Response to interpellations 2024/25:234 and 243 on audit requirements for companies and the fight against crime in the workplace

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! Hanna Westerén has asked me what I and the government intend to do so that the rut and rot deductions do not fuel work-life crime, and whether we will take measures to strengthen control and place further requirements on the companies that use these deductions. Peder Björk has asked me what consequences I assess it will have for Skatteverket when smaller limited companies are not covered by the audit requirement. He has also asked me whether I intend to task Skatteverket with investigating the consequences of the government's decision not to proceed with reintroducing the audit requirement for smaller limited companies.

The government is currently carrying out a concerted effort to choke the criminal economy. The reason is that it is money that feeds the gangs and organized crime. It involves several measures - we are carrying out, among other things, a census. We are making it easier to seize the gangs' crime profits, strengthening our authorities' powers, and countering the use of companies as criminal tools.

An important part of the effort against the criminal economy is to combat crime in the labor market, not least within the rot- and rut-system. Here, the government has implemented proposals that make it easier for authorities, tax agencies, and municipalities to exchange information and thereby carry out more joint controls against crime in the labor market. The government has also referred the report from the 2022 tax procedure investigation, which contains several proposals that streamline the Swedish Tax Agency's control possibilities regarding companies that perform rot- and rutarbeite.

When it comes to the audit requirement, a reintroduction for small companies would have clearly negative consequences for Sweden's business sector, while at the same time it is not certain that it would be a precise measure. In an international comparison, the Swedish requirements for audit obligation are already high. The Government has therefore decided that the audit requirement shall not be reintroduced for small companies.

To counter the use of companies as criminal tools, the government instead implements other measures. In the budget bill for 2025, for example, proposals were submitted regarding changes in the area of F-tax. Among other things, a new obstacle for approval of F-tax is introduced and a new ground for revocation of F-tax for those who have not complied with a decision on repayment of incorrectly paid amounts in connection with RUT- and ROT-work. This will become an effective tool both in the work to counter the use of companies as criminal tools and to stop crime in the labor market regarding RUT- and ROT-work.

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

Peder Björk (S)

Madam Speaker! In Sweden today, there are around 1.2 million companies, and approximately 700,000 of them are limited companies. The companies have the task of developing, producing, and delivering goods and services to their customers. But the companies also have fundamental importance for society to actually function. They contribute to innovation, create jobs, and provide tax revenues which in turn are a prerequisite for the welfare.

But in recent years, it has been increasingly noted that companies are also used for criminal purposes, particularly linked to serious organized crime. The purpose of the companies in those cases is simply to break the regulations in order to earn money or launder money. The companies can then be used to withhold taxes and fees or to obtain compensation, grants, and benefits on completely incorrect grounds.

In this case, furthermore, society lost significant tax revenues, and ordinary honest business owners who run companies run the risk of being driven out when they are competed out by those who cheat and use companies for criminal purposes.

Furthermore, there are many companies that are linked to grossly criminal activities. In those cases, companies are used to finance this criminal activity, which is most often conducted in various forms by networks.

Madam Speaker! In order to address or reduce the extent of the problems that I have now initially mentioned, a number of different measures are required in several areas, and one of them, I believe, is to review the auditing requirement for smaller limited companies.

The general audit requirement was abolished in 2010, and today 500,000 of the 700,000 limited companies lack an auditor.

In light of the fact that companies are used for crimes of various kinds and that so many lack an auditor, I chose to submit this interpellation to the Minister for Finance. But, Madam Speaker, when I read the response, it feels as though the Minister for Finance wants to mix up the cards and does not fully want to discuss this issue of the audit obligation – not least from the perspective that my interpellation has been merged with my colleague's interpellation even though they actually concern completely different matters, even if both concern economic crime.

Furthermore, Madam Speaker, I lacked answers to my concrete questions when I took note of the interpellation response. I asked two very concrete questions to the Minister for Finance, which the Minister for Finance chose not to answer.

