Response to interpellation 2024/25:390 on measures against economic crime

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! [The speaker] has asked me if I intend to take measures to reintroduce the audit requirement for more limited companies in order to reduce economic crime.

Let me begin by saying that in the vast majority of companies, there is naturally a striving to follow laws and regulations. But in recent years, it has become clearly evident that companies are also being used for criminal purposes in an increasingly systematic way. Crime in companies leads to the society suffering large losses, and honest business owners risk being wiped out when they are forced to compete with unscrupulous and criminal actors. With the profits generated in companies, other serious crime can also be financed.

I completely agree with Eva Lindh that we should make it difficult for unserious and criminal actors to run companies and to use companies as tools for crime. The government is therefore actively working on several levels to prevent this. Let me mention some of what we are doing.

On 1 January, a number of measures entered into force on the grounds of the government's bill Companies and Crime. The measures aim, among other things, to ensure that the public information on companies is correct, to prevent shell companies from being registered as representatives for companies, and to detect criminal schemes in companies as early as possible. In line with this, Bolagsverket has also received better tools in the work against crime in companies. The maximum penalty for crimes against the so-called shell company ban has been increased from one to two years of imprisonment, and corporate hijacking has been criminalized through a specific penal provision.

During the autumn, an investigation was also conducted in a fast-track on how the business prohibition can be extended to include those who have committed organized or systematic crime, even if the person was not conducting business at the time of the crime. That work is now ongoing at the Government Offices. The Government has also tasked the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, Brå, with studying how companies are used as criminal tools by actors in the criminal environment and has proposed measures that strengthen the exchange of information between authorities. The work that is now being done will significantly move forward society's positions in the fight against economic crime.

It is, of course, important that the measures taken are effective and accurate and that they strike specifically at the criminal economy. We shall avoid such measures that affect ordinary business owners with unreasonable burdens.

It is a reality that it is not possible to draw any firm conclusions on to what extent the presence of an auditor contributes to countering crime in companies. Auditing is a blunt tool against advanced crime where companies are acquired to be used for several different types of crime over a relatively short period. What was clear, however, when we made this assessment, was that a reintroduction of the auditing obligation would become very costly for all business owners and mean diminished opportunities for them to grow and employ more people. This applies in particular to the very smallest companies.

To this is added the reality that the demand for auditing services would increase significantly. It is a cautious bureaucratic expression to say that it would increase enormously, in a way that in practice would make this very difficult to manage or live up to. It also means – one can look at this investigation – that it would take a very long time before such a reform could gain traction in practice.

This is the background to why we, when we weighed the whole, chose to move forward with all other proposals from the investigation – plus to do very many other things – but in this situation chose to abstain precisely from the question concerning the audit obligation for small limited companies. But we must, of course, follow this and see how things develop and if even that question will appear in a different light as we look forward.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! In Sweden, at least 130 billion are laundered every year, according to the Economic Crime Authority. The Financial Police suspect that money laundering has increased dramatically in recent years – between 2022 and 2023 by 24 percent. These are funds that finance criminal activity. This affects individuals and undermines trust in our society.

It is also becoming increasingly difficult to compete as a serious entrepreneur. The vast majority of entrepreneurs in Sweden work hard, do the right thing, and contribute to our society and to growth. It is important to support the serious entrepreneurs, but we must make it very difficult for the unserious and stop the criminals.

Overall: Most entrepreneurs are and want to be serious, but most of those involved in organized crime run businesses. One has looked at how it is in the EU. It is assessed that 86 percent in organized crime run businesses. That is the reality we face.

We therefore need to protect companies from economic crime. We need to ensure that taxpayers no longer feed organized crime. It damages trust. Therefore, we need to take several initiatives.

I agree with what the government and the Minister for Justice express: that a single issue, such as the one regarding the audit obligation, may not solve everything. But it can contribute to solving some of the problems we have.

What has happened with the audit requirement? Well, in 2010, the then-Alliance government abolished the audit requirement for small limited companies. The purpose was to reduce complications and costs for small businesses, which, as a result of the decision, could choose to opt out of having an auditor review the accounts. When the reform was launched, concerns were raised about reduced tax revenues, increased economic crime, and poorer reporting quality.

The National Audit Office has reviewed the removal of the audit requirement. They show that it is a reform that costs more than it tastes. I believe it was expressed as such, but I do not dare to guarantee that it is correctly quoted. They show, in any case, that the intentions with the reform in large have fallen short, except when it concerns increased freedom of choice and the direct saving in terms of the auditor's fee. This could be seen. The increased freedom of choice is about being able to choose not to have an auditor. But the review also shows that the abolished audit requirement complicates the work against economic crime, which is what we are talking about today.

