sou · H6B314 · 2018-02-28 00:00:00 — Dessutom föreslår vi att kom- munerna ska ingå i den krets av aktörer som är skyldiga att lämna underrättelser. Vi har däremot inte funnit skäl att utvidga tillämpningsområdet ytterligare till att omfatta övriga utbetalningar till företag och orga- nisationer eller utbetalning av EU-medel. Inte heller bör kretsen av underrättelseskyldiga aktörer utvidgas ytterligare. The Benefit Crime Act came into effect on 1 2007. The main objective of the Act is to reduce the number of incorrect payments, and to strengthen confidence in welfare systems. Furthermore, the Act is to create effective protection of welfare systems under criminal law, so that they can be maintained in the long term. Under the Act, a person who submits incorrect information, or who neglects to report altered circumstances that he or she is obliged to report under laws or statutes, and in so doing creates a risk of a financial benefit being paid out in error or in excess of the correct amount from the , the , (), the , the , the municipalities or unemployment insurance funds, shall be con- victed of a benefit offence. “Financial benefit” refers to contribu- tions, remuneration and loans for personal purposes. The benefit offence can be minor, normal or major. If a person lacks intent, but commits the described offence out of gross negligence, the person shall be convicted of a negligent benefit offence. As part of efforts to counteract incorrect payments from wel- fare systems, the Act on the Notification Obligation in the event of Incorrect Payments from was also introduced. That Act covers, with the exception of municipalities, the same agencies and organizations as the Benefit Crime Act, as well as the and the Swedish Enforcement Authority. The parties have a specific duty of notification and, if there is reason to assume that a financial benefit has been decided or paid out in error or in excess of the correct amount, as a main rule they shall inform the agency or organization that made the decision. We have been commissioned to perform a broad evaluation of the Act in order to investigate how the provisions have worked in practice, the consequences of the Act, and whether the purposes of the reform have been fulfilled. Since the Benefit Crime Act and the Act on the Notification Obligation in the event of Incorrect Payments from are applicable to the same financial benefits, our evaluation also covers that legislation. Our remit has included •studying whether the purposes behind the introduction of the Benefit Crime Act have been fulfilled, •studying whether, and if so how, the provisions of the Benefit Crime Act have affected citizens’ confidence in welfare systems, •appraising the effects of the introduction of the Benefit Crime Act on public finances, •studying what the consequences of the introduction of the Benefit Crime Act and the Notification Obligation in the event of Incorrect Payments from have been for agencies, municipalities and unemployment insurance funds, and •identifying the knowledge possessed by agencies, municipalities and unemployment insurance funds about the legislation, how various agencies, municipalities and unemployment insurance funds work to preclude and prevent benefit crime, and how the Notification Obligation Act is applied, and •studying how they ensure that legal proceedings are brought against perpetrators of benefit crime, the extent to which sus- pected offences are reported to the , as well as the level of quality of such reports and how they are investigated. Our remit has also included investigating whether there are grounds for amending the Benefit Crime Act or the Act on the Notification Obligation in the event of Incorrect Payments from . We have also had to take a stance on certain specific issues pertain- ing to the wording of the Act. This has been a matter of whether the provision regarding negligent benefit offences is fit-for-pur- pose, and whether there is a need to amend the provision regarding major benefit crime, in order to attach even greater importance to whether the offence has formed part of criminal activity that has been committed systematically or to a substantial extent. In this context, we have also had to take a position on a potential need to tighten the scale of penalties. A specific part of our remit has been to perform a review of practice, including studying whether there are any particular interpretation problems or other difficulties in applying the provisions of the Benefit Crime Act. Based on the findings of the evaluation, we have had to take a stance on whether the Benefit Crime Act or the Act on the Notifica- tion Obligation in the event of Incorrect Payments from need to be amended and, in that case, submit proposals for the requisite