I would appreciate it if the Minister of Finance would now take the opportunity to at least try to answer one of these concrete questions. It simply reads as follows: What consequences does the Minister assess that it will have for the Swedish Tax Agency's operations and efficiency when smaller limited companies are not covered by the audit requirement?

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

Hanna Westerén (S)

Madam Speaker! The honorable member surely remembers that the Minister for Finance and I have met in this chamber on this issue before. The reason I am here again now is that the government's work to combat crime in the workplace, unfortunately, does not impress.

Already in previous debates, I highlighted the deeply problematic nature of the government's rushing and increasing the inflow of money into the rut and rots systems without taking further measures to counteract fraud, abuse, and illegal work.

The National Audit Office expressed it as follows: The tax deduction is not effectively designed. To increase cost-effectiveness, the government should lower the limit for how large deductions can be made and use more effective methods to counter undeclared work and other crime in the labor market.

With reason of that, I expressed it myself like this in one of our previous debates - I apologize for quoting myself: "The one who says they want to make it harder for gangs and drive away organized crime - which I and my colleagues want and which I believe the Finance Minister has said they want quite many times - must also combat crime in the working life. That is where it happens. To raise the ceiling for deductions without also addressing the risks for more workplace accidents, more people being exploited and used, more tax crimes, more double bookkeeping and an eroding legitimacy for the tax system is, honestly, deeply irresponsible."

Madam Speaker! I maintain what I said then. Nor has gang crime been pushed back since we last debated crime in the labor market. Since then, signals have also come from the Swedish Tax Agency that, in parallel with the government allocating funds to combat crime in the labor market, they have an internal savings measure that practically erases the government's investment. I therefore wonder quietly how prioritized the work against crime in the labor market actually is.

In the autumn, the government made a big deal out of increasing the pressure against benefit fraud. That is absolutely excellent. That is what I want to say. But why not carry out a corresponding mobilization against tax fraud and against fraud and abuse of rut and rot?

Workplace crime is reaping new victims all the time - many since we last met here. The victims are many and of different kinds. It concerns people who suffer greatly, serious companies that collapse, and public activities that are drained of resources.

It does not have to be like this. It is possible to turn off the tap, and it is possible to tighten things up. What does the government want? How does Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson intend to combat crime in the workplace when parts of her reforms actually risk fueling it?

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to both interpellants for two very important questions. I would like to honor Hanna Westerén, who apologized for quoting herself. She did completely right in that—that is, in quoting herself!

I may not share the view Peder Björk has that these are fundamentally different issues. That is precisely what they are not, and the members know very well that these are two sides of a coin that unfortunately has far too many sides, and where we see that organized crime is growing in different ways.

Let there be no doubt whatsoever that one of this government's absolute most important priorities is to turn off the taps to the criminal economy.

I received a question about what we have done, and it was said that we have not taken these issues seriously. Let me just mention a few things that have happened in two years. We have increased the appropriations and concentrated resources at Skatteverket, Tullverket, and Kronofogdemyndigheten. We have established a payment authority. We have strengthened Tullverkets powers so that they have completely different tools. We are now presenting proposals to criminalize the export of stolen goods.

We are conducting a census, and we have never had such a good picture of the population in Sweden as we have right now. This also led to the Tax Agency, in all these tasks, writing off tens of thousands of people who were correctly registered in the population register.

We are also investigating biometrics, i.e., how fingerprints can be stored and used in more ways, for example in the population register. Bit by bit and step by step, we are tackling the problems that exist, and that have existed, in order to really turn off the tap. It is a priority task.

There are always many different political proposals that one must consider. We have considered many. I mentioned a few things we have done.

When it comes to the audit obligation, I want to answer that briefly. If we could have gone back to 2010, I do not think we would have done the same thing today or that it would have had the same provisions. But as it looks now, one must ask what is the cost and benefit. Regarding that, we have also conducted a thorough analysis and had conversations with both the Swedish Tax Agency, entrepreneurs, and others.

