Abuse of Public Office: New Offense from August 1, 2026

On August 1, 2026, the crime of abuse of public office was introduced. It covers a broader scope than misconduct in office – but requires intent. Motverket reviews the law, the guidance from Statskontoret, and what still falls outside its scope.

Summary: On August 1, 2026, the new crime of abuse of public position came into effect in Chapter 20, Section 2 of the Penal Code, following the Swedish Parliament's adoption of Report 2025/26:JuU40 on Prop. 2025/26:217. The purpose is to cover corruption-related abuses that previously often fell outside the rule of misconduct—especially when it does not involve pure exercise of authority. At the same time, the threshold is high: intent and unlawful action for undue advantage or undue disadvantage are required.

Motverket examines what has actually changed, who is covered, and why the law is neither a breakthrough against all abuse of power nor an empty symbol. The context is the same as in our review of Sweden's corruption signals in procurement and conflict of interest: public power, weak control, and trust damage that rarely appears in headlines about "classic" bribes.

Why the law came now

Misconduct has long been the central criminal rule against incorrect exercise of authority. The problem, as described by the legislator, is that much of what harms the public does not occur in the form of a formal administrative decision: procurement, resource allocation, support to businesses, conflict of interest management, internal information, and publicly funded private assignments. There, corruption-related behaviors could fall through the cracks.

The Swedish Agency for Public Management summarizes that the new crime is an extension of anti-corruption legislation and applies to those working with publicly funded activities—whether state, municipal, regional, or private performer. SKR's circular 26:25 particularly highlights that many municipal and regional measures are not exercises of authority, and that is precisely why misconduct often was not enough.

What is actually punishable

Three criteria must be distinguished:

Connection to public service, assignment, or activity. The action must occur "in the exercise of" the role. The Swedish Agency for Public Management emphasizes that it can occur even outside working hours, as long as the connection exists, and even if the person exceeds their authority.
Action or omission contrary to law or regulation. Poor judgment is not enough. It must violate law or other regulation.
Intent directed towards undue advantage or undue disadvantage. Negligence is not enough. Pure misjudgments and uncertain law should not be punished under the new rule according to the Swedish Agency for Public Management.

Examples of situations that the legislator and guiding authorities point to include intentional disregard of conflict of interest, illegal support to individuals, or other regulatory violations related to advantage or disadvantage—including in procurement-related environments. The Swedish Public Procurement Agency has already begun answering practical questions about how the rule can affect procurement.

Who is covered—and who is exempt

The scope is broad:

employees in state, municipal, and regional sectors
elected officials (with specific exceptions for certain decisions in decision-making assemblies according to the law text)
private performers when they carry out publicly funded tasks, e.g., certain healthcare or inspections
individuals with public assignments even in international contexts

State employers are obliged to report for prosecution upon reasonable suspicion, in the same way as for bribery and misconduct. Municipalities, regions, and private actors do not have the same formal obligation according to the Swedish Agency for Public Management, but should report suspicions to the police. It is a practical asymmetry: the state must act, others "should"—which risks that the local procurement environment where the Police have previously seen few reports continues to be underreported.

What the law is not

Abuse of public position is not a general paragraph against "poor administrative culture." It does not replace:

Misconduct in the exercise of authority (where negligence can also suffice in some cases).
Parliamentary Ombudsman (JO) criticism, which is not criminal law but is often the fastest public tool when routines and legal certainty fail.
Whistleblowing, the principle of public access to official documents, and conflict of interest control as preventive mechanisms—see whistleblower against authority and the principle of public access in practice.

A current example of the difference between supervision and criminal law: on July 22, 2026, the Parliamentary Ombudsman criticized the Swedish Migration Agency (case number 2821-2026) for not allowing a representative to prove their authority according to Section 15 of the Administrative Procedure Act. It is legal certainty criticism about handling—not automatically a crime under the new paragraph. But it shows the same underlying risk: when the authority skips simple process guarantees, the individual's right to representation and notification becomes fragile.

The connection to Motverket's corruption image

In the corruption review, it is evident that the risks often occur before advertisement and after agreement: requirement drafting, friendships, secondary occupations, deviations, and attestations. The new offense is specifically designed for this type of intentional constitutional violation outside of classic public authority exercise. Whether the law becomes more than symbolic depends on three factors:

whether employers actually report reasonable suspicions
whether prosecutors can bear the burden of proof regarding intent and impropriety
whether the public and media request documents early – before traces are erased or "normalized"

Without this, August 1 will just be a date in SFS, while procurement, conflicts of interest, and a culture of silence continue in the same vein.

What you as a private individual or whistleblower should consider

Document patterns: decisions, emails, conflicts of interest, procurement documents, invoices, timelines.
Keep tracks separate: JO/supervision, police report, whistleblower function, and public records request are different tools.
Avoid alleging crimes unnecessarily: intent and impropriety are legal assessments. Publish what the documents show; let prosecutors test the elements of the crime.
Practical guidance: requesting documents, JO report, and whistleblowing against authority.

Conclusion

On August 1, 2026, Sweden adopted a broader criminal law rule against corruption-related abuse in public operations. It is a real legislative step compared to a concept of misconduct that often stopped at public authority exercise. However, the law requires intent, illegality, and impropriety – it does not punish poor decisions in general. To reduce harm to the public, reports, investigations, and public scrutiny must follow. Otherwise, the offense becomes just another paragraph on paper while practical leaks in procurement, conflicts of interest, and control persist.

FAQ

When did the law come into force?
August 1, 2026, according to the parliament's decision and SFS 2026:1420.

Does it replace misconduct?
No. Misconduct remains for public authority exercise. The new offense complements by targeting other public operations and publicly funded assignments.

Is negligence sufficient?
No, according to the guidance from Statskontoret. The new offense targets intentional legal violations linked to undue advantage or disadvantage.

Does it apply to private healthcare providers and similar?
Yes, when the person performs publicly funded tasks.

Must municipalities report for prosecution?
State employers have an obligation upon reasonable suspicion. Municipalities and regions should report to the police according to Statskontoret, but do not have the same formal obligation.

Is this legal advice?
No. The text is a source-based review. Individual suspicions must be assessed based on the file, preparatory work, and applicable law.