Response to interpellation 2025/26:168 on children in commercial exploitation
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 M argues that the government should not introduce tax exemption for income from prostitution as it risks increasing the exploitation of persons and facilitating criminals 1. 2 M emphasizes that children should never be held responsible for their own exploitation and that the focus lies on combating exploitation rather than the tax legislation 2 3. 4 C argues that current legislation lacks exceptions for children, which means they risk being regarded as business operators and have a crime victim status that is counteracted 4. 5 C argues that the risk of taxation can prevent children from seeking help and that it is the government's responsibility to solve this 5 6. 6 C wants the taxation to be removed once and for all 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! Helena Vilhelmsson has asked me if I intend to take the initiative for legislative changes or other measures that ensure that no taxation of income derived from the sexual exploitation of children occurs. She has also asked me, if that is not the case, what I intend to do within my area of responsibility to ensure that children can never be held responsible for their own vulnerability and instead help children out of vulnerability.
No child should be subjected to sexual exploitation. To exploit children and young people sexually is criminal and utterly despicable. I completely agree with Helena Vilhelmsson that we must do everything we can to help vulnerable children.
Children should, of course, never be held responsible for their own exploitation. Persons who are exploited in prostitution and children who are subjected to commercial sexual exploitation are in a vulnerable position, and it is of the utmost importance that these persons receive support and help to get out of the vulnerability and that children are protected from continued exploitation.
Regarding the question of taxation, I would like to remind that the Swedish Tax Agency has stated that money paid to victims of trafficking are not income according to the tax legislation.
The Government has carefully analyzed the advantages and disadvantages of introducing special rules to exempt income from prostitution from taxation. Several actors, including Sveriges Kvinnoorganisationer, the Swedish Police Authority, the Swedish Tax Agency, and the Swedish Economic Crime Authority, have highlighted in round-table discussions that there is a risk that tax exemption could increase the exploitation of persons who are in prostitution. Among other things, criminals could claim that unreported income comes from income from the sale of sexual acts. It is the Government's assessment that a tax exemption risks undermining rather than helping those who are in prostitution.
The government is working intensively on several measures to counter prostitution and sexual exploitation of children and to provide support to those who are subjected to it. In light of these risks, the government has chosen not to proceed with the issue of tax exemption.
Helena Vilhelmsson (C)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Elisabeth Svantesson, for the answer and for the opportunity to once again discuss this incredibly pressing issue!
It is a fact that the Swedish Tax Agency and the government consider that income from the sale of sexual services should be taxed as these incomes are not covered by an exemption in the law. This applies even if the money originates from criminal activity such as sex buying or sexual violence against children, that is, children in prostitution. There is no doubt that children under 18 are subjected to commercial sexual exploitation in prostitution.
According to the Tax Procedure Act and the Income Tax Act, it is however possible to consider even minors as taxable for the income they generate, regardless of whether this has come from criminal activity or not. This allows for an interpretation that directly counteracts the child's status as a crime victim.
In the response, the government avoids giving its view on whether it is reasonable that children risk being taxed on money they have received in connection with being subjected to commercial sexual exploitation. This means that, in practice, there is a lack of a legal guarantee that children in vulnerable situations will not be regarded as business operators and thus become subject to tax returns and taxation.
Such a system creates several serious risks. Even if there are no cases today at Skatteverket with children as business operators within prostitution, it could result in children refraining from seeking help or reporting exploitation out of fear of taxation. Perpetrators can use threats of tax debt as a means to maintain control – who knows if this perhaps happens already today. The responsibility for the abuse risks being shifted from the perpetrator to the child. Children can, in practice or in theory, be convicted of tax crimes.
Despite the fact that the Penal Code and the Convention on the Rights of the Child state that children must not be subjected to economic exploitation and that no child shall be held responsible for their own exploitation, there are currently no specific exemption rules in the laws that protect children from taxation. There is also no explicit instruction to the Swedish Tax Agency or any regulatory letter clarifying that the state should not take a share of income from children's exploitation. This is bad enough when it concerns adults in exploitation.