I am aware that it would cost to reintroduce the audit requirement. There are also not enough auditors. But my questions to the Minister are: Is the Minister prepared to look at this in light of the major problems we have with economic crime? Is the Minister prepared to at least consider introducing the audit requirement for more companies?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Yes, it is clear that I am prepared to consider all measures that can be effective in combating crime. When it comes to the audit obligation specifically, it has been very carefully considered in an investigation. The basis has been referred, and it has been analyzed carefully in the Government Offices.

For my part, I am a very warm supporter of auditing. For the vast majority of business owners, the auditor, so to speak, is the best friend, the one who ensures that things are done correctly, also for those who are not out for criminal purposes, which is to say that the vast majority are not. It is no guarantee for anything, but it is in any case something to lean on, so that one knows that what one is doing is being done correctly. From that perspective, I am a very, very warm supporter of auditing.

When it comes to the reform that was indeed made during the Alliance government, which concerned removing the audit requirement for the smallest companies, it is clear that the intentions were very much about reducing just hassle and removing costs. In a small company, the cost for an auditor can be quite large, compared to if the same cost is to be borne by a larger company. These intentions have, of course, also become reality.

Since then, it is a reality that there is a conflict of interest. It is clear that on the margins there are those who, by not having an auditor, can use the lack of such oversight to commit crimes or other irregularities. Then we land more on the question of balancing: Is this an effective tool, or will the burden in practice be borne by the vast majority, who are honest, while those with criminal intentions solve this in other ways?

I cannot say that it was entirely obvious, but when we put the documents together, I still thought it was relatively clear that this will be too blunt.

I am thinking about all the measures that are on the table and, for that matter, also about all the additional measures that we will need to take moving forward. I mentioned, for example, the business ban, which I believe is a very effective way to go if one wants to precisely target those who should really be removed, so to speak, from different markets.

But this will be too blunt. In practice, it would affect very many law-abiding people, but those who are not law-abiding would find other ways to evade their criminality.

Now, I do not want to cast suspicion on any profession at all, but something that characterizes organized crime nowadays is that they build their own systems, also with so-called enablers: their own auditors, their own lawyers, and their own advisors of various kinds. I believe, therefore, that the risk that criminals would bypass even a reform like this would be significant, while all honest business owners would only be affected by increased administration and higher costs.

In addition to this, there is the reality that someone must perform this job. One can make a reflection. What do all auditors do now? Many are now engaged in sustainability reporting. It is intended to meet other important societal goals. But it is a reality that those who worked with this judged that it would take a very long time to build up the capacity, to carry out such a very large expansion of the audit obligation, why on the balance it appeared not particularly appropriate to proceed with this measure.

This is, in no way, an expression that we should protect any means in this part, but on the contrary, an expression that we, now that we are rolling forward so broadly, must do so with precision, so that we know that with what we do we address the problem we want to solve without unnecessarily placing burdens and pressures on all the diligent and honest.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister of Justice, for this debate!

Yes, there is a risk of slightly increased costs for smaller companies if the audit requirement is reintroduced for more of them. But the risk on the other end is that small businesses are wiped out because they cannot manage to compete with organized crime. Therefore, we need to do everything we can to combat economic crime, which is a problem for serious companies and for society as a whole.

Do I think the SD-led government is doing enough? No. I am pleased with the efforts that are being made. The Minister has mentioned a number of things in his response, and that is good.

Do we need to do more? Yes, absolutely. Part of that naturally concerns what we need to do in the systems, such as preventing the marketization of the public sector and other things.

Back to this question. As a social worker, I know that increased transparency and the risk of being caught are good when it comes to preventing the occurrence of and promoting the detection of crimes. This applies not only to people, but it also applies in operations and companies.

It has been clearly shown that today it is easy for companies to hide a criminal activity behind a white facade. I mean, again, not that all companies engage in this, but we know that a majority of organized crime operates companies, and we must face that reality.

The intention behind removing the audit requirement has largely been lost, as several audits show. The Swedish National Audit Office notes that the profitability for the companies has improved slightly, but above all, the reform has hindered efforts against economic crime.

This is about weighing things against each other. I am not asking if we should reintroduce the audit requirement for everyone, because we also realize that it would mean quite a lot and that there are not enough auditors today. But we want at least to increase the possibility of introducing an audit requirement for more, because we need to have a business climate that rewards the serious companies. We therefore need to do everything we can.

The Minister for Justice says here that he is not averse to looking at this, so I wonder anyway: Can the Minister for Justice promise to take this issue into consideration? In light of what we know today, I believe it would make a difference. The risk of detection would increase, as would the possibility of oversight. It would be good as a step in reducing economic crime.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! No, I cannot make such a promise because I do not know if I can keep it.

What I can say, however, is that we have considered the issue carefully. We have done so recently, based on a proper investigation basis, extensive referral responses, and a comprehensive analysis of this entire basis. That analysis has simply landed on the fact that when one weighs the advantages and disadvantages against each other, the burden for the diligent and the costs become higher than the gains in relation to crime fighting, this in relation to the fact that it would take a very long time to implement a reform based on resources on that scale, which we do not have today in the form of auditors.