legislative amendments. We have also had the oppor- tunity to propose other measures to prevent incorrect payments. Our analysis and the conclusions we drew from it To determine how the work to combat benefit crime is carried out in practice, we conducted a survey and a number of study visits at the relevant agencies, and a selection of ’s unemployment insur- ance funds and municipalities. Based on these activities, we conclude that the Benefit Crime Act has resulted in a greater focus on issues pertaining to benefit crime among many of the paying agencies, unemployment insurance funds and municipalities. However, work related to administration is perceived to have increased, mainly in terms of the work involved in reporting matters to the , ensuing from the duty to report such matters. However, looking at the period 2008–2015, the number of reported benefit offences has, as a total, neither increased nor decreased. The financial conse- quences of introducing the legislation have proven difficult to measure, either because the agencies have not calculated them, or because they have been difficult to estimate. It has not been possible, within the bounds of our remit, to obtain any basis for a more thorough estimation of the effect of the Act’s introduction on public finances. However, insofar as the analysis shows, none of the paying agencies, the Swedish or the Swedish Prosecution Authority, have needed to request higher appropriations as a result of the introduction of the Benefit Crime Act. Therefore, the effect on the state budget can be considered neutral. Knowledge about the legisla- tion has not been measured, although it is generally stated to be sufficient as regards the Benefit Crime Act, whereas the duty of notification is lesser known. Information and controls are stated to be important tools for precluding and preventing criminal activity, and several of the surveyed entities are working to enhance the effectiveness of their control work. Most indicate effective control work, and actually reporting suspected criminal activity, as the most effective approach for reaching the point of bringing legal proceed- ings. However, several circumstances prevent the reporting duty from having full effect, including a lack of resources as well as con- siderations about whether the evidence suffices for prosecution. In terms of the proportion of suspected crimes that are reported to the , we find that the agencies, municipalities and unemployment insurance funds are in any case not reporting matters excessively. A factor that complicates the process is that it is unclear which measures the agencies may, or should, take in order to investigate suspected benefit crime prior to reporting it. Also, the preliminary assessment of intent or gross negligence, which must be performed prior to reporting the matter, often causes problems. Once a matter has actually been reported, the feedback from the judicial system is considered deficient, especially in terms of why a case is dismissed. Although the quality of reporting has improved, a large proportion is still perceived to lead to a decision by the or prosecutor to dismiss the case. The Notification Obligation Act is not considered to have taken full effect. Reasons for this include uncertainty about the situations in which a notification should be sent, the information that – in that case – may, should or must be enclosed, and the fact that processing is done manually, which is time-consuming. Although certain measures could increase the impact of the Act, in our view expectations about which problems the Act can resolve must be reasonable. Regarding the question of the Benefit Crime Act having led to a reduction in incorrect payments, we must ascertain that, because the size of the incorrect payments is unknown, we cannot say whether they have actually decreased either. However, one aspect that is clear from our analysis is that the increased focus on controls prompted by the Act has produced positive financial effects on many fronts. In terms of confidence in welfare systems, we have found some support for the Benefit Crime Act potentially having contributed to a more severe view of benefit fraud. Finally, we wish to emphasize the need for a common state pay- out function, and the importance of that matter being investigated as soon as possible. Our proposals for measures Extending the scope of the Benefit Crime Act That the scope of the Benefit Crime Act is much too narrow has been pointed out as a problem in various contexts. We therefore propose that the scope of the Benefit Crime Act be extended to include such financial support as is administered by the , the or the municipality, and which concerns an individual but is not paid out to that individual. That