Protection Without Effectiveness

---

This is a translated shortened rewrite of my earlier post in swedish Analys: Skydd utan verkan where you can find linked references.
Information is gathered from https://bra.se/statistik

---

Fraud: A Crisis in Plain Sight

Fraud is one of the most common criminal activities today, generating massive profits that frequently support organized crime. In Sweden alone, there were roughly 230,000 reported fraud cases in 2024, yet only about 3 percent led to a identified suspect – meaning most perpetrators escape justice.

The True Scale: Unreported Fraud and Corporate Losses

• Reported fraud in Sweden for 2024: ~230,000 cases.
• Dark‑figure fraud (unreported or undetected): estimated at 500,000–700,000 additional cases.
• Corporate fraud impact: approximately 8% of Swedish companies – about 100,000 businesses – experienced fraud.

In total, Sweden faces roughly 830,000–1,030,000 fraud cases annually. This includes reported, unreported, and corporate incidents.

Law Enforcement: Overloaded and Outpaced

• Of the 230,000 reports in 2024, 64 percent were dismissed without investigation.
• Only approximately 6,900 cases resulted in suspect identification – a clearance rate of 2.9 percent.
• Specific categories, like online marketplace scams, have clearance rates as low as 0.1 percent.
• Many cases involve cross-border elements, but national authorities lack the resources for international cooperation and follow-through.

Consequences: A Vicious Feedback Loop

• The true annual fraud count in Sweden may be appr. 1,000,000 cases.
• With fewer than 7,000 suspects identified, over 99 percent of offenders remain untouched.
• Fraud fuels an “aorta flow” of funds into organized crime, including gang violence.
• Disillusioned victims stop reporting, weakening public trust and making enforcement even harder – self‑reinforcing downward spiral.

A Two‑Pronged Strategy for Real Impact

1. Strengthen Public Capacity

• Develop a national strategic plan targeting internet-based fraud specifically.
• Provide fraud-focused training for all police staff – from cadets to seasoned investigators.
• Form a dedicated unit comprising investigative police and civilian digital experts to concentrate on high-volume schemes and corporate fraud.
• Invest in digital infrastructure to streamline report intake, automate case triage, and reduce manual workload.
• Facilitate inter-agency cooperation among police, financial supervisors, tax authorities, and banking partners to improve data-sharing.
• Empower qualified civil investigators with legal authority to lead financial crime probes.
• Offer stable, attractive funding to recruit and retain specialists – preventing constant turnover.

2. Empower Private Stakeholders & Individuals

• Launch public awareness campaigns, offering simple online modules and business checklists to help detect early signs of fraud.
• Implement “whack‑a‑mole” measures to disrupt the infrastructure of crime: monitoring domain registrations, shell company formations, social-media fronts, and third‑party enablers.
• Mandate active compliance from banks, accountants, registrars, and other gatekeepers to flag suspicious infrastructure before it’s monetized.

Required Resources & Realism

• To investigate just 25 percent of estimated fraud cases (~250,000 annually), we’d need around 6,250 civil investigators.
• With monthly salaries of SEK 45,000–50,000, this translates to an annual budget of SEK 5.4–6.0 billion.

Question: Will governments allocate this funding?
Realistic answer: Not likely.
Consequential risk: Yes, continued erosion of trust and escalation of crime is probable.

Conclusion: Time for Structural Change

This analysis is not about blaming dedicated public servants – but about recognizing that, without major investments in capacity, cooperation, and prevention, fraud will continue to chip away at society and empower organized crime.

Moving forward: We need a coordinated public‑private ecosystem where:

• Citizens learn and apply safe digital behavior,
• Intermediaries disrupt fraud infrastructure early,