Expanded possibilities to impose business bans due to crime
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns expanding the possibilities to impose business prohibitions for persons who have committed organized or systematic crime, even without a direct connection to business activities at the time of the crime 1 2 3. S is positive towards the proposal as it combats economic crime and money laundering that undermine the welfare state 1. SD stands behind the proposition because it strengthens the regulatory framework against a criminal economy that harms safety and businesses 2. M argues that the proposal is necessary to stifle the criminal economy and prevent criminals from using corporate forms to launder money or conceal crimes 3.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Markus Kallifatides (S)
Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats are positive towards the possibility of business prohibitions being issued for those who have committed organized or systematic crime, regardless of whether the person conducted or had a connection to business activities at the time of the crime, if a business prohibition is warranted from a general point of view. In cases of organized or systematic crime, if the proposals in the bill are passed, a business prohibition shall be considered warranted from a general point of view if the minimum prescribed penalty for the crime is imprisonment for six months, unless special reasons argue against it.
Mr. Speaker! It is important to further step up the fight against economic crime, money laundering, and tax evasion. That type of crime undermines the welfare state, erodes trust, and threatens serious actors in the markets. These crimes are also closely linked to other crimes within organized or systematic crime, such as so-called labor market crime or business crime.
We Social Democrats believe, in line with the Swedish Trade Union Confederation, LO, that a review of how more crimes in practice can lead to business bans is also important. This applies in particular to organized crime in the workplace, including crimes against the working environment. We are pursuing that issue in another context.
Rashid Farivar (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the government's proposition 2024/25:201 Expanded possibilities to impose business prohibitions due to crime. The proposal represents an important and necessary step to strengthen the regulatory framework regarding business prohibitions, particularly concerning persons involved in organized or systematic crime. The central change is that such persons shall be issued a business prohibition even if they did not conduct or have any connection to business activities at the time of the crime. The proposition is entirely in line with the Sweden Democrats' view on crime policy. Therefore, we stand behind the government's proposition and the committee's proposal for a decision.
Mr. Speaker! Organized and systematic crime is not only a threat to people's safety. It is also an economic catastrophe for our country. Authorities estimate that the criminal economy turns over 100–150 billion kronor per year in Sweden. This is money that could otherwise have been used for welfare, entrepreneurship, and social development.
For the business community, crime entails enormous costs. According to calculations, Swedish companies are burdened annually with over 50 billion kronor in direct costs in the form of thefts, fraud, and other crimes. Almost half of all companies report that they have been subjected to crime during the last year, and many are forced to invest large sums in security reforms.
Civil society is also affected, among other things through welfare crime, unauthorized influence, recruitment of young people and infiltration of voluntary organizations. For Sweden's inhabitants, this means both economic losses and a reduced sense of safety.
Overall, this creates a parallel economy that undermines the tax base, hinders competition on equal terms, and risks pushing out honest companies.
Mr. Speaker! It is against this background that the proposal in the bill must be seen.
Today, the law requires that there be an actual connection between the crime and the business activity the convicted person conducted in order for a business prohibition to be issued. But organized crime does not work that way. Those actors move between different spheres: criminality, shell companies, money mules, money laundering, workplace crime, and pure fraudulent activities. A requirement for direct business connection means that many of the most harmful actors escape sanctions.
The Government therefore proposes that persons who have committed organized or systematic crime shall be able to be issued a business prohibition even without such connection if it is required from a public point of view. For crimes where the minimum prescribed penalty is six months of imprisonment, a business prohibition shall normally be considered justified. In addition, it is proposed that the maximum period for a business prohibition be extended from 10 to 15 years, while the minimum period remains at 3 years. The Swedish Enforcement Authority is also given the possibility to hold conversations via video link, which streamlines the supervision. The legislative changes are proposed to enter into force on 1 January 2026.
The referral bodies have not had any decisive objections, the impact assessments are positive and the Council on Legislation's views have been taken into account by the government.
Mr. Speaker! This bill is an important and proportionate tool to reduce the organized crime's opportunities to exploit companies and business structures for criminal activities. It strengthens the rule of law, protects serious companies, and contributes to reclaiming control over community areas where crime has long held an advantage.
The Sweden Democrats support the bill, and I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.
Ludvig Ceimertz (M)
Mr. Speaker! The bill we are now debating is another step in the fight against organized crime. Seizing the criminals' weapons and sentencing the criminals for serious violent crimes is not enough; we must also strike at what makes crime lucrative, at the economy behind it, at the money. It is through them that power is built up. The criminal gangs have their own systems, but they use our corporate forms and our rules of the game to launder, move, and reinvest their profits.
Organized crime in Sweden turns over 100–150 billion kronor per year according to calculations. To put it into perspective, that corresponds to approximately what all Icab stores in the entire country turn over per year. The money is not only generated through drug trafficking and extortion but by companies being used as criminal tools to hide illegal labor, cheat to obtain subsidies, or wash money from fraud. Companies are used as shells, not to create jobs and growth but to hide crime.
If we are to be able to combat organized crime, we must choke the criminal economy, as it constitutes the driving force and the attraction. One part of this is to stop criminals' access to the corporate form. The Government's bill expands the possibility to issue business prohibitions for criminals in more cases and for longer periods.
In the proposition, five central changes are proposed.
Firstly, the requirement that a crime must be linked to a business activity is abolished. This means that a person can be prohibited from running a company even if the crime did not occur within the framework of a company.
Secondly, the person who has committed organized or systematic crime, typically a gang criminal, shall be able to be issued a business prohibition. In other words, persons who in a structured or repeated manner participate in serious crime shall not be able to run companies in Sweden.
For the third time, the period a business prohibition can apply is extended – so that the business prohibition does not expire at the same time as one is released from a period of detention. One should not be able to step out of a detention center and go straight back into the business world.
For the fourth, a presumption rule is introduced. In the normal case, a business prohibition shall be issued, unless there are obvious reasons to the contrary.
For the fifth, the Swedish Enforcement Authority's ability to conduct supervision in this area is strengthened.
I began with why this is important. Organized crime is about so much more than the violence we see. Much of it is about money and how criminals systematically exploit the corporate form to launder money, cheat to obtain subsidies, engage in various frauds, deceive the elderly and hide illegal work. With this proposal, we make it harder for gang criminals to run companies. This will become a tool to choke the criminal economy through legislative changes that can have a concrete effect.
Mr. Speaker! Companies should build society, not break it down.
I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.
In this speech, David Josefsson (M) agreed.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.