We see that this is not sufficiently effective. We are working in other ways now, for example within the Swedish Tax Agency, to move forward with the proposal on Fskatt - that is, to make it more difficult to revoke it. This is a very important tool that in many ways will help the Swedish Tax Agency.

What effects this has for the Swedish Tax Agency is perhaps not the question I ask myself every day. I ask myself how we can turn off the taps so that these gangs do not have money. It is that which feeds the murder, the killing, the violence, and the explosions. How do we tighten those taps?

One way is precisely by making it more difficult to use companies as criminal tools. In that, I completely share the interpellants' view. One way to do that is to use Fskattsedel and ensure that it becomes easier now for Skatteverket.

It is not the Swedish Tax Agency that is in focus here, but it is all Swedes who are now being affected by the brutal violence. We do not want to hand this over to the next generation.

We have a close relationship with the Swedish Tax Agency. They will receive the resources they need to do their job. We also have close conversations about which tools are effective.

I must return to the crime in the labor market because I see that my speaking time is running out, but it is an incredibly important issue. I want to say that under this government, we have ensured that authorities are able to share information with one another. They have not been allowed to do so before. This allows us to tackle the crime. It is incredibly important.

The second question the interpellator touched upon concerned rut and root work. Regarding the investigation we received, and which we have referred, the referral bodies submitted their responses in December. We are working full-time on this right now and will return when we have decided exactly how and what we will proceed with in that investigation.

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

Peder Björk (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Finance for including the Swedish Tax Agency in this discussion on the audit obligation. Since the Minister for Finance is responsible for that agency, I assumed that the Minister for Finance had quite a lot of focus on the Swedish Tax Agency as an agency.

I also note that the Minister for Finance repeats that an audit obligation would not be a sufficiently accurate measure. It is a direct echo of what Svenskt Näringsliv stated earlier in the discussion on audit obligation. But the Minister for Finance's own agency actually has a completely different view.

I quote from the Swedish Tax Agency's consultation response on the bill regarding companies and crime. The Swedish Tax Agency writes the following: "The Swedish Tax Agency's view is that the absence of auditors is a risk factor that facilitates the use of companies as tools for crime and for tax evasion. An auditor's review has a preventive effect both to prevent unintentional and intentional errors."

The Swedish Tax Agency simply sees this as an extremely accurate measure. It is not enough that only the Swedish Tax Agency emphasizes this, but one also receives support from the Prosecution Authority, the Economic Crime Authority, the Police Authority, the Enforcement Authority, the Crime Prevention Council, and the Swedish Agency for Public Management. They all advocate for a reintroduced audit obligation.

In almost all other political discussions and conversations, the SD government gladly emphasizes that one should be tough on crime and that one should be tough on economic crime. No measure seems too small to be implemented. When it comes to the audit obligation for smaller limited companies, however, this does not seem to apply.

Madam Speaker! In November, the Riksdag said yes to the bill on companies and crime. It was based on an investigation that the Social Democratic government initiated. At that time, there was an opportunity to adjust the audit requirement. Even if one does not want to go back to the situation before 2010, when all limited companies were covered by the audit requirement, there are variants that can be implemented.

The Swedish Tax Agency, in its consultation response to this bill, had a proposal to expand – not reintroduce – the audit requirement. This would reach more small limited companies, and they would be forced to have an auditor. Among other things, one could imagine lowering the thresholds regarding employees in a company that would be subject to an audit requirement, or for that part, reviewing the thresholds for the turnover in the companies for which one would need to have an auditor.

My question to the Minister for Finance, Madam Speaker, is: In light of the fact that there are actually more and more reports that criminal gangs are financing their activities with the help of companies, is the Minister for Finance prepared to reconsider previous positions and proceed to look at some form of expanded auditing obligation for the smaller limited companies?

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

Hanna Westerén (S)

Madam Speaker! I hear the Minister for Finance talking about power concentration. I hear the Minister for Finance say that she is going to turn off - choke - the taps. I am thinking feverishly and taking notes like a madman to try to understand how this all hangs together.

