Morality and law are not always the same thing. It becomes especially obvious after today’s verdict in the Falcon funds case, where pension saver Daniel Edencrona lost in the first instance against the state.
The background is that Edencrona had his premium pension, approximately SEK 140,000, moved to the scandal funds Falcon funds through a falsified transfer form. A large part of the money was then stolen there. The pension authority used an automatic loading service, where the lowest security level was chosen. If there was only the correct fund code and something, anything, in the signature box, the premium pension was moved.
At first glance, this appears to be a completely unreasonable system. But this is also where the law comes in. The Stockholm District Court takes note that the Pensions Agency also sent out a relocation notice to Daniel Edencrona and other affected savers. This stated that if you were not satisfied with the move, you should appeal the decision within two months.
With this legal fig leaf, the district court thereby exonerates the state from responsibility. The fact that none of the 20,000 affected savers in Falcon funds requested such a correction does not affect the court’s assessment.
From this we can conclude that the intended system of corrections may be there in theory. But in practice it has not worked. We can also conclude that the district court makes very high demands on Swedish citizens.
“Must have a constant readiness to appeal”
We are expected to be constantly vigilant about our premium pension. We must also be constantly prepared to appeal when crooks move our premium pensions.
Many may think that this feels unreasonable. Therefore, it is good that Daniel Edencrona wants to proceed to the Court of Appeal. Because one thing I don’t think I get an answer to in the district court’s judgment is how many times does the state think Daniel Edencrona would have requested correction?
Given that the form system (thankfully abolished today) was completely unprotected, the Falcon funds crooks could just send in a new relocation form. If Edencrona requested a correction, they could have submitted another form. And one more.
The Swedish Pensions Agency’s transfer forms were a system which, for a period, was tailor-made for pranksters. It is good if the state’s responsibility for it is tested in another instance. Even if the outcome can also be that there is a difference between morality and law.