of 10 years, which applies today, to a maximum of 15 years.
The government has also decided to task the Swedish Police Authority, the Economic Crime Authority, and the Swedish Tax Agency with establishing a financial intelligence center and has allocated funds for this in the budget bill for this year. The purpose of this is, of course, to deepen cooperation between the authorities and private actors to effectively combat the criminal economy. This is an important measure, not least for countering money laundering.
In addition to this, the government has tasked a special investigator with conducting a review of the sentencing scales and reforming the entire penalty system. The review covers all sentencing scales, including those concerning tax crimes and money laundering crimes. The assignment is to be reported by May 30 of this year at the latest.
These measures, which have been taken on a broad front, will significantly contribute to us moving forward society's positions in the fight against economic crime. This also applies to crime that is not organized or systematic.
Peder Björk (S)
Madam Speaker! In recent years, it has been increasingly noted that companies are also used for criminal purposes, particularly within serious organized crime. In these cases, the purpose of the company is simply to violate the regulations in order to earn or launder money. The companies can, among other things, be used to withhold taxes and fees or to obtain compensation, grants, and benefits on completely incorrect grounds.
In these cases, society loses significant tax revenues. Ordinary business owners simply risk being wiped out by those who cheat because they compete in the same market. Other serious organized crime linked to criminal networks can also use these companies to finance their activities with the economic profits that can be extracted from the companies used as criminal tools.
Mr. Speaker, economic crime also occurs in other ways, beyond gang crime and serious organized crime. Unfortunately, we have also seen tax evasion, tax avoidance, and money laundering spread. This is a crime that undermines the welfare state, erodes trust in society, and threatens serious actors in various markets. These different types of crime often also have connections to organized crime, but also to crime in the working life.
Madam Speaker! Economic crime in Sweden is estimated to amount to in the magnitude of 100-150 billion kronor. In order to address this and reduce the extent of the aforementioned problems, a number of different measures are required in several areas.
One such effort is to expand the possibilities for business prohibitions. Simplified, it can be said that business prohibitions can today be issued when a person has grossly disregarded their obligations in business activities and committed crimes that are not minor. It is therefore not sufficient in the normal case that one has received a fine in order to be eligible for a business prohibition.
The Minister refers to an investigation on expanded possibilities for business prohibitions for organized and systematic crime - very good, I would like to say. But my question to the Minister for Justice in my interpellation is whether he is prepared to expand the business prohibition beyond this. I think, Madam Speaker, that I perhaps did not quite receive an answer to that. The Minister for Justice may therefore elaborate on his answer.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Peder Björk, for the opportunity to discuss this important issue!
I think the interpellor received an extraordinarily comprehensive answer. And not only that – I also pointed out that things are now going to happen in this area that are in high demand. We are moving the positions regarding the business ban so that it can be used in more cases and affect more people, as well as so that it shall apply for a longer period than is the case today.
A very welcome reform regarding the business ban is therefore underway. This can certainly be sharpened further during the ongoing preparation, and we can also certainly take note of well-founded proposals from the outside. But that an offensive reform is finally coming through what we are now working on regarding the business bans, there is no doubt about that.
The second thing is that I am glad to hear the Social Democrats demanding high penalties. It has not always been that way. I hold the position that the penalties should reflect the severity of the crimes. There is no doubt that this also applies to economic crime of various kinds.
I want to acknowledge what the interpellator raises – the importance of now maintaining a broad perspective when it comes to undermining organized crime. We must do several things simultaneously: go against the violence, of course, break the recruitment of children and young people, and also choke the criminal economy, which, according to the police's calculations, is currently estimated to turn over around 100 or 150 billion kronor.
Can we get broad support in the Riksdag for this and, for that matter, well-founded proposals on how different reforms can become even more pointed in various respects are welcome; I welcome both parts. I think that we raise the issues here today is an important step in that work.
Peder Björk (S)
Madam Speaker! I do not doubt at all the Minister of Justice's will to reach the criminal networks and organized crime or, for that matter, economic crime linked to this.
However, I am somewhat surprised by the somewhat toned-down rhetoric regarding economic crime in general and that the government is not using the tools that can actually be used.
In November, the Riksdag actually said yes to the bill Companies and Crime - for the record, a bill based on an investigation that the Social Democratic government initiated - and in that context, it would have been possible to, for example, adjust the audit requirement so that it also covers the smaller limited companies that are currently exempt, which constitute the vast majority of limited companies in Sweden. This is a measure that has been requested by the Swedish Tax Agency, the Prosecution Authority, the Economic Crime Authority, the Police Authority, the Enforcement Authority, the Crime Prevention Council, and the Swedish Agency for Public Management.
In almost all other political conversations, the SD government wants to be tough on crime, and no measure seems too small to implement. But when it comes to precisely the audit obligation for smaller limited companies, this does not seem to apply anymore.
Another example is that the SD government has postponed the implementation of a state service for supplier control in public procurement, which will now not be introduced until 2028. To this, it can also be added that the SD government does not close obvious loopholes for tax evasion.
Madam Speaker! My question to the Minister of Justice is: Why does the SD government not think it is equally interesting to tackle the economic crime that is not directly linked to gang criminals?