way, support paid out to companies, or which accrues to them as a tax credit, is also covered by the Act. Such offences are currently judged as fraud. It will also be clear that assistance allowance is covered by the Act, irrespective of whether it is, as instructed by the individual, paid out to the company that arranges the assistance, or directly to the individual. We have not found reason for the Act to be extended in other respects, e.g. as regards payments of EU funds or the wage guarantee. Neither do we find sufficient basis from our inquiry to consider that the Benefit Crime Act should cover all state payments to companies or organizations. The maximum penalty for major benefit crime should be increased to six years’ incarceration A consequence of such extension is that certain crimes that are currently judged as fraud would instead be judged under the Benefit Crime Act. By increasing the scale of penalties for major benefit crime to a maximum six-year penalty, there is an adaptation to the provision regarding major fraud. This also corresponds with the scale of penalties for major tax offences, which is in line with the idea that the protection of state expenditures provided by criminal law should be as strong as the protection of its revenues. In addition, the conditions improve for the courts in terms of their ability to decide on an appropriate penalty for serious crimes com- mitted against welfare systems. The provision regarding major offences should be amended When considering whether a benefit offence is major, particular consideration should be given to whether the offence pertained to substantial amounts, whether the person who committed the offence used falsified documents, or whether the offence formed part of criminal activity that was committed systematically or to a substantial extent. Around five price base amounts (500, in 2018) is used, in practice and in the preliminary works, as a benchmark for what constitutes “substantial amounts”. It is very uncommon for such large amounts to be paid out on one single occasion. Considering that each payout, according to practice, is considered to be one offence, that could imply that one single benefit offence could almost never qualify as “major” for that reason alone. Also, our review of practice shows that the courts, to varying degrees, have taken account of the criminal activity as a whole when considering how to classify the offence. In order to improve pre- dictability and enable more uniform judgement, whereby greater consideration is given to the significance of the overall criminal activity, we propose that the provision be amended. When consider- ing whether a benefit offence is major, particular consideration shall – besides what is currently applicable – also be given to whether the overall criminal activity amounted to a significant sum. The pro- vision clarifies that it is possible to consider one single deed to be a major offence if the overall criminal activity pertains to substantial amounts. Offences under the Benefit Crime Act should only be reported to the Swedish Today, offences against the Benefit Crime Act shall be reported to the or prosecutors. However, current practice is that the matters reported to the Swedish Prosecution Authority are, in general, trans- ferred to the Swedish . The current regulations, setting out that the matter shall be reported to a prosecutor, thus serve no practical purpose. To better reflect the actual circumstances, we propose that the Swedish be the sole recipient of reports of offences under the Benefit Crime Act. It should be possible to convict significantly negligent persons of negligent benefit offences The question of what constitutes “gross negligence” in the sense of the Benefit Crime Act has been subject to review by the Supreme Court in one case. The judgement passed at the time by the Supreme Court, and how various actions have been judged in subsequent practice, in our opinion motivate an amendment to the provision regarding negligent offences. In our opinion, the judgement has implied that punishable practices have fallen outside of the punish- able scope. We therefore propose that criminal liability should also include significantly negligent persons. The provision underscores the responsibility of the beneficiary to ensure that all relevant infor- mation is provided and is correct, and the importance of asking the responsible agency, municipality or unemployment insurance fund if there is anything that the beneficiary does not understand or which appears unclear. The risk of financial loss should form part of the assessment of whether a negligent offence is less serious We propose that the provision regarding negligent benefit crime be amended, also in the part pertaining to