Response to interpellation 2025/26:76 on increased maximum penalties for economic crime
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M considers it crucial to choke the criminal economy and that the government is working to raise the minimum sentence for serious economic crimes 1. M believes that the common sentencing scale for multiple serious economic crimes should be raised to twelve years and that double penalties should be introduced for crimes linked to criminal networks 1 2. M believes that they are carrying out a systemic overhaul where the penalties can in practice become twice as high as they are today 3 and are mobilizing with full force against both violence and the criminal economy 4. S wants to introduce a new level in the sentencing scale for particularly serious economic crimes and raise the maximum sentence to ten years 5 6 7. S believes that the government is "soft on ekobrott" 7 and that one cannot speak of a crackdown while decisions are pushed to the next mandate period 8. S also wants tools that follow the money 9.
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! It is very pleasing to see with what freshness and clip in their step the interpellants with adjutants step into the chamber at a quarter to ten! For my part, I have been busy for a while and seem to be busy for a while longer.
Teresa Carvalho has asked me if I and the government intend to take any measures to increase the penalties for economic crime.
The short message of the long speech is yes. For the government, it is a completely decisive task to push back organized crime and restore safety here in the country. It concerns several different parts: to strike against gross violence, to choke the criminal economy, and to break the recruitment of children and young people into the gangs.
During the years 2012–2022, the fatal shootings in Sweden tripled. But it was not only the gangs' gross violence that increased dramatically. The turnover from the criminal economy that drives the violence also did, and today it is estimated to turn over a slightly breathtaking 100–150 billion kronor annually. It concerns everything from elderly fraud and narcotics sales to welfare fraud and VAT fraud.
We know that organized crime is fueled by money. To push back organized crime, it is therefore necessary to choke the criminal economy, and the government is moving forward on several different fronts to achieve this. The basis for the work is the national strategy against organized crime, and the measures follow five main lines: to stop welfare fraud, to stop companies being used as criminal tools, to stop the narcotics, to improve cooperation between authorities, and to take back more criminal proceeds.
To manage this task, law enforcement has been equipped with more effective tools. Police, prosecutors, customs, and other actors have for many years demanded all of this, and this government has ensured that it becomes a reality.
We have, for example, ensured that certain secret and preventive coercive measures can be used against economic crime committed in criminal networks.
We have introduced powerful forfeiture legislation that provides completely new opportunities to seize criminals' assets directly and without prosecution.
On the Riksdag's table lies a government bill on expanding the possibilities to impose business bans against gang criminals.
The government has also tasked the Economic Crime Authority, the Swedish Police Authority, and the Swedish Prosecution Authority with strengthening their collective ability to combat economic crime. The Economic Crime Authority shall also increase the pace regarding investigations and prosecutions.
To all this comes the penalties. I can state that we took over a system from the Social Democratic government with major flaws and vulnerabilities. The penalties were consistently far too low and did not reflect in any way the severity of the economic crime.
That is why it was also very important for the government that the so-called Sentencing Reform Commission, which was led by police commissioner Petra Lundh, reviewed the sentencing scales, among others for economic crime, with the aim that these sentences should reflect the gravity of the crimes and that the legislation should be designed so that it can tackle organized crime with particular precision.
The investigation has submitted a long series of proposals that entail significantly harsher penalties for economic crime.
The minimum sentence for a large number of serious economic crimes is proposed to be raised from six months to one year. This applies, for example, to serious fraud, serious unauthorized use of payment instruments, and serious receiving of stolen goods. Raising the minimum sentences is a very effective measure to increase the level of repression, something that the government's doubling of the minimum sentence for serious weapons offenses has shown, among other things.
We are also preparing proposals so that gang criminals can receive double sentences, which means that the punishment can be doubled for economic crime that has a connection to organized crime.
The investigation also proposes that new rules for sentencing should be introduced so that the entire sentencing scale is used. The problem is rarely that the maximum penalty is too low, but rather it is often only the lower part of the sentencing scale that is used in practice. The common sentencing scale for multiple counts of serious economic crime is proposed to be raised from eight to twelve years, as well as that the rules for sentencing in multiple counts of crime become significantly stricter. This is something that is particularly important to achieve higher sentences in economic crime, because in the more serious cases it almost exclusively concerns several crimes in a series of extensive and systematic crime.