The Minister for Finance mentions the report from the investigation that my government commissioned and which is now out for consultation, but I do not fully understand what the Minister for Finance actually wants. What hopes does the Minister for Finance have for Sweden? Does the Minister for Finance, like the previous government announced, want to exclude companies that mismanage themselves? Does the Minister for Finance want to set stricter requirements when it comes to the rot- and rut-deductions? It is unclear.

We know that rut and rot are not watertight in their design. We know that cheating and abuse are rampant. Nevertheless, the government has pushed through a higher ceiling for rut and rot - without tightening up according to the Swedish National Audit Office's recommendations. Therefore, I must ask the question why this cheating does not seem to be considered equally ugly and why it is not equally prioritized to combat.

I also wonder about the sequence when it is now to be gathered and turned off - throttled - cranes. Could one not have waited with huffing on with a higher ceiling for rut and rot until one had the action package in place that one now anyway says one has?

I recall a previous debate that I and the Minister for Finance had. At that time, the Minister for Finance said that this increase was highly temporary, for only one year, in order to support the construction industry in a difficult time. It was supposed to make a real difference for the construction industry.

There I am obviously living in a completely different reality, because I believe that what would truly make a difference for the Swedish construction industry – what would make the construction industry glow – is to build housing in Sweden. We lack thousands and thousands more homes in Sweden. But instead, this government prioritizes renovations of bathrooms. That too should be cleaned, especially in houses. In the apartments at my home in Gotland, or in Grums or Gårdsten, there isn't much rust or rot.

I think it is absolutely excellent that the authorities are allowed to share information; I applaud that. It is fantastic if we have an exchange between authorities that ensures fewer succeed in cheating or embezzling money from our common systems. The risks of continuing to pour into these non-watertight systems are, however, obvious. Therefore, I wonder: Why shouldn't that tap be turned off? Why shouldn't that tap be given a changed flow?

In addition to the risks of accidents and death in the wake of occupational crime and drained public resources, we also have an increasing inequality, and it is exacerbated by the fact that we pour money into an incomplete system. Does that not concern the Minister for Finance?

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank both the interpellants for the contributions.

If there is anything that worries me, it is that children are shooting children and that explosions are occurring all over Sweden. Completely innocent people are being hit hard. We know that a driving factor behind this is the criminal economy, and therefore, from day one in this job, I have worked very hard together with the Minister for Justice to properly plug every little hole where money is currently leaking out.

One always starts with what are the biggest problems, and one always starts with what is in some sense the simplest. Sometimes there are conflicting goals, such as when it comes to the audit obligation. I will come back to that. But step by step, we are doing what no other government has done.

Let me say the following: In two years - I mentioned the figure earlier - we have, for example, achieved information exchange. It sounded to the interpellor as if it is a rather small thing, but it is one of the most important measures that we are now moving forward with. All heads of agencies - at the police, the Swedish Tax Agency and all others - have called for it.

Madam Speaker! I shall tell you about a meeting I had quite early on when I was minister. I entered a room with many heads of agencies, who had organized themselves over a couple of years to truly work together against the criminal economy. I took a list away from there. It was a list that many wise heads of agencies handed over to me and Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer. That list, together with other things, we are working very hard on right now. We are working between departments and chambers to push through everything that needs to be done to choke the criminal economy.

Then we come to the two questions, and I will start with rut and rot.

Of course, all fraud with tax money is equally bad. That is quite obvious. Now we have received the investigation, and we are going to go through the proposals. However, we have also moved forward with the proposal regarding the Fskattsedeln. Do not underestimate this with the Fskattsedeln in combination with the fact that one can now exchange information; it is incredibly important to get at the fraud!

This is often about people who are exploited, sometimes in trafficking and sometimes in ways that are not quite as bad as trafficking, even if people are exploited in different ways. We must address it for so many reasons. Competition is distorted, and therefore we move forward - for example with Fskattsedeln, and we are also now working with the investigation we have received.

