Response to interpellation 2024/25:607 on missing penalties for human trafficking

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! Patrik Lundqvist has asked me what I intend to do to increase the focus on the fight against human trafficking and ensure that those who trade in people for, for example, prostitution or construction work cannot get away with it.

I want to start by thanking Patrik Lundqvist for raising an important and pressing issue. Through human trafficking for sexual and other purposes, people are exploited in a cynical and ruthless way. Often it concerns women who are already in a vulnerable situation. It is a crime that, of course, must be combated with full force.

Human trafficking is often difficult to detect, investigate, and prove. For a long time, the number of convictions in this area has also been small. I am, however, convinced that the authorities can improve their work through joint efforts. In a first step, the Government has tasked the police with reporting on how the police and prosecutors work together so that more crimes can be investigated and prosecuted. It is also important to strengthen the support for victims of human trafficking so that they have the strength to report or testify.

Right now, work is underway within the Government Offices to develop a new national action plan against prostitution and human trafficking. It is about preventing and combating the exploitation of persons in prostitution and human trafficking, but also about strengthening the protection for vulnerable persons. That work includes reviewing how we can take up the recommendations that have been submitted in the area, among others by the Party Committee to the Council of Europe's Convention on Combating Trafficking in Human Beings and by Swedish authorities and organizations. We are also in close dialogue with authorities and other actors in society regarding these important issues.

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

Patrik Lundqvist (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Gunnar Strömmer, for the answer so far!

In 2018, we had 256 reported cases of human trafficking. In 2024, there were 430. That is a 50 percent increase. Despite that, we see no increase in the number of those convicted. In the years 2022 and 2023, there were two convicted, in 2024 none. That is actually the background to why we stand here today.

It is very good to do a lot of things. I also believe in joint agency efforts. For example, Akrimcenter is a good base for at least part of this problem, especially that which concerns labor exploitation. Prostitution can end up in other places, so to speak – even though we have heard of examples such as the Thai salons, which are both workplaces and in some cases forums for prostitution.

The legislation as it stands, or perhaps as it is interpreted, seems quite bizarre to me as a layperson. I take an example from the Gender Equality Authority's report. In a case involving a 14-year-old girl, the court considered that she had not been transported by the defendant because the driving distance had been short and the defendant had sat in the rear part of the car. The defendant had organized the trip, and it had been proven that he had an exploitative purpose with the trip. It is unclear why the length of the transport affected the assessment and why it was considered that the defendant was not responsible for the transport because he sat in the back seat.

One can easily agree with this, namely that it is quite bizarre that people get away with it on these grounds. It naturally has nothing to do with how the authorities work, how the prosecutor or the police have done their jobs, but for me, it possibly concerns the courts' work but more likely the legislation they base it on. There we probably need to take action.

It seems they have a rather narrow view of what is classified as a threat. Individuals can be acquitted because there are agreements between the exploited and the one making money. Within the construction industry, it can be about employment contracts that are not followed and where there was probably never any ambition to follow them. But the court sees it as a breach of contract instead of what it is, namely a front for human smuggling. The perpetrators thus get exactly what they want from writing false papers. The legislation, the justice system, or whoever it is, is bypassed, and it becomes a problem in more and more sectors.

The Gender Equality Authority describes this as the law being too complex and, furthermore, being used too little. The Supreme Court does not set practice and does not speak on what applies between the different parts of the legislation. They go hand in hand. What I have heard and experienced in various places is that authorities find other ways to punish the guilty. They issue fines for minor offenses in the workplaces or come up with other things to curb the whole, but they avoid precisely the crimes of human trafficking and human exploitation.

I hope that we can address these crimes together. We really cannot have it this way.

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

TALMANNEN

I remind that the court's assessment in an individual case may not be subject to argumentation or criticism, but may be invoked to, for example, justify legislative changes. I am not saying that anyone has crossed the line here, but for the continued debate, I want to emphasize exactly this.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to once again thank Patrik Lundqvist for raising these issues today.