The government is now working full-scale on the proposals and intends to have the tightened sentencing scales, that is to say that gang criminals shall be able to receive double sentences and the increased common sentencing scale for multiple crimes, in place as early as July 1, 2026 – much earlier than what the investigator has proposed. With great precision, we are addressing inherited systemic flaws and vulnerabilities. The result will be significantly harsher penalties for economic crime, in particular for those crimes committed within the framework of criminal networks.
Teresa Carvalho (S)
Madam Speaker! Good evening, Mr. Minister! It is pleasing to see that the Minister looks alert in the middle of this late debate evening, even though we are approaching 22.
It is also pleasing that we are largely in agreement when it comes to the need for and the tools to push back gang crime. Actually, there are only two things that we Social Democrats lack. One is that much more is needed to break the new recruitment, just as much as to lock up the criminals. The other is that we want to see a Swedish mafia law with collective criminal liability, incentives to report the gang leaders, restrictive measures such as travel bans and contact bans for identified gang criminals, as well as the possibility to access the gangs' business activities because they increasingly conduct illegal activities in corporate form.
The criminal gangs, which increasingly resemble the mafia, are engaging to an ever greater extent in various types of economic crime. It is money laundering, tax crimes, benefit fraud, fraud and so on. In combination with their enormous capital of violence and intimidation, they cannot be described as anything other than criminals committing system-threatening crime. In order to crack down harder on economic crime, we Social Democrats have proposed to introduce a new level in the penal scale for so-called extremely serious economic crimes and thereby also increase the maximum sentence from today's six to ten years in the same way as for drug and assault crimes.
This proposal is being dismissed, strangely enough, by the Minister for Justice. I must admit that it surprises me somewhat. The Tidö government has hardly made itself known for dodging a sentence increase, but some time it will have to be the first. Or perhaps it is only a certain type of crime or certain types of criminals that are to be punished severely, but it would be undeniable to turn a blind eye to how gang violence is connected with economic crime.
Madam Speaker! The Minister for Justice wants instead to increase the minimum sentence for economic crime from six months to one year. He argues that there is great accuracy in such an adjustment. I argue that that logic is flawed. Is not the very definition of accuracy that the legislation hits the crime that constitutes the greatest societal damage, that is to say those who commit the most serious crimes, those who should be behind bars for several years longer?
The government justifies many other sentence increases in exactly that way, that is, that the maximum penalty should be raised. This includes, among other things, what the Minister for Justice has mentioned regarding double sentences for gang criminals and a raised maximum penalty for multiple economic crimes. It is the ceiling, not the floor, that is being addressed. It is also how the investigation that Gunnar Strömmer refers to justifies other sentence increases, that is, the maximum penalty for violent crimes.
The Minister of Justice is welcome to correct me if I am wrong, but is it not the logic that harsher sentences have both a moral and a practical effect in such a way that the person behind bars and bars cannot commit new crimes and that it has a norm-setting effect? But why does it not apply in the same way to economic crime as to other system-threatening crime?
Lars Isacsson (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank interpellant Teresa Carvalho, and I thank Minister for Justice Gunnar Strömmer for the answer.
I must apologize for extending the evening; it is not very popular. But I think this is an important issue to debate. I have had the privilege of debating the issue of economic crime with the Minister for Justice previously. We usually agree on much, but the Social Democrats can come up with concrete proposals and initiate a higher tempo.
When we Social Democrats raise the need to increase the penalties for economic crime and to introduce particularly serious economic crime into the penal scale, it is not about symbolic politics but about defending the social contract. The person who cheats their way to millions from the welfare system damages trust just as much as the one who blows up doors with dynamite. According to the Swedish Crime Prevention Council, economic crime is estimated to cost society over 100 billion kronor every year. These are funds that would have done much greater good by going to school, healthcare, and security throughout the country.
At today's meeting of the Committee on Justice, there was an appendix in the documents regarding the investigations that the government is working on in the justice area. There are over 20 large justice investigations. There, one can see what is prioritized and what is not prioritized. There are investigations on self-defense law, on begging bans, access bans, and amusement park supervision, but I see none that deal with economic crime. The one that touches on the area is Ju 2025:10 regarding companies reported for crimes, but it is not to be reported until November 2026. The same applies to welfare crimes. The investigations are to be reported in 2026 and 2027.