I understand from Eva Lindh that she thinks the government is doing too little. I hope that her case has a better basis than just hanging it on the audit obligation, because in this situation, I mean that there are good reasons not to reintroduce it.

On the other hand, we are doing a long series of other things in relation to economic crime, and I have mentioned some of this today. It would naturally have been much better if this had been in place five or ten years ago. These are measures aimed at ensuring that the public information about companies in our registers is correct, preventing shell companies from being used as representatives for companies, detecting criminal schemes earlier, and toughening penalties in relation to such things as we know are real problems when it comes to precisely the use of companies in crime.

I shall mention one thing that I myself thought was very important to change in the existing investigation reports, and that was to ensure that the entire toolbox in the form of secret wiretapping and secret coercive measures for preventive purposes against organized crime can also be directed against economic crime.

We agree that there is much more to be done. In a situation where the criminal economy is estimated to turn over 100–150 billion kronor a year, it is obvious that we cannot say we are in a position where we can be satisfied. It will require much more to truly succeed in strangling the criminal economy. It will require things that lie outside of what is the main track for today's discussion, not least in the intersection between the public and the private. It is clear that the insight that the criminal economy today is to a greater extent about welfare-related crime and other economic crime than about drugs underscores the importance of proceeding with full force on that front.

The Social Democrats usually pick up on it anyway and say they are for everything. When you are asked if you are for what the government proposes, you answer that you are for everything that is efficient and that produces the intended effect.

It should probably also be applied to this issue, because I believe we are in a situation where a reintroduction would not be particularly effective or have the intended effect. Unfortunately, it would instead primarily complicate matters and place burdens on those who, quite frankly, might primarily be affected by this crime, that is to say all honest business owners who are affected by dishonest and criminal competition.

For my part, I think it is great that we get the opportunity to discuss these issues today. I think it is great that there seems to be a broad consensus regarding the importance of combating economic crime in a way that we have not done previously. For today, we may perhaps conclude that when it comes to the audit obligation, it has appeared more rational in an overall assessment to move the positions forward significantly on other fronts.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! I want to use my last two minutes to make a conclusion of what we agree on and what we do not.

We obviously seem to be in agreement that combating economic crime must rank very high on our agenda. It is not reasonable for serious companies to be knocked out in competition with unserious and criminal companies. It must be clear.

It is also not reasonable that people in Sweden actually indirectly pay for economic crime in many different ways; we do not need to list these.

I also think there is quite a lot that we need to continue doing, but I also want to say another thing. What I want to highlight as something I think is very good with the audit obligation is that it increases transparency and the possibility of detection. It is very good that we strengthen the exchange of information between authorities. It is very good, because there are many of us who have pointed out that changes really need to be made.

I stand by this. Obviously, we are, just as the Minister says, not in agreement. I think this is an issue we would need to move forward with regarding the audit obligation. The National Audit Office and others have pointed out that the audit obligation could make a difference. Therefore, I think it is important to still look at whether more companies should be subject to an audit obligation. This would, in fact, increase the possibilities for oversight and discovery.

Thank you for the debate, Minister of Justice!

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Eva Lindh, for the opportunity to discuss these important issues today!

It is a reality that in order to succeed in tackling organized crime, we must do several things simultaneously. We must, of course, strike against the gross violence and break the recruitment of children and young people into the criminal networks, as well as choke the criminal economy.

It is also a reality that this is a development that has been ongoing for a very long time. The deadly gun violence tripled between 2012 and 2022, and today we are in a situation where the criminal economy amounts to 100–150 billion. Everyone understands that this is a development that has been ongoing for a long time and has eaten its way into our society. It also means that it will take some time to succeed in pushing back this crime and reach the point where we can truly say that we have taken back control.

One thing is certain, however: If we do as we have done so far, it will go as it has gone so far, and that cannot preferably be an option. Now we must instead do other things, and this applies in particular to the fight against economic crime.

I would like to say that that perspective, if one truly takes it seriously, means that we must also structurally and broadly implement extensive reforms in this area. I mentioned earlier that, for example, the use of coercive measures historically for some reason has not been relevant in the fight against economic crime in the same way as in the fight against other crimes, for example, violent ones. I think it is very good that we are now directing all that systemic power towards the economic sides of crime.

Eva Lindh meritoriously highlights the major reforms that are now being implemented regarding information sharing between authorities. What I can state is that with the major reforms we are now implementing – we have two steps left, one that enters into force on April 1 or possibly May 1 and a larger one that is to come this autumn – we have exhausted the possibilities to ensure an efficient exchange of information that we have within the framework of today's model. It is needed for many reasons, not least to break the recruitment of children and young people but also to a very high degree so that we can effectively choke the criminal economy.

The interpellation debate was hereby concluded.

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