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! I note with some warmth and joy that Peder Björk, in his second contribution, realized that in his first contribution he had forgotten the point issued by the party to refer to the government as the "SD-government". But on the other hand, he took care of it with gusto in his second contribution.
Let me then tell you what the Moderate-led government, which with pride and joy cooperates with the Sweden Democrats here in the Riksdag, is doing in the area. Now we are carrying out an offensive that, if it had been carried out during the past eight years, would have ensured that we did not have a criminal economy amounting to around 150 billion kronor. Finally, a long series of measures are now being implemented which, if they had been in place earlier, would not have left us in the vulnerable situation we now find ourselves in regarding organized crime.
There are no blind spots in such a way that it is something we would refrain from for political, ideological, or other reasons. There is no doubt whatsoever that economic crime, whether it is part of organized crime or is conducted systematically in another way, is a very large societal problem that we must tackle with full force.
Regarding the audit obligation, when it came down to it, it was a fairly simple matter that became decisive. The assessment was that the scope of the measure presupposed a very large number of auditors who do not exist in Sweden today, and that the enormous administrative burden that would be placed on the vast majority of diligent entrepreneurs was not in proportion to the effect.
How the balancing has been made fundamentally and how it has related to the very harsh reality that there are no auditors to provide for the task is explained in detail in the bill, which otherwise has adopted many good proposals put forward by the investigation that was indeed commissioned by the previous government. This is entirely in line with what we usually say: We are prepared to listen to good proposals regardless of where they come from. Furthermore, the bill includes other measures intended to compensate for the lack of auditing in the very smallest companies.
When it comes to this matter regarding the supplier controls, I just want - without knowing exactly what the reasons are for the timeline looking the way it does - to immediately rule out that it could have anything to do with some kind of nonchalance in relation to the issues. The only thing I know is that it is quite complicated to get the system in place. Everything is about how the authorities that are to be responsible for the control assess that it can be carried out in an effective way. That it is necessary, there is no doubt whatsoever. I would even say that it is a strategic measure that will facilitate for all other actors in society to get information that makes it easier for them to make informed procurements and other things.
I want to return to the fundamentals that we are now implementing regarding economic crime, also that which is not conducted in an organized form. It is about business prohibitions and increased penalties, and about us having ensured that the expanded possibilities to use secret coercive measures also cover economic crime. This is, moreover, not a result of investigations commissioned by previous Social Democratic governments, but it is something that I think is incredibly significant if we are to be able to use the full power of the system against economic crime.
For today, I think it is extraordinarily fine that there is such broad support when it comes to the work against organized crime and all aspects of it – the violence, the economy, and the recruitment – and the insight that the tools for combating economic crime must also be designed in such a way that they reach serious, socially dangerous crime of an economic nature that is not necessarily conducted in an organized form.
Peder Björk (S)
Madam Speaker! Regarding the points of order: The Minister for Justice fell back quite quickly to his point that everything happening now is the Social Democrats' fault, instead of taking responsibility for the situation we are currently in and ensuring that tools are put in place to tackle economic crime.
What we can agree on is that we must put a stop to economic crime. This applies to all its forms, including tax evasion and tax avoidance.
A benevolent interpretation, Madam Speaker, of the fact that several things are not being implemented is that the SD government is a bit slow. A less benevolent interpretation is that the government is simply not willing to regulate certain things, for reasons that are inscrutable to me.
One example is precisely this with the audit obligation when it concerns smaller limited companies. I think the Minister for Justice should listen less to Svenskt Näringsliv and a bit more to Skatteverket, Åklagarmyndigheten, and Ekobrottsmyndigheten. Then we can put in place another tool to combat economic crime and also stop the financing of the criminal gangs.
Finally, Madam Speaker: When it comes to business prohibitions, I would like to see the Minister for Justice quickly return to the Riksdag with a proposal based on the investigation that has actually been conducted. But I also hope that the government is prepared to review whether business prohibitions can also be issued under other circumstances, so that in this way we can tackle economic crime across the board. It is only then that trust in the welfare state can be strengthened, trust in society can increase, and serious companies can compete under fairer conditions.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! I naturally want to refute that my point would be that the Social Democrats are responsible for everything in this area. But one can still say that they have a significant share in it. The palpable passivity over a long period regarding the fight against organized crime has left us in a decidedly worse position today than we would have been in if the problems had been tackled with force at an earlier stage. This concerns the violence, the recruitment of children and young people, and also the criminal economy.
I am ready to listen to all good proposals. I am pleased that there is a broad consensus regarding the importance of moving the work forward. I also note that the Riksdag will have the opportunity to take a stand on a long series of reforms and measures in this area, such as business bans, stricter penalties, increased control in various respects, and expanded opportunities to share information in a sharp manner. The Riksdag has already, through the provision of the Moderate-led government, received proposals on its table that mean that the state's entire system power, when it comes to for example the use of coercive measures and the preventive, can be directed towards economic crime.
I completely agree with Peder Björk: If we do not reach the criminal economy and the various actors who, for their own gain, in an organized form or systematically in other ways, engage in economic crime of various kinds, we will not be able to push back organized crime. We risk great losses in society, not only economically and in unfair competition but also in terms of trust in, ultimately, our democratic institutions.
On that front, I am glad that there are several of us who are continuing the fight. There will be many opportunities to do the same even moving forward.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.