Angiverilag 2026: six authorities become the police's source of information

On July 13, six authorities will begin reporting suspected unauthorized residence to the police. Examination of side information, the low evidence threshold, mobile searches, and the risks to trust in authorities.

Summary: On July 13, 2026, the reform enhanced return operations will come into effect. The Swedish Public Employment Service, Swedish Social Insurance Agency, Swedish Prison and Probation Service, Swedish Enforcement Authority, Swedish Pensions Agency, and Swedish Tax Agency are required to proactively provide certain information to the Swedish Police Authority when there is reason to believe that a foreign national lacks the right to reside in Sweden.

In the political debate, this reporting obligation is referred to as the angiverilag. The government, however, describes it as inter-agency cooperation against the shadow society. Both labels obscure the most significant change: information arising from contacts regarding work, taxes, benefits, debt, or criminal care now has a new secondary purpose – to locate and identify individuals for return.

The proposal was adopted by the Swedish Parliament on June 15, 2026. The reform also includes more internal immigration checks, expanded use of photographs and fingerprints, and the ability to seize and examine mobile phones to establish identity. For a practical overview of rights and appeals, see Neuman Juridik's guide.

From broad reporting obligation to six authorities

The original idea in the Tidö Agreement was perceived as a broad obligation for municipalities and authorities to report individuals without legal residency rights. There was significant opposition from teachers, healthcare workers, social workers, trade unions, and rights organizations. The final law is considerably narrower: healthcare, schools, and social services are not among the six authorities that have the new proactive obligation.

This is a real limitation, but not a complete protection against indirect information pathways. The Swedish Tax Agency receives information from many areas of society. The Swedish Social Insurance Agency and the Swedish Public Employment Service have extensive contact and identity information. Once information is with an authority covered by the obligation, the new requirement can be triggered regardless of why the contact began.

What the authorities must provide

The new Chapter 17, Section 6 of the Aliens Act lists the categories of information:

The last point is particularly important. The police receive not only raw data but also the authority's explanation of why an assumption has arisen. Thus, a narrative about the person is created before the Swedish Police Authority conducts its own complete assessment.

The threshold: “reason to assume”

The government chose the criterion reason to assume. It is lower than a requirement for probable cause or a completed assessment of residency rights. Proponents emphasize that the authority should not have to decide on complex migration law. Critics point to the opposite: if the reporting authority is not to fully assess the matter, the risk of incorrect notifications increases.

A person may have an ongoing appeal, suspension, a new application, EU residency rights, family ties, or documents not present in the reporting authority's records. Even a correct notification at the time can quickly become outdated. The quality of the law will therefore depend on how authorities train staff, document threshold assessments, and correct errors.

Side information makes the law broader than the case

The preparatory works allow the reporting obligation to be triggered by side information. This is information that the authority receives in a case but does not need for its core mission. The proposal mentions examples such as spontaneous information during interviews or observations during inspections and proceedings.

This changes the nature of the contact. Someone meeting the Swedish Enforcement Authority about a debt or the Swedish Tax Agency in a population registration matter may provide a detail that is irrelevant to the case itself but significant for the police. The official does not become a border police officer, but the information is given a border policing function.

No independent investigation – but who draws the line?

During the parliamentary debate, government representatives emphasized that the six authorities should provide information they already have and not conduct independent investigations. This delineation is central but practically challenging. A follow-up question in a regular case may be needed for the core mission and simultaneously provide migration information.

The authorities' work procedures will influence who decides on the disclosure. If each individual case officer makes the assessment, variation increases. If a central function reviews the notifications, the quality may be higher, but the process slower. The law does not specify in detail how internal control should be organized.

The mobile phone becomes an identity document

The reform gives the Swedish Police Authority, the Swedish Migration Agency, and in certain situations the Swedish Coast Guard the ability to seize electronic communication equipment. During an internal immigration check, the measure must be necessary to establish identity. The equipment must be in the person's possession, likely used by the person, and assumed to contain identity information.

In asylum, permit, and enforcement cases, there are similar powers. In some cases, equipment can be held for up to three months. The decision can be appealed to the migration court, which can also review whether material has been examined or copied in violation of the law.

A phone contains significantly more than identity: private messages, political contacts, health, finances, family photos, location data, and information about other people. The legal limitation to identity purposes must therefore be reflected in technical search methods, logs, and subsequent review—not just in the legal text.

Healthcare, School, and Social Services: Exceptions with Information Leakage

It is misleading to say that healthcare personnel, teachers, and social workers now have a general duty to report. They are not covered by the new proactive six-authority rule. However, it is also misleading to describe welfare contact as completely isolated.

Information can cross system boundaries. Birth, address, compensation, work, and identity are registered at different stages. The Swedish Nurses Association, for example, has pointed out that births are reported to the Swedish Tax Agency, which is subject to the obligation. Whether such indirect flows lead to notifications becomes an empirical question that the government and authorities should report openly.

What Critics Warn About

Civil Rights Defenders and trade unions have warned of reduced trust and that people may avoid contact with authorities. The government and the committee majority counter that the obligation is limited to six authorities, existing information, and situations where there is reason to suspect illegal residence.

Both claims can be tested. A limited law can still change behaviors if people do not understand the boundaries. At the same time, it cannot be assumed that every exchange of information automatically leads to someone avoiding healthcare or school. Data is required, not just political labels.

Five Measures That Should Be Published After Implementation

  1. Number of notifications per authority and month.
  2. Proportion of notifications that lead to a match with a person without residence rights.
  3. Number of incorrect or outdated notifications and how quickly they are corrected.
  4. Number of seized phones, average time, and number of appeals.
  5. Outcome of appeals, including cases where investigation or copying was deemed to violate the law.

Without these measures, it is impossible to determine whether the reform is effective or if it primarily produces large amounts of information, incorrect suspicions, and privacy costs.

Questions Every Authority Must Be Able to Answer

Conclusion

The adopted law is narrower than the duty to report that initially dominated the debate. It does not cover the entire welfare system and does not give every public employee a general reporting duty. However, it is more extensive than a simple exchange of registers. It makes side information useful for return processes, lowers the threshold for proactive reporting, and makes the phone a central tool in identity investigation.

The crucial review therefore begins after July 13: what notifications are sent, how many are correct, how is the mobile authority used, and which people change their behavior out of fear of information flow? Without public statistics, both the government and critics will be able to continue claiming success or harm without having to prove it.

Sources