It is clear that the questions are immensely significant for the individual people who are affected and are subjected to the abuses and for the exploitation of the kind we are talking about. It is also clear that, in the long run, it becomes a problem for our entire society. It becomes a problem for the working life and for serious business. As a society as a whole, we cannot accept a development where people suffer harm in the way that occurs in far too many cases.

I perceived the description of the individual case just as an illustration of a problem that can lead us further into a broader discussion. Is there a need to review what the legislation looks like and how it is used? Without going into the individual case, I want to say that my initial perception is nevertheless that it is a central problem that far too few cases become subjects of legal review. It is difficult to draw more systematic conclusions on how the legislation works when it is, in practice, tested far too rarely. It is an important background to the mandate we have given to the current authorities, namely to practically increase the pressure in the cases so that we can truly see more cases lead to prosecution and in that way, in the long run, hopefully obtain convictions and an even better understanding of whether there are any deficiencies in the legislation that must be addressed in such cases. Then we are, of course, always prepared to have a discussion.

Proposals have also come from other sources. The delegation against labor-related crime submitted its final report around the turn of the year. I myself took part in a discussion in connection with the handover, which was organized by LO. Many good ideas emerged there on how one can work preventively to prevent people from being exploited for sexual purposes and otherwise, for example in the working life.

Overall, I think it is incredibly important to follow this carefully. We are to debate and discuss the issues. From my point of view, the purpose is to get responsible authorities to dig so deep that they produce a basis for getting more cases prosecuted and thereby protect individuals who are affected, and to get better grounds to see if we also need to implement further changes at a systemic level.

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

Patrik Lundqvist (S)

Mr. Speaker! I also thank Strömmer for his description of my example. Naturally, I have no ambition to delve into the individual case, but it is about something much larger. But just as Strömmer describes, there are few cases, and it then becomes difficult to build a broader picture without using the individual cases that exist.

Human trafficking is a large part of organized crime. We see several links between gangs and others who shoot and sell drugs, who bizarrely also own court buildings, HVB homes, and other things. Then we also have the companies that exist within the construction industry, LVU, or other forms of care, for example LSS, where people are exploited to wash money from other activities and to make money from the people.

There are other descriptions in the investigations that have been conducted. Among others, the Gender Equality Authority describes the following: When a prosecution concerns a number of defendants, it can be difficult to prove that all persons' actions had the intent that the victim should be exploited.

They argue that if it is a question of a handful of individuals, one must prove that everyone had the intention to exploit people. If some did not, the prosecution fails, and that is because one fails to manage to build a whole.

We Social Democrats have pointed out this problem for a long time. We believe that it can be solved by using RICO legislation, i.e., the legislation used against the mafia in the USA. A Swedish variant of that law could plug the hole. We need to look a bit extra at this.

It is very good that the Minister highlights the Delegation against labor crime and their work with preventive measures. I would particularly like to highlight the need to limit the subcontracting chain within, for example, the construction industry. We know through the investigations that exist that the more subcontracting links there are, the greater the risk that people are exploited and that other crimes within labor crime are committed. This can, for example, be tax evasion which harms society greatly. Much more can be done there. This is an issue that until now has not been raised high enough. I think we should limit the possibilities, increase transparency, and ensure that those who have the ambition to exploit people cannot do so as openly and uninhibitedly as they do today.

We need to create order and clarity at our construction sites so that they have a harder time operating there. It is the most effective, simplest, and most accurate solution. It, in fact, hits no innocent people.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! I completely share the starting point that we must attack the problem from several different sides. Patrik Lundqvist initially mentioned the so-called work-life crime centers that have been established around the country. It is in practice a hub for different actors in society to jointly generate systemic power against the problems.

I also think it is evident from the renewed mandate that we gave in the autumn to the authorities that collaborate around the centers. We point out that the mandate is broad. It is, of course, about hitting hard against the criminal economy and organized crime at the corporate level.

Human trafficking, human smuggling and exploitation in the workplace are connected, and that is the broader scope. It also takes place in many different arenas and in particularly vulnerable industries. Important work is being done there, and I perceive that we are making progress. But I also completely agree that it is the results that will show if it is going well enough. A very important measure of that is, after all, that more cases are prosecuted. We must get more convictions in this area.

