The Swedish Academy’s definition of the rule of law is a “social form where the state bodies are considered obliged to follow the applicable rules themselves and where there are guarantees against abuse of state power.” This principle, which most people likely support, is being put to the test with a proposed new law in Sweden that would grant the state broad powers to seize assets without needing to secure a criminal conviction.
The law is intended to combat gang crime and is being lauded by some as a powerful tool in the fight against criminal organizations. It is seen as a way to strike at the heart of the financial resources of these groups, making it more difficult for them to attract young recruits through the allure of status symbols bought with the proceeds of crime.
However, critics argue that the proposed law could set a dangerous precedent that undermines the fundamental principle of the rule of law. The burden of proof, a central tenet of the legal system, would shift from the state to the individual, with the state being able to seize assets if it is “probable” that the money comes from crime. This effectively turns the presumption of innocence on its head and raises concerns about the potential for abuse of power by the state.
While the proposed law is intended to target gang members in shabby suburbs, there are concerns about how it could be applied more broadly. Critics point to the potential for the law to be used to target innocent individuals, including those who may have large fortunes in tax havens or who are involved in economic crimes such as insider trading.
There are also fears that the proposed law could create an “us-and-them” society, where certain groups are unfairly targeted and subjected to increased state intervention. The principles of the updated Swedish rule of law would perhaps be formulated as “Tell me who you are and I will tell you which laws apply,” suggesting a potential for unequal treatment under the law.
As the debate over the proposed law continues, it raises important questions about the balance between state power and individual rights, as well as the potential consequences of expanding state authority in the fight against crime.