Punishment for benefit fraud risks hitting the sick

Sick, disabled and low-income earners risk being hit harder than others.

The proposals on how to stop subsidy crimes in Sweden receive criticism from several bodies.

Welfare crime is widespread and rakes in billions every year, which is why the previous government set up an inquiry to curb the fraud.

Some proposals are being received positively, for example that information should be able to be exchanged between authorities to more easily detect cheaters.

But the referral responses also contain criticism. Part of it is about the lack of a proper analysis of how the sick and disabled are affected – even though it is mainly those who have benefits and are thereby affected by the proposals.

– It is offensive, says Nicklas Mårtensson, chairman of Funktionsrätt Sweden, an umbrella organization for people with mental, physical or intellectual disabilities.

In addition to, for example, dentists or assistance companies that use the support of vulnerable people, the investigation also focuses on individuals who incorrectly receive benefits.

– It creates a distrust of people with illnesses and disabilities. Already today, it is difficult to get the right to compensation from the Social Insurance Agency. Should it become even more difficult, the already widespread poverty among our groups risks worsening.

Punish even mistakes

In the investigation’s partial report, it is proposed, among other things, that a penalty fee be introduced, which means an extra fee for those who submit incorrect information to the authorities in addition to the debt that must also be repaid.

Many of the referral bodies are positive about the penalty fee. But even those who accidentally make mistakes are forced to pay, which is criticized. This is about 44 percent of the incorrect payments, according to the investigation.

The mistakes are made “in many cases (…) by people trying to do the right thing”, for example pensioners in need of housing allowance, writes the Social Security Inspectorate (ISF), and continues:

“The penalty fees will hit equally hard against those who acted with the intention of deceiving the system and those who wanted to do the right thing”.

Banned from contributions

Another criticism concerns a so-called “contribution block”. It means that people convicted of benefit fraud must be denied all forms of benefits for at least six months and up to three years.

The ban would be an additional punishment that affects different groups very differently, the Public Prosecutor’s Office believes. Those who live entirely on benefits would risk “getting rid of everything”, while those who have no benefits at all would be unaffected by the block, the authority writes.

The Ombudsman for Justice (JO) also believes that people who are dependent on benefits “risk receiving an unreasonably harsh punishment”.

Disagree with

Some, however, want to see an even tougher system. The Ecocrime Authority, for example, believes that more people should be hit by a block on grants, and points out that the block could perhaps also be triggered in the case of other crimes against the welfare system such as tax crimes.

Investigator Amir Rostami, professor of criminology, disagrees that the proposals would hit already vulnerable groups hard.

– We have a number of exceptions in the proposals we have made, including for those who cannot cope with their daily life or if the error occurred due to age or health, so these are aspects we have taken into account, he says.

FACTS The contribution crime investigation

Read more FACTS How financial assistance is affected

Read more