DN and Aftonbladet reported today that the Swedish Enforcement Authority (Kronofogden) can be, and is, easily used by criminals to launder money. The deal is that the Agency is not allowed to deny people paying their debts with a cash — paper bags full of cash, according to Johannes Paulson, a commissioner at Kronofogden (). Furthermore, in the interests of privacy, they are not allowed to ask where the money comes from either.
One way to work the system is to pay into an account depot as if the money is being put there to pay for a settlement that is supposed to be coming, similar to paying your taxes early. Then, because it wasn’t really a case, the person can take out the money again – and because it came out from an official Swedish agency, the money smells like it just came from the cleaners. Yes, it’s been laundered.
For Kronofogden, someone can put together a fake debt, pay it with ill-gotten gains, and collect the money again when the debt disappears – only this time, the money is wonderfully pure and innocent courtesy of the Enforcement Agency.
For members of the police and of Kronofogden, this is not a news flash. In fact, Kronofogden has been aware of the problem for years. In an effort to make the process a teeny, weeny bit harder for customers bearing cash, they have tried limiting the number of offices and hours they will accept paper money. (This of course makes it also difficult for non-criminal, cash-bearing customers, like the elderly.) During 2018, the Enforcement Agency reported 122 suspicious instances to the police. Kronofogden believes about 26.7 million kronor has come into the system via cash.
Even the Swedish Tax Agency (skatteverket) and the Swedish Companies Registration Office (Bolagsverket) can be be used for money laundering, the National Risk Assessment of Money Laundering and Terror Financing Report (2019) writes (bit.). The Tax Agency can be used in creating fake identities, and the Registration Office can be used to create fake companies.
There seem to be many opportunities for the criminally-minded. Perhaps an unassuming question regarding the cash’s providence could be considered a small first step? Let the radical privacy legalists complain.