In the Minister for Finance's response, it is explained that during previous round-table discussions, the pros and cons of taxing persons in prostitution were weighed, and it was concluded that the risks would increase if children in commercial sexual exploitation were exempted from taxation. This is, as stated, bad enough when it concerns adults.
My reflection is, quite simply: Why is it the responsibility of the vulnerable women to combat any potential increased money laundering by criminal gangs? And above all: Why is it the responsibility of the vulnerable children? I wonder: How did the conversations sound when it concerned the children? Which advantages weighed so much more heavily than the disadvantages that one landed on continued business activity instead of making a clear distancing?
My question was about children in commercial sexual exploitation. The Minister refers to the round table discussion that took place, which I know about, which surely provided very good discussions and input. But it was not about children; it was about adults.
My question in the interpellation was whether the government intends to make any legislative changes to prevent children in commercial sexual exploitation from risking being taxed. The Minister for Finance has answered no to this.
I also asked what other measures are being taken to protect children. The Government has answered that many measures are being taken. In addition to a reflection on my post, I would like to have an answer to the question: Which measures?
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! I am a bit surprised by this discussion, if I may be honest. I am a bit surprised when Helena Vilhelmsson asks if we had this discussion at the round table talks. No, and that is probably because this, as far as I know, is not a commonly occurring problem. I actually do not know if this has been raised at any single occasion – it may be so.
But what we know is serious is that children are being exploited. That is the big problem here. It is completely reprehensible, and we must fight it. I am convinced that every party in here also wants to do so and continue to do so.
We have now, for example, tasked the Children's Ombudsman to review how support can reach more children who are subjected to violence or sexual exploitation today. We have also proceeded with other proposals in the report Out of Vulnerability. Authorities and municipalities are working together to introduce programs for children who have been subjected to human trafficking and exploited sexually.
When it comes to the question of tax, it is clear that there is no one who thinks that prostitutes or especially children should end up in this situation. But what I know is that the problem for children right now is not what the tax legislation looks like, but that they, de facto, are being exploited. Therefore, I, Madam Speaker, have answered as I have answered. We shall fight this together.
I mentioned this regarding prostitution only because I know it is a major issue and that many are discussing it. I completely share Helena Vilhelmsson's starting point on that issue, but I come to a different conclusion. I hear many say that if we, in this way, exempt the women in prostitution and say that they should not pay tax, there is a great risk. It is not about placing responsibility on these women, on the contrary. It is about protecting these women from the dreadful men who engage in trafficking with them, exploit them and let others exploit them – and they shall also hide their black money.
I believe that this is an issue where we are fundamentally very much in agreement on the objective. We work together in different ways to combat both prostitution and children ending up in vulnerable situations. Whether or not there should be tax legislation regarding this part is something one can then have different opinions about.
If this is a major issue – Helena Vilhelmsson perhaps knows if it is – my basic attitude is of course still that we should do what facilitates things for the children. The biggest problem for these children is not the tax legislation. It is that people – men and women – exploit and torment them and ruin their lives.
Helena Vilhelmsson (C)
Madam Speaker! The biggest problem for these children is that people – men – exploit and abuse them in commercial sexual exploitation. A perhaps equally large problem for these children is that they, when they are still children or when they become adults, find out that they perhaps should also have reported these incomes. We surely do not need to wait for the first case where a minor ends up at Skatteverket?
This is a perspective that I know is a problem for many children who are exposed to commercial sexual exploitation. Do not downplay the fact that people find it unpleasant, uncomfortable, and incomprehensible to risk being regarded as a commercial actor instead of a crime victim! It is a current problem for both children and for adult women who are exposed.
