En vd:s kommunikationsansvar enligt svindleribestämmelsen – En granskning av vilseledandebedömningen i Swedbank-domen
(2025) LAGF03 20251Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Utgångspunkten för uppsatsen är Svea hovrätts uppmärksammade dom i mål B 2457–23 (Swedbank-domen). Domen rörde Swedbanks tidigare vd, Birgitte Bonnesen, som dömdes för grovt svindleri på grund av att hon undanhållit information om misstänkt penningtvätt i bankens estländska verksamhet. Eftersom svindleribrottet sällan prövas i domstol har Swedbank-domen stor betydelse för hur verkställande direktörer i framtiden kommer att hantera sin kommunikation till investerare och allmänheten.
Uppsatsen syftar till att utreda hur vilseledanderekvisitet tillämpas i svensk rätt och särskilt hur hovrätten i Swedbank-domen har resonerat kring detta rekvisit. Frågeställningarna som besvaras är om hovrättens bedömning i Swedbank-domen är förenlig med det... (More) - Utgångspunkten för uppsatsen är Svea hovrätts uppmärksammade dom i mål B 2457–23 (Swedbank-domen). Domen rörde Swedbanks tidigare vd, Birgitte Bonnesen, som dömdes för grovt svindleri på grund av att hon undanhållit information om misstänkt penningtvätt i bankens estländska verksamhet. Eftersom svindleribrottet sällan prövas i domstol har Swedbank-domen stor betydelse för hur verkställande direktörer i framtiden kommer att hantera sin kommunikation till investerare och allmänheten.
Uppsatsen syftar till att utreda hur vilseledanderekvisitet tillämpas i svensk rätt och särskilt hur hovrätten i Swedbank-domen har resonerat kring detta rekvisit. Frågeställningarna som besvaras är om hovrättens bedömning i Swedbank-domen är förenlig med det underliggande syftet bakom svindleribestämmelsen och behovet av transparens för en välfungerande värdepappersmarknad samt om Swedbank-domen innebär ett utökat kommunikationsansvar för en vd i ett börsnoterat bolag. Uppsatsen är i huvudsak byggd på en rättsdogmatisk metod.
Enligt förarbetena till svindleribestämmelsens andra stycke ska lagstiftningen skydda allmänheten från att delges vilseledande information från ledande befattningshavare. Det krävs inte att en uppgift är direkt osann, utan underlåtenhet att redovisa väsentlig information kan i sig vara straffbart. I detta hänseende är Swedbank-domen förenlig med bestämmelsens syfte. Samtidigt kan domen resultera i ökad återhållsamhet hos företagsledare för att undvika risken att dömas för svindleri. Därmed riskeras minskad transparens, vilket skulle kunna hämma en effektiv och välfungerande värdepappersmarknad.
I huvudsak kan Swedbank-domen inte anses utgöra en utvidgning av en vd:s kommunikationsansvar eftersom hovrätten i flera avseenden följer tidigare praxis. Domen uppfattas snarare som en påminnelse om att en vd måste iaktta försiktighet vid uttalanden i media. Samtidigt skiljer sig Swedbank-domen från tidigare rättsfall genom att den rör indikationer på missförhållanden inom verksamheten. Härigenom kan domen uppfattas som en utvidgning av en vd:s kommunikationsansvar eftersom även osäkra eller icke-bekräftade uppgifter kan behöva delas för att undvika straffrättsligt ansvar. (Less) - Abstract
- The starting point of this thesis is the widely discussed ruling by the Svea court of Appeal in case B 2457–23 (the Swedbank-case). The case concerned Swedbank’s former chief executive officer (CEO), Birgitte Bonnesen, who was convicted of gross swindle for withholding information about suspected money laundering in the bank’s Estonian operations. Since swindle cases are rare, the Swedbank-case is therefore of great significance for how CEOs will handle their communication with investors and the public in the future.
The purpose of the thesis is to examine the application of the “misleading” prerequisite in Swedish legislation, with particular focus on the Court of Appeal’s assessment regarding this prerequisite in the Swedbank-case.... (More) - The starting point of this thesis is the widely discussed ruling by the Svea court of Appeal in case B 2457–23 (the Swedbank-case). The case concerned Swedbank’s former chief executive officer (CEO), Birgitte Bonnesen, who was convicted of gross swindle for withholding information about suspected money laundering in the bank’s Estonian operations. Since swindle cases are rare, the Swedbank-case is therefore of great significance for how CEOs will handle their communication with investors and the public in the future.