impunity for less serious offences. The amendment is motivated, in part, by the fact that practice has not provided a consistent answer as to which circum- stances should be weighed into the judgement and, in part, by the fact that there have been ambiguities in terms of which types of follow-up controls have been considered sufficiently comprehensive to constitute protection of the benefit in that offences detected therein can be exempted from punishment. The provision should therefore be clarified by means of it being explicitly set forth that consideration shall be given to the risk of financial loss. That way, it is made clear that the courts should perform an overall judgement of the amount, risk of financial loss for the state, municipality or unemployment insurance fund, and other circumstances. We also provide examples of how a follow-up control should be devised in order to be considered as comprehensive as the provision intends. The limitation period for minor benefit offences and for negligent benefit offences should be extended to five years It often takes a long time for a benefit offence to come to the attention of the judicial system. First, the reporting agency must discover that a suspected error has been committed, which could occur a long time after the offence was committed. Then, it is often investigated whether the erroneously disbursed amount can be paid back. It is only after that time that a suspected offence is reported to the . The case is then investigated by the and pro- secutors, and is then ultimately settled in court in some cases. This means that many less serious offences are barred by limitation before there has been sufficient time to bring legal proceedings against them. We therefore propose that the limitation period for minor and negligent offences be extended from two to five years, i.e. the same limitation period as that which applies to “normal-degree” benefit offences. This is also what applies to equivalent offences in the field of taxes. That way, we get closer to the Government’s goal of the protection of the state’s revenue and expenditure sides essentially being equally strong. Extending the duty of notification in the event of incorrect payments from welfare systems We propose that the Notification Obligation Act be broadened in scope in line with our proposal for the Benefit Crime Act. The Act should therefore also include such financial support as is decided by the , the Swedish Public Em- ployment Service or the municipality, and which concerns an in- dividual but is not paid out to that individual. Like the Benefit Crime Act, the Notification Obligation Act should also cover In addition, we propose that municipalities should be included in the group of entities that have a duty of notification. However, we have not found reason to extend the scope further to include other payouts to companies and organizations, or pay- outs of EU funds. 1.1Förslag till lag om ändring i bidragsbrottslagen (2007:612) Genom detta föreskrivs dels att 1, 3, 4, och 6 §§ bidragsbrotts- lagen (2007:612) ska ha följande lydelse, dels att det ska införas en ny paragraf med följande lydelse. Denna lag gäller sådana bidrag, ersättningar, pensioner och lån för personligt ändamål (ekonomiska förmåner) som enligt lag eller förordning beslutas av , , , , Arbetsförmedlingen, kommunerna eller arbetslöshetskassorna. Denna lag gäller också sådant ekonomiskt stöd som beslutas av , Arbetsförmed- lingen eller kommunerna och som avser viss enskild person men inte betalas ut till den enskilde. Om brott som avses i 2 § är Om brott som avses i 2 § är grovt, döms för grovt bidrags- grovt, döms för grovt bidrags- brott till fängelse, lägst sex brott till fängelse, lägst sex månader och högst . månader och högst . 1 Senaste lydelse 2009:1525. Vid bedömningen om brottet Vid bedömningen om brottet är grovt skall det särskilt beaktas är grovt ska det särskilt beaktas 1.om brottet rört betydande belopp, 2.om den som begått brottet använt falska handlingar, eller 3. om gärningen ingått i en brottslighet som utövats systema- tiskt eller i större omfattning. 3. om gärningen ingått i en brottslighet som utövats systema- tiskt, i större omfattning eller rört betydande belopp. Den som av grov oaktsamhet Den som i väsentlig mån är begår en sådan gärning som av- oaktsam och begår en sådan ses i 2 §, döms för vårdslöst bi- gärning som avses i 2 §, döms för dragsbrott till böter eller fäng- vårdslöst bidragsbrott till böter else i högst . eller fängelse i högst . Om gärningen med hänsyn till Om gärningen med hänsyn till beloppet och övriga omständig- beloppet, risken för ekonomisk heter är mindre allvarlig, döms skada och övriga omständigheter inte till ansvar. är mindre allvarlig, döms inte till Myndigheter som anges i 1 § Myndigheter som anges i 1 § samt kommuner och arbetslös- samt kommuner och arbetslös- hetskassor ska göra anmälan till hetskassor ska göra anmälan till garmyndigheten om det kan miss- misstänkas att brott enligt denna tänkas att brott enligt denna lag lag har begåtts. Utan hinder av 35 kap. 1 § får en person dömas till påföljd för ringa bidragsbrott enligt 2 § eller brott enligt 4 §, om den misstänkte häktats eller fått 2 Senaste lydelse 2014:667. del av åtal för brottet från brottet. Denna lag träder i kraft . 