Madam Speaker! I believe that one cannot speak of a crackdown on economic crime while simultaneously pushing the decisions to the next mandate period. I can hope that there is a different government in the next mandate period, but we have different opinions on that. We Social Democrats believe that the fight against organized crime must begin in the economy. That is where the money, the power, and the influence are, and that is where harsher penalties are needed.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! I thank you for the opportunity to discuss these important issues this evening.
The interpellator began by saying that fundamentally, the government is doing good things, but she lacked two things. One thing was powerful prevention, and we can talk about that for a long time. It is not the case that the 13- and 14-year-olds who today commit the truly serious crimes have been subject to effective crime prevention policies earlier. They were, after all, three, four, or five years old when Magdalena Andersson entered the Ministry of Finance and eventually the Government Offices. We must completely overhaul the prevention, and we are doing that now. I am happy to speak more about that.
The second thing that is obviously missing is the mafia legislation, which in practice is what the government is implementing in the form of participation crimes, with the possibility of testifying anonymously, with the strengthening of the crown witness system, with preventive coercive measures, and with the possibility of confiscating property without going the long way around via prosecution and other such means.
No, none of those are actually things that the Social Democrats lack. But the Social Democrats lack two other things. The first, I mean, is a systematic way of thinking about how to tackle economic crime. It is clear that one can hang all that effort on a crime classification when it comes to the sentencing scale for economic crime. But I have just described an entire battery of changes to criminal law that go directly against serious economic crime.
It is absolutely about raising the minimum floor, because we know that in practice this is about crimes, for example fraud offenses, which individually are in the lower part of the sentencing scale. It is therefore incredibly important to do several things to address this. One is to raise the floor, because a large part of the application of the law falls there. The second is to ensure that the courts use the entire sentencing scale, which we are in the process of doing. The third is, as I have pointed out, that the common sentencing scale for multiple serious economic crimes is proposed to be raised from eight to twelve years. It is a significant tightening of those sentences.
Speaking of presumption, if we are to direct increased penalties towards organized crime, it is clear that double penalties for crimes linked to criminal networks, which is a reform we have talked about for over a decade but which has not been achieved during previous Social Democratic terms, will hit economic crime linked to precisely those criminal gangs with full force.
One must also understand that the fact that we have made it possible to direct the preventive coercive measures also towards economic crime has to do with us ensuring that the penalties for that crime are so serious that that type of effective tool can be deployed.
One thing that I think the Social Democrats possibly lack is, that is, a systematic thinking regarding how to tackle economic crime with criminal law.
The second thing that the Social Democrats unfortunately lack is a government basis that can deliver this. I naturally take note of Lars Isacsson's hope for a different government after the next election. But I am not sure that the issues we are discussing here would benefit from that.
One thing is certain: The Social Democrats' best chance to contribute to tougher sentences is that the Moderates lead the government and that the basis we have can deliver those toughenings. There is a major deficiency for the Social Democrats, and in the worst case, it could become a significant deficiency for Sweden. We hope that misfortune is not ahead after the next election.
Teresa Carvalho (S)
Madam Speaker! On April 3 of this year, I asked the Minister for Justice here in the Chamber of the Riksdag if he wanted to introduce a new level in the sentencing scale for economic crime and increase the maximum penalty from today's six years to ten years. Then the Minister for Justice answered: ”Yes, that is what I want to do, and I want to do it against the background that the Social Democrats, during eight years in power, also failed to increase these penalties when it concerns serious economic crime. That is also why we have pushed it in as an important part of the assignment that Petra Lundh leads when it comes to reviewing the penalties. I think it is great that the Social Democrats have reached a point where they want to increase the penalties. But even in this question, you are perhaps second or possibly third in line.”
Madam Speaker! Now, more than half a year later, we stand here again, and now the notes are slightly different. The Minister for Justice does not seem to be as eager about the idea of introducing a new level in the sentencing scale and raising the maximum penalty for economic crime. Raising the minimum sentence from six months to one year and toughening the penalty for multiple offenses can, for all intents and purposes, be justified. But why should one have to commit several crimes before the punishment becomes severe enough? And why is the use of the entire sentencing scale sufficient to tackle serious, organized economic crime, but not when it comes to other system-threatening crime, where the government also wants to toughen the maximum penalties? It is that logic that I think falters in the Minister for Justice's answer.