Let me link to what Patrik Lundqvist raises regarding the so-called RICO legislation and the need for broader legislation against more organized or mafia-like structures.

Organized crime indeed has many facets. The shootings and bombings are the most brutal expressions, as is the recruitment of children, but the broad criminal economy is the base for all of this.

I agree that there are major reform needs there, and the government is also in motion. In short, every element of the American RICO legislation is now moving forward. This concerns, for example, the possibility of criminalizing participation in criminal networks, which is intended to achieve a much broader scope of impact within the structures. If the individual crime may be more difficult to prove, the connection or link to a structure engaged in this criminality might already be sufficient to be able to prosecute or hold someone accountable for the crime.

I think the discussion and the interpellation remind us of the importance of remembering that organized crime in its most brutal expressions are the shootings and the bombings, but that there is an underlying foundation that we must choke if we are to have a long-term possibility of addressing these problems.

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

Patrik Lundqvist (S)

Mr. Speaker! Much of what the Minister for Justice says is, of course, correct. We are not particularly in disagreement on this issue, I would like to say.

The majority of the people who are exploited – in any case, of those who are found – are identified within hotels and restaurants, construction, and the green industries – in plain terms, picking, one might have to say, even though there are also some other cases. We know the problem industries. But these are only those who are identified.

We also know, as I touched upon earlier, that there are major problems within the LSS sector. There, people are systematically recruited to Sweden to work here within LSS. People are also recruited who themselves have children with needs and thus the possibility of receiving LSS interventions. Then, chains are built with people who are exploited. They remain and appear in the operation because they are threatened that their children will otherwise lose their support interventions. It is an almost horrific way to exploit people and their situation, and we must, of course, put a stop to this.

Another measure that I would like to record concerns who is allowed to bring in labor from third countries and on what conditions it may be done. We have wage requirements today. But for those who intend to exploit people and do not intend to pay the wage they have on paper, but perhaps at best pay the wage and then take it back under the table, such measures play a very small role.

There, we would need a labor market assessment, perhaps with the parties, with the state as a part and with Arbetsförmedlingen or another authority. There would need to be a system to say a flat no, regardless of wage levels and other things.

Thank you very much for the debate, Mr. Speaker and the Minister!

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! We truly agree that it is absolutely central to address the problem area we are now describing if we are to have a chance to push back organized crime in the long term. It is a very strong interest for Sweden as a country, for our entire society, but of course, and perhaps not least, also for all the individual people who are affected in a very brutal way by this crime.

It underscores, as said, the importance of attacking the problem from several different angles. Patrik Lundqvist mentions a number of industries that are particularly vulnerable: hotels and restaurants, construction, and certain green industries such as berry picking. There are also certain small business industries that to some extent have employees, but which perhaps do not necessarily have them, which are also vulnerable. I mentioned the LO seminar that I participated in, where the taxi industry described work-life crime of various kinds occurring there. It is also linked to other crime, money laundering, and other things.

It is completely correct to take the broad approach. It is positive in that way that much focus is now being directed specifically on the role of work-related crime in organized crime.

I also agree, of course, that the infiltration or exploitation occurring of the welfare systems is an abomination. Then, we might possibly have slightly different views on exactly what the balance points should look like if we were to dwell on this a few more times. For my part, I think it is very important to safeguard individuals' ability to choose within the welfare systems.

But it is clear that we cannot organize the systems in such a way that they are easy to corrupt by criminal forces. We can be in complete agreement that it has been far too easy, and there is still very much to be done to address that.

Finally: Regarding labor immigration, major reforms are taking place in that area. I am not prepared to say that we will go back to the old times' labor market assessments, but it is obvious that we must shift positions in other ways to also reach, for example, the one who agrees to a wage that is at the level of the requirements but then for other reasons does not pay out the wage or takes it back. The control and supervision of the systems are therefore absolutely crucial.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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