Advanced

Fakturan var en bluff - vem bär ansvaret? En undersökning av det straffrättsliga ansvaret vid bluffakturaupplägg

Blom, Mathilda LU (2014) LAGM01 20142
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Bluffakturabedrägerier är ett fenomen som har ökat markant de senaste åren. Det blir allt vanligare att bedrägerierna begås som en planerad del av ett aktiebolags verksamhet i kombination med annan ekonomisk brottslighet, exempelvis skattebrott och bokföringsbrott. I dagsläget är det på grund av bedrägeribestämmelsens konstruktion svårt att lagföra systematiska faktura-bedrägerier varför det i SOU 2013:85 har presenterats ett förslag om en ny kriminalisering av grovt fordringsbedrägeri. Förslaget har dock kritiserats av ett antal remissinstanser på grund av att många rekvisit är öppet formulerade och innebörden därmed har lämnats till rättstillämpningen att avgöra. Det har även ifrågasatts om en ny kriminalisering kommer att få avsedd... (More)
Bluffakturabedrägerier är ett fenomen som har ökat markant de senaste åren. Det blir allt vanligare att bedrägerierna begås som en planerad del av ett aktiebolags verksamhet i kombination med annan ekonomisk brottslighet, exempelvis skattebrott och bokföringsbrott. I dagsläget är det på grund av bedrägeribestämmelsens konstruktion svårt att lagföra systematiska faktura-bedrägerier varför det i SOU 2013:85 har presenterats ett förslag om en ny kriminalisering av grovt fordringsbedrägeri. Förslaget har dock kritiserats av ett antal remissinstanser på grund av att många rekvisit är öppet formulerade och innebörden därmed har lämnats till rättstillämpningen att avgöra. Det har även ifrågasatts om en ny kriminalisering kommer att få avsedd effekt.

Ansvarsfrågan vid brott som begås inom ramen för ett aktiebolags verksamhet kan bli förhållandevis komplex eftersom juridiska personer enligt svensk rätt inte kan åläggas ett straffrättsligt ansvar. För att avgöra ansvarsfrågan måste därför en eller flera fysiska personer identifieras inom den juridiska personen som kan bära ansvaret, vilket kan göras enligt principerna om företagaransvar. Principerna bygger på att personer i företagsledande ställning kan åläggas ett straffrättsligt ansvar för sin underlåtenhet att förhindra att brott begås inom den verksamhet som de leder. Det formella ansvaret för ett bolags organisation och förvaltning ligger i regel på styrelsen och den verkställande direktören. I svenskt rätt är dock företagaransvaret subsidiärt till det allmänna straffansvaret vilket innebär att den person som rent faktiskt utfört den otillåtna gärningen, oberoende av dennes ställning i bolaget, i första hand ska åläggas det straffrättsliga ansvaret.

Även om det allmänna straffansvaret i teorin ska tillämpas före företagaransvaret görs det inte alltid i praktiken. Vad gäller skattebrott och bokföringsbrott indikerar hovrättspraxis att företagaransvaret i många fall tillämpas direkt utan att ansvarsfrågan först utreds i enlighet med det allmänna straffansvaret. Praxis har ifrågasatts eftersom fokus därmed flyttas från gärningsmannens faktiska medverkan i den brottsliga gärningen till vilken ställning denne har i bolaget. Konsekvensen av det blir att kretsen av potentiella gärningsmän begränsas vilket kan leda till att personer som medverkat i den brottsliga gärningen frias på grund av att deras ställning i bolaget inte går att styrka. I en del fall resulterar tillämpningen av företagaransvaret framför det allmänna straffansvaret dessutom i att personer i princip döms för sin underlåtenhet att förhindra det brott som de själva har begått. Det kan dock ifrågasättas om tillämpningen av företagaransvaret framför det allmänna straffansvaret har annat än principiell betydelse. Ur en rättssäkerhetsaspekt torde det viktigaste vara att den person som begår en otillåten gärning åläggs ett straffrättsligt ansvar, varför det kan diskuteras vilken betydelse valet av metod har. Det är dock viktigt att legaliteten upprätthålls och att det finns en förutsebarhet i rättsliga angelägenheter varför en slentrianmässig tillämpning av företagaransvaret bör undvikas. (Less)
Abstract
Frauds with fake invoices, is a phenomenon that has increased significantly during the last years. It is has become more common that frauds are committed as a planned part of the business in limited companies, in combination with other financial crimes such as tax crimes and accounting crimes. Because of the construction of the fraud regulation it is difficult to take legal actions against systematic frauds with fake invoices. In the Swedish Government Official Reports 2013:85, a proposal for a new bill of creditors fraud as a serious crime has been presented. The proposal has been criticized by a number of respondents due to the fact that many necessary conditions have been openly formulated and therefore have been left to the application... (More)
Frauds with fake invoices, is a phenomenon that has increased significantly during the last years. It is has become more common that frauds are committed as a planned part of the business in limited companies, in combination with other financial crimes such as tax crimes and accounting crimes. Because of the construction of the fraud regulation it is difficult to take legal actions against systematic frauds with fake invoices. In the Swedish Government Official Reports 2013:85, a proposal for a new bill of creditors fraud as a serious crime has been presented. The proposal has been criticized by a number of respondents due to the fact that many necessary conditions have been openly formulated and therefore have been left to the application of law to decide. It has also been questioned whether a new criminal offense will have the intended effect or not.