I also think that trust in the entire rule of law risks being eroded when ordinary hard-working people in our country see how billion-dollar fraudsters get away with only a few years in prison.
I cannot help but say that it is noticeable that we are entering an election year. When we have this debate about our proposal on economic crime, the Minister for Justice gladly shifts the focus to government bases that we know nothing about, to what previous governments have done and so on. It was three-year-olds when Magdalena Andersson was Prime Minister, even though it is now a fact that the number of children under 15 who are involved in murder cases has increased by 500 percent during the Minister for Justice's watch.
I would appreciate it if we could stick to the issue at hand, but perhaps also show a little more humility regarding the seriousness of the issue and the situation.
Do not misunderstand me. I naturally think it is completely right to toughen sentences. That is why we Social Democrats, just like the Moderates, want to introduce, for example, up to double sentences for gang criminals. That is also why we propose the change when it comes to serious organized crime.
Finally: Regarding the somewhat more political game creeping into this debate, the Minister for Justice just said that he has inherited a broken and deficient criminal justice system from the Social Democrats. In that case, one cannot help but wonder how broken and deficient he thought it was during the Alliance government's time, i.e., before the Social Democrats tightened eighty penalties and criminalized 30 new acts.
I think, as I have said, that that type of debate does not lead forward very much. I would rather like to hear the motive for why Gunnar Strömmer views system-threatening economic crime and other crime so differently. I believe, nevertheless, that we are quite in agreement that we have an enormous need in this country to choke the criminal economy and that the criminal economy is connected to many of the shootings, explosions, and arson attacks that still plague our country.
Why does Gunnar Strömmer not want to go harder against system-threatening crime?
Lars Isacsson (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister of Justice, for the debate!
The Minister for Justice claims that we Social Democrats are empty on proposals and thinks that most of what the government does is good. When the Minister for Justice and I have debated over the last few years, I have raised proposals on audit requirements, increased share capital, and most recently a few weeks ago, certificates for public procurement. But today we are debating particularly grave economic crime.
That we think much of what the government presents in its bills is good is connected to the fact that 75 percent of the bills that the government has placed on the Justice Committee's table were initiated by the previous S-led government. It is good that the government tightens the penalties for gang-related crime and raises the minimum sentences. But serious economic crime can often involve other crimes, and the same key does not fit all locks.
Economic crime is often silent. It is planned. It is hidden in companies, networks, and advisors and requires different tools. It is tools that follow the money, similar to what has been done in Italy and the USA. Therefore, we in the Social Democrats want to sharpen this, increase the penalties, and introduce the criminal classification of particularly serious economic crime.
Madam Speaker! It is another concrete proposal from us in the Social Democrats and an important part of what we want to see in a Swedish mafia legislation.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! I just want to say to Lars Isacsson that I appreciate new proposals. One thing or another also comes from the Socialdemokraterna. My point has been that the Socialdemokraterna's best chance of getting it implemented is to cooperate with the Moderaterna. One could possibly say that it is political maneuvering to discuss a year before an election how proposals should not only be put forward but also how they should be implemented. I think it is a central matter in a democracy to talk about both of those aspects.
I can only state that, for the most part, everything we do during this mandate period has apparently been impossible to do during previous mandate periods. I am glad that we can get broad support for it. And the reason we can do it now is that we fundamentally hold a majority in Sweden's Riksdag that wants this. And despite everything, politics is about wanting, as someone has said before. And for the will to be realized or fulfilled, it is required that one can do it together with others.
Pleasantly enough, we have that basis. That means we can now make enormously large changes both regarding the penalties and regarding the tools for crime fighting and very much more.
No, we do not take this part of organized crime any less seriously than the violence or the recruitment of children. Now, the Social Democrats are hooking this discussion on a specific issue regarding a certain number of years in the sentencing scale for a certain crime. But what I have described is a systemic move. The practical effect will be that the sentences for serious economic crime committed within the criminal networks will become twice as high as they are today.
I have described how, when it comes to the penalties for economic crime, we will absolutely raise the floor, because we know that the individual fraud crimes, which trick the country's elderly, move in the lower part of the sentencing scale. It is clear that we must raise the floor to ensure that the sentencing in those cases reflects the severity of the crime that affects, for example, the elderly all over our country.