1.2Förslag till lag om ändring i lagen om underrättelseskyldighet vid felaktiga utbetalningar från välfärdssystemen Härigenom föreskrivs att 1 och 2 §§ lagen (2008:206) om under- rättelseskyldighet vid felaktiga utbetalningar från välfärdssystemen ska ha följande lydelse. bidrag, ersättningar och lån för bidrag, ersättningar, personligt ändamål (ekonomiska och lån för personligt ändamål förmåner) som enligt lag eller (ekonomiska förmåner) som en- förordning beslutas av Migra- ligt lag eller förordning beslutas nerna eller arbetslöshetskassorna. Denna lag gäller också sådant ekonomiskt stöd som beslutas av lingen eller kommunerna och som avser viss enskild person men inte betalas ut till den enskilde. lagen gäller för , lagen gäller för , 1Senaste lydelse 2009:1015. 2Senaste lydelse 2009:1015. medlingen, kommunerna och dock inte i brotts- heten gäller dock inte i Skatte- Denna lag träder i kraft . 2 Vårt uppdrag och arbete Bidragsbrottslagen trädde i kraft den 1 augusti 2007.1 Det huvudsak- liga syftet med lagen är att minska antalet felaktiga utbetalningar och att stärka tilltron till välfärdssystemen. Lagen ska vidare skapa ett effektivt straffrättsligt skydd för välfärdssystemen så att dessa kan upprätthållas på lång sikt.2 Enligt lagen ska den som lämnar oriktiga uppgifter eller underlåter att anmäla ändrade förhållanden som han eller hon är skyldig att anmäla enligt lag eller förordning, och på så sätt orsakar fara för att en ekonomisk förmån betalas ut felaktigt eller med ett för högt belopp från , , (), , Arbetsför- medlingen, kommunerna eller arbetslöshetskassorna, dömas för bi- dragsbrott. Med ekonomisk förmån avses bidrag, ersättningar och lån för personligt ändamål. Bidragsbrottet kan vara ringa, av normalgraden eller grovt. Om någon saknar uppsåt, men begår den beskrivna gär- ningen av grov oaktsamhet, ska personen dömas för vårdslöst bidrags- brott. Som ett led i arbetet med att motverka felaktiga utbetalningar från välfärdssystemen infördes även lagen om underrättelseskyldig- het vid felaktiga utbetalningar från välfärdssystemen.3 Enligt denna lag har , , , , , , Arbetsförmedlingen och arbetslöshetskassorna en särskild underrättelseskyldighet. De ska som huvudregel, om det finns anledning att anta att en eko- nomisk förmån har beslutats eller betalats ut felaktigt eller med ett 2006/07:80, bet. 2006/07: SfU12, rskr. 2006/07:214. 2Se anförd prop., s. 1 och 57. 2007/08:48, bet. 2007/08: SfU7, rskr. 2007/08:166. Vårt uppdrag och arbete för högt belopp, underrätta den myndighet eller organisation som har fattat beslutet. När bidragsbrottslagen infördes uttalade regeringen att den hade för avsikt att noga följa upp vilka konsekvenser det fick för rätts- väsendets myndigheter och även i övrigt följa upp reformen när den varit i kraft . Detta framhöll även socialförsäkringsut- skottet vid den riksdagsbehandling som följde.4 Att regeringen avsåg att göra en utvärdering av bidragsbrottslagen framgick också av skri- velsen med anledning av Vad blev det av de misstänkta bidragsbrotten? (RiR 2011:20) där effektiviteten i statens arbete med att motverka bidragsbrott granskades. Bidragsbrottslagen har varit i kraft . Enligt regeringen borde det därför vara möjligt att konstatera vilka effekter lagstift- ningen fått. Mot denna bakgrund har vi fått i uppdrag att göra en bredare ut- värdering av lagen för att undersöka hur bestämmelserna har funge- rat i praktiken, vilka konsekvenser som lagen har fått och om syf- tena med reformen har uppnåtts. Eftersom bidragsbrottslagen och lagen om underrättelseskyldighet vid felaktiga utbetalningar från väl- färdssystemen är tillämpliga på samma ekonomiska förmåner om- fattar vår utvärdering därför även denna lagstiftning. I vårt uppdrag har ingått att •undersöka om syftena bakom införandet av bidragsbrottslagen har uppnåtts, •undersöka om, och i så fall på vilket sätt, bestämmelserna i bi- dragsbrottslagen har påverkat medborgarnas tilltro till välfärds- systemen, •göra en uppskattning av de offentligfinansiella effekterna av bidragsbrottslagens införande, •undersöka vilka konsekvenser införandet av bidragsbrottslagen och lagen om underrättelseskyldighet vid felaktiga utbetalningar 4 Se prop. 2006/07:80, s. 93 och bet. 2006/07: SfU12, s. 25. Vårt uppdrag och arbete