The purpose of the thesis is to examine the application of the “misleading” prerequisite in Swedish legislation, with particular focus on the Court of Appeal’s assessment regarding this prerequisite in the Swedbank-case. The questions addressed are whether the Court of Appeal’s assessment in the Swedbank-case aligns with the purpose of the swindle legislation and the need for transparency for a well-functioning market, and whether the Swedbank-case implies an expanded communication responsibility for CEOs of public listed companies. The thesis is mainly based on a legal dogmatic method.
According to the legislative history of the second paragraph of Chapter 9, Section 9 of the Swedish Criminal Code which criminalizes swindle, the purpose is to protect the public from misleading information by senior executives. A statement does not need to be directly false; withholding significant information can also constitute a criminal offense. In this regard, the Swedbank-case aligns with the legislator’s intent behind the swindle legislation. At the same time, the ruling may result in increased caution in the communication among CEOs to avoid the risk of being convicted of swindle. Therefore, there is a risk of reduced transparency which could hamper a well- functioning and efficient financial market.
Overall, the Swedbank-case cannot be seen as an expansion of a CEO’s communication responsibilities, as the Court of Appeal in several respects adheres to previous case law. Rather, the ruling is a reminder that a CEO must exercise caution when making public statements. However, the Swedbank-case differs from earlier rulings in that it involves communication of indications of wrongdoing. In this regard, the CEO’s communication responsibility might be considered to be broadened, as even uncertain or unconfirmed information may need to be disclosed in order to avoid criminal liability. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9190818
- author
- Peyron, Stina LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20251
- year
- 2025
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- criminal law
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9190818
- date added to LUP
- 2025-06-23 13:22:38
- date last changed
- 2025-06-23 13:22:38
@misc{9190818,
abstract = {{The starting point of this thesis is the widely discussed ruling by the Svea court of Appeal in case B 2457–23 (the Swedbank-case). The case concerned Swedbank’s former chief executive officer (CEO), Birgitte Bonnesen, who was convicted of gross swindle for withholding information about suspected money laundering in the bank’s Estonian operations. Since swindle cases are rare, the Swedbank-case is therefore of great significance for how CEOs will handle their communication with investors and the public in the future.
The purpose of the thesis is to examine the application of the “misleading” prerequisite in Swedish legislation, with particular focus on the Court of Appeal’s assessment regarding this prerequisite in the Swedbank-case. The questions addressed are whether the Court of Appeal’s assessment in the Swedbank-case aligns with the purpose of the swindle legislation and the need for transparency for a well-functioning market, and whether the Swedbank-case implies an expanded communication responsibility for CEOs of public listed companies. The thesis is mainly based on a legal dogmatic method.
According to the legislative history of the second paragraph of Chapter 9, Section 9 of the Swedish Criminal Code which criminalizes swindle, the purpose is to protect the public from misleading information by senior executives. A statement does not need to be directly false; withholding significant information can also constitute a criminal offense. In this regard, the Swedbank-case aligns with the legislator’s intent behind the swindle legislation. At the same time, the ruling may result in increased caution in the communication among CEOs to avoid the risk of being convicted of swindle. Therefore, there is a risk of reduced transparency which could hamper a well- functioning and efficient financial market.
Overall, the Swedbank-case cannot be seen as an expansion of a CEO’s communication responsibilities, as the Court of Appeal in several respects adheres to previous case law. Rather, the ruling is a reminder that a CEO must exercise caution when making public statements. However, the Swedbank-case differs from earlier rulings in that it involves communication of indications of wrongdoing. In this regard, the CEO’s communication responsibility might be considered to be broadened, as even uncertain or unconfirmed information may need to be disclosed in order to avoid criminal liability.}},
author = {{Peyron, Stina}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{En vd:s kommunikationsansvar enligt svindleribestämmelsen – En granskning av vilseledandebedömningen i Swedbank-domen}},
year = {{2025}},
}