It is clear that multiplicity is particularly significant in economic crime, as it is characterized by the fact that several crimes are committed. If we do not count more than, say, the first three crimes, which happens today, we will of course never reach the levels that this crime deserves. Therefore, the focus on multiple crimes is so essential precisely when it comes to economic crime.
A central deficiency has, as I perceive it, existed in the system through the connection of the use of coercive measures to sentencing levels. If we were to go by old sentencing levels, existing sentencing levels, we would not be able to direct the entire new toolbox of secret coercive measures against economic crime in organized crime. Quite honestly, one can say that we short-circuited that system a bit when we introduced it. The sentencing levels according to the existing system do not justify using coercive measures in that way, but we have ensured that it happens in any case. Now one can say that we are catching up by making major changes to the sentences regarding economic crime, so that the system hangs together.
Overall, it is like this: If we are to tackle organized crime, we must go in with full force against the violence, the economic crime, and the recruitment of children. We are doing everything. We will be able to do much more. The humility before reality and its seriousness is great. We take that responsibility by ensuring that we also, in the field of criminal law, make the tightenings and changes to the system that are required so that we can choke the criminal economy.
Teresa Carvalho (S)
Madam Speaker! Sweden has serious problems with gang crime. The violence is becoming increasingly severe, and more and more innocent people are affected by explosions, shootings, and arson attacks. But that is only the tip of the iceberg. Beneath the surface, we have a growing organized crime that is eating its way into the entire society, into the business sector, and into the welfare system, and which uses legal corporate structures to conduct illegal activities and economic crime.
Organized economic crime is not only engaged in drug trafficking. It also builds its power on benefit fraud, welfare crime, fraud, tax crimes, and money laundering. It is a system-threatening criminality that undermines the entire social contract.
That is why we Social Democrats want to tighten the penalties for both the gangs' acts of violence and for the economic part of the crime. We want to introduce a new level in the sentencing scale for economic crime, namely particularly serious economic crimes, just as is the case regarding drug and assault crimes, and increase the maximum sentence from today's six to ten years of imprisonment.
This is about making the punishments more just and accurate and adapting the punishments to the horrible development we are seeing. It is about the punishments having a better parity with the development we have had. It is about protecting Sweden from the crime that is eating its way into the core of society.
I can only regret that the Tidö Government is not prepared to take a hard line against serious economic crime in the same way as against other system-threatening crime, even though they are connected. Unfortunately, I cannot interpret this limping logic in any other way than that the Tidö Government is indeed soft on economic crime.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! I thank you for the opportunity to discuss these important issues this evening.
I can immediately contest that interpretation. It is not the case that the government is soft on any crime. On the contrary, it is the case that we are now mobilizing with full force against violence, against the criminal economy, and against the recruitment of children.
When we took over government power, actually all curves were pointing in the wrong direction. That is a reality. There was no curve pointing in the right direction. The deadly violence tripled over ten years up until 2022. The criminal economy grew to a staggering turnover of 100–150 billion kronor annually – to connect to today's debate.
Now, a halving of the shootings has occurred over three years. It is a fantastic success. That the deadly violence linked to the gangs is decreasing very powerfully is, naturally, an enormous success. When it comes to economic crime, preventive measures – speaking of effective prevention – have made it possible to virtually halve the profits from elderly fraud. It is an outstanding success.
None of this, however, is an expression of anyone being satisfied with the current situation. If one has halved the shootings, it means that half of the shootings remain. Even if the explosions do not kill in the same way as firearm violence, it is a reality that they create a different kind of insecurity. We can see that the mode is being switched and they are being used as a means of pressure, for example for extortion purposes.
Everything we are doing now reflects the seriousness of crime, whether it concerns the violence, the criminal economy, or the recruitment of children. I have accounted for a major sentencing reform regarding economic crime. It means that the maximum penalty for these crimes can, in practice, become double compared to today's, if we are talking about organized crime. It reflects the seriousness of the crimes. I think, as I said, that the Social Democrats should be pleased about that, and I believe that perhaps they are, deep down.
TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN
Since a meeting in the chamber should not last longer than until 23:00, not all interpellations on the agenda will be answered today. I can therefore already now announce that interpellation 88 by Sara Gille, Sverigedemokraterna, regarding GPS monitoring to protect women subject to violence will be answered at a later time. I may also announce other things later, so that you are aware of this.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.