The question of the responsibility for crimes committed within the business of a limited company can be complex since legal persons cannot be imposed criminal liability in Sweden. In order to decide the question of responsibility, a physical entity within the limited company must be identified, upon which the criminal liability can be imposed. The identification can be done according to the principles of corporate responsibility. The principles imply that persons in senior management positions may be subject to criminal liability for their failure to prevent crimes within the business they lead. The formal responsibility for a company's organization and management is usually placed on the board and the Chief executive officer (CEO). In Swedish law, however, the principles of corporate responsibility are subsidiary to the general criminal liability meaning that the person who actually performed the unlawful act, independent of his or her position in the company, primarily shall be subject to a criminal liability.

Although the general criminal responsibility in theory should be applied before the principle of corporate responsibility it is not always used in practice. The practice from the Court of Appeal, regarding tax crimes and accounting crimes, indicates that the principles of corporate responsibility in many cases are applied directly without any investigation in accordance with the general criminal liability. This practice has been questioned because focus thereby has been shifted from the offender's actual involvement in the criminal act, to which position he or she has in the company. The consequence of this is that the number of potential offenders will be restricted. The outcome of the application can also be that persons basically will be adjudicated for their failure to prevent the crimes they have committed themselves. It can be questioned whether the application of corporate responsibility over general criminal liability has more than a fundamental value. In compliance with the rule of law, the most important issue is probably that criminal liability is imposed upon the person that has committed an unlawful act. Therefore it can be discussed what importance the choice of method has. However, it is important that the principle of legality is maintained and that there is a certainty in legal matters, why a mechanistic application of corporate responsibility should be avoided. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Blom, Mathilda LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
The invoice was fake - who will be responsible? An examination of the criminal responsibility at arrangement with fake invoices
course
LAGM01 20142
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Straffrätt, Bluffaktura, Skattebrott, Bokföringsbrott, Företagaransvar, Bluffakturaupplägg.
language
Swedish
id
4913836
date added to LUP
2015-04-01 11:08:37
date last changed
2015-04-01 11:08:37
@misc{4913836,
  abstract     = {Frauds with fake invoices, is a phenomenon that has increased significantly during the last years. It is has become more common that frauds are committed as a planned part of the business in limited companies, in combination with other financial crimes such as tax crimes and accounting crimes. Because of the construction of the fraud regulation it is difficult to take legal actions against systematic frauds with fake invoices. In the Swedish Government Official Reports 2013:85, a proposal for a new bill of creditors fraud as a serious crime has been presented. The proposal has been criticized by a number of respondents due to the fact that many necessary conditions have been openly formulated and therefore have been left to the application of law to decide. It has also been questioned whether a new criminal offense will have the intended effect or not.

The question of the responsibility for crimes committed within the business of a limited company can be complex since legal persons cannot be imposed criminal liability in Sweden. In order to decide the question of responsibility, a physical entity within the limited company must be identified, upon which the criminal liability can be imposed. The identification can be done according to the principles of corporate responsibility. The principles imply that persons in senior management positions may be subject to criminal liability for their failure to prevent crimes within the business they lead. The formal responsibility for a company's organization and management is usually placed on the board and the Chief executive officer (CEO). In Swedish law, however, the principles of corporate responsibility are subsidiary to the general criminal liability meaning that the person who actually performed the unlawful act, independent of his or her position in the company, primarily shall be subject to a criminal liability.

Although the general criminal responsibility in theory should be applied before the principle of corporate responsibility it is not always used in practice. The practice from the Court of Appeal, regarding tax crimes and accounting crimes, indicates that the principles of corporate responsibility in many cases are applied directly without any investigation in accordance with the general criminal liability. This practice has been questioned because focus thereby has been shifted from the offender's actual involvement in the criminal act, to which position he or she has in the company. The consequence of this is that the number of potential offenders will be restricted. The outcome of the application can also be that persons basically will be adjudicated for their failure to prevent the crimes they have committed themselves. It can be questioned whether the application of corporate responsibility over general criminal liability has more than a fundamental value. In compliance with the rule of law, the most important issue is probably that criminal liability is imposed upon the person that has committed an unlawful act. Therefore it can be discussed what importance the choice of method has. However, it is important that the principle of legality is maintained and that there is a certainty in legal matters, why a mechanistic application of corporate responsibility should be avoided.},
  author       = {Blom, Mathilda},
  keyword      = {Straffrätt,Bluffaktura,Skattebrott,Bokföringsbrott,Företagaransvar,Bluffakturaupplägg.},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Fakturan var en bluff - vem bär ansvaret? En undersökning av det straffrättsliga ansvaret vid bluffakturaupplägg},
  year         = {2014},
}