When it comes to the audit obligation, I completely share the interpellator's view that it is a problem. But sometimes we also have trade-offs to make. I know that the Social Democrats did nothing about this for eight years. I respect that, because it is a difficult issue. But nothing was done for eight years.

On the one hand, we want it to be easy to run businesses, but on the other hand, we do not want it to be easy to be criminal. Therefore, we have to make that trade-off, and in that, our first choice has not been to change the audit requirement. But as I said: It would not have looked like that today if it had not been changed in 2010. We would not have proceeded in that way. Much is different now. I think one can admit that, and I do.

Here we have conflicts of objectives, and we are also currently working in other ways to address that the grossly criminal are located all over Sweden or abroad and run companies that on paper look completely honest but where they actually drain our welfare systems in different ways and cheat the elderly. They cheat our systems. We are going to address that. With the tools that have now begun to take shape and that have begun to apply, I have good hope that we can tighten this.

We will also do more, because we are not satisfied and not finished. I also hope that the Social Democrats will start voting a bit more with us and a bit less against us when it comes to increased penalties in this area and many other areas.

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

Peder Björk (S)

Madam Speaker! I do not doubt for a second the Finance Minister's commitment, but I doubt a little bit the ability to take the right measures at the right time. Had it not been for a Social Democratic government, there would not have been a bill on corporations and crime to take a position on, as that investigation was commissioned by a Social Democratic government.

Madam Speaker! We must put a stop to this economic crime, and when several expert agencies are now pointing out that an expanded audit obligation would be a good tool, I actually think we must listen to that. We Social Democrats are prepared to move forward with an expansion of the audit obligation for the smaller limited companies. I do not understand what the Finance Minister and the SD government are so incredibly afraid of, Madam Speaker. Let us use the tools that exist! Let us put a stop to the use of companies for criminal activities and as a way to finance criminal organizations.

Yesterday, Prime Minister Kristersson - admittedly in a completely different context, which concerned the resignation of his best friend's security advisor - said that it is important not to be careless and not to make mistakes. When it comes to the audit obligation, I think the SD government is both being careless and making mistakes. The Finance Minister should listen less to Svenskt Näringsliv and more to the Finance Minister's own agency, Skatteverket, so that we can put in place another tool to combat economic crime and in that way also choke off the financing of the criminal gangs.

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

Hanna Westerén (S)

Madam Speaker! It sounds uplifting and promising when the Minister for Finance says that she wants to plug every little hole. This sounds very good. The problem is that it is obviously, given what we have talked about here today, not true.

Rut and rot in their current form drain our common systems of resources. Rut and rot in their current form enable cheating and undeclared work. The government did not plug these holes before raising the ceiling and thereby turned on both cold, hot, and a little bubble in the tap.

Elisabeth Svantesson mentioned goal conflicts. Yes, one could still call it that. Work-life crime is rampant. Inequality is increasing. Tightening rut and rot would be a relatively simple but very important measure to combat work-life crime, but the government handles this very carelessly. Just as I signaled at the beginning of the debate, and given what the Finance Minister has presented here today, I consider the government's attitude towards combating work-life crime to be consistently deeply irresponsible.

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank the members for the debate. It is incredibly important, even for those who are listening, to highlight the problems that exist all around our country, where people with different motives exploit and defraud our common systems. It can be about tax money or welfare services.

This is an issue that we will continue to work on. I will work every day and do everything I can to plug the holes that exist - through the Swedish Payments Authority, through more resources to the authorities that are now working very hard against the criminals, through seizing criminal profits, through a census, and through much more. We are also now reviewing the issue of whether biometrics should be able to be stored. These things, Madam Speaker, are some very important parts of this.

I thank you for the debate. We may return to the issue, but I hope that we do not need to do so. We will do everything we can to choke this off, but it may take some time. We may return.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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