In previous communication regarding this, it has been mentioned – I believe it was also said in the Finance Minister's response – that the Swedish Tax Agency does not tax women or children if they are victims of human trafficking. It is an interesting position that requires some reflection. The Swedish Tax Agency has itself acknowledged that they absolutely have no possibility of determining whether a woman is a victim of human trafficking or not, but they must rely on a police investigation. Both the Finance Minister and I know how many human trafficking convictions we have had in Sweden: They hardly exist.
The question is: Is there a difference between vulnerability and vulnerability? Is there a difference if one is exploited in prostitution because of a pimp or because one must have money for food on the table? Or does it stem from the belief that someone actually does this voluntarily?
One must understand that laws, legislation, and agency decisions give birth to values, reflections, and questions. This is one such. What is the difference between vulnerability and vulnerability? Why should one be taxed according to Swedish legislation but not the other?
I find it difficult to accept the discussion that vulnerable women and vulnerable children should bear the responsibility to ensure that the criminal economy and money laundering do not increase. I do not understand that. I believe it is the government's responsibility. It is not the responsibility of vulnerable children and women to do this.
If it were the case that social services, the police, or others suspect that a child is being subjected to commercial sexual exploitation and happen to have a whole pile of money, then social services and others must directly step in to protect the child. They have a responsibility for children under 18. It could even be an opposite effect – that is, that the child receives faster and better help in such cases.
What I mean is that the argument is not sustainable when it comes to children. As soon as there is a suspicion that children are at risk, other authorities should step in.
There are many other considerations that come with this, but I will raise them in my closing statement.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! I shall be very brief.
The government is consolidating its efforts. I know that many parties here in the Riksdag – all of them, I believe – stand behind the fact that we are combating both prostitution and human trafficking and that we are focusing particularly on vulnerable children.
To Helena Vilhelmsson, it sounds as if the taxation legislation is in some way normative and leads to more children being exploited. I do not think that is the case. I do not share that picture at all. I think it is better to devote all time and effort to ensuring that children are never ever exploited. That is our focus.
One can have different views here, but I also think – Helena Vilhelmsson is welcome to correct me if I am wrong; I have been before – that this is a theoretical problem right now. Helena Vilhelmsson thinks that we have poor legislation for children to be exploited and have to pay tax. But I do not know of a single such case. I have never heard of anything such.
It is quite obvious: Let us together focus our efforts on combating the exploitation of children by men and women! The tax legislation will not make any great difference for the children it concerns.
I have respect for the fact that people can have different opinions here. But the work that is currently underway and the mandate that authorities and others have received to truly secure children's situation, so that they do not fall into the clutches of despicable people, that is the focus we have now.
Helena Vilhelmsson (C)
Madam Speaker! I want to clarify to the Minister for Finance and others listening that I have never claimed that the tax system increases the vulnerability of children in commercial sexual exploitation, but it definitely does not reduce it. And it does not help children out of that exploitation. This is what I am trying to say, and this is what many of me are saying.
I wish that the Minister for Finance would listen to those who work with those who have been affected. There are countless voices saying exactly this: "Had I known this when I was vulnerable, it would have been an enormous barrier for me to dare to seek help." It is clear that it is so for children even today.
I think it is a bit improper not to take anything from the views expressed in those discussions. Both the Finance Minister and I know that they exist among the children's rights organizations. I would wish for a different tone in the debate and the argumentation, because it is a problem. It is a morally and ethically strange argument.
We should not have to wait for the first case. Children's suffering must not be converted into a bookkeeping matter. There must be no risk of that.
It is offensive that children who have been subjected to exploitation still risk being treated as if they were conducting a business activity. Even if this has not occurred today, the risk remains. When abuse is given a veneer of legitimacy – this applies to both children and adults – the crime loses its clarity and severity. Trauma is not a business transaction, and abuse is not a job.
I also refer to the investigation report Ut ur utsatthet, which we have commented on previously when we have debated. There it was stated clearly and distinctly that the taxation would be removed. The investigators did not have that task, but they stated it. Let us move forward with this and do it once and for all!
ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN
The Minister has announced that she abstains from making further speeches in this debate.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.