The crime in the world, spreads out in the form of corruption, tax evasion, money laundering, insider dealing and other market abuse, racketeering, illegal trading with weapons and metals, etc. These forms of economic crime are notoriously difficult to investigate, among other things, because there is often no clear victim that can facilitate the prosecution.
Rättssamhällena are in many cases powerless even as a result of the offenders have elevated positions in society and economic resources to prevent the prosecution. To it comes to these types of crimes often have international ramifications, but to the international legal cooperation is working bad, in particular senfärdigt.
So what can Sweden do?
the first task would be to strengthen the protection of persons, who have knowledge of the abuses but hesitant to act.
the law in Sweden to the protection for whistleblowers two years ago. It has to our knowledge not been applied, something that was expected given that the law is, to say the least rumphuggen. It includes a right to damages for the whistle-blowers who have suffered retaliation. But there is no obligation for employers to establish procedures for whistle-blowers so that they know how they should go about it. There is also no opportunity for privacy for a visselblåsares identity in the public sector as well as to professional secrecy, for the protection of visselblåsares identity in private business. And similarly, the lack visselblåsaren a right to receive information about the outcome of their complaint.
the Reward could be in the form of a certain percentage of the amount the public saves thanks to the alarm. The system could be tested in the case of extensive tax evasion by the company. Cheating in the context of public procurement is another possibility.
, whose proposal for an EU directive differs beneficial also in other ways from the Swedish law. Among other things, persons other than workers receive protection as whistle-blowers, for example, consultants, vendors, interns, shareholders and job seekers. It will also cover more of the ills of the EU-the proposal than of the Swedish law.
It runs now, negotiations in the EU on a binding directive on the protection of whistle-blowers. It is important that Sweden does not hold on to the Swedish law's narrow scope, without attachment to the visselblåsares needs of an adequate protection. But we should not stop there.
the American experience of such a system is good and experimental, economic research from the recent past has convincingly come to the same results (including Nyreröd & Spagnolo 2018). Knowingly false alarms occur rarely; they are punishable just as they would be in Sweden (for example, false accusation, slander).
the Reward could be in the form of a certain percentage of the amount the public saves thanks to the alarm. The system could be tested in the case of widespread tax evasion by companies. Cheating in the context of public procurement is another possibility. In addition, it should consider whether the criminalisation of serious, intentional infringements of the law on procurement. Upphandlingarnas scale (over 18 000 are advertised each year), value (683 billion in 2016) and korruptionsrisker speak for it.
, which would receive less severe punishment as a thank you for facilitating the investigation, something that has long been in the united states but have also been introduced in Poland, the united kingdom and Germany. It is not about kronvittnen, pointing out the other as guilty and, therefore, may strafflindring.
It is not unusual in Sweden that investigations are ongoing five–six–seven years at a huge cost, with uncertain outcome, and perhaps even fail. The telling example is the Saab/BAE's sale of Jas 39 Gripen aircraft to south Africa and Eastern europe, HQ Bank's collapse, as well as Telia's business in Uzbekistan.
Two objections are usually raised against such arrangements. One is that they allow for great power to the magistrates, the other of the suspects would get off lightly. The objections cancel each other out, can mean one of. The system could be applied empirically in a couple of comprehensive and svårutredda cases of suspected economic crime.
. It would open negotiations with companies on the sanctions against them, something that would spur them to cooperate with the prosecutors. In return, companies would be able to continue its operations, for example, participate in contracts, despite the violations of the law and some people would be able to escape prosecution. On the other hand, companies would be required to pay significant fines, to impose stricter control and to dismiss certain people, etc.
the Prosecutor's objektivitetsplikt in association with a good advokatstöd for those who are negotiating with the prosecutors ensures that negotiations can be legally secure. A court's approval of the agreement may also be a prerequisite for its effect as is the case in Poland, the united kingdom and the united states.
A recent example of its application relates to Telia agreed to pay 8.7 billion crowns to the authorities in the united states and the Netherlands, by reason of the company's suspected corruption in Uzbekistan in 2007.
It is very good that companies are being forced to pay a fine, for example, serious corruption, but unfortunate that the foreign authorities robbing Swedish companies. In Sweden a company can be imposed a fine of ten million kronor, but there is a proposal that the maximum amount shall be increased to 100 million kronor ( SOU 2016:82). Maybe the Swedish government to follow the Dutch in the tracks. The netherlands can get to collect up to 3.5 billion as a result of the merger of Telia suspected corruption in Uzbekistan. Incidentally, neither Denmark or Norway, an upper limit for the sacrament of penance size.
But the development has sprung from our passivity in the face of the economic crime's societal consequences. The police have received harsh criticism because it can not investigate the smallest fraud. Should it then not also be noted that our authorities are more or less confused in the face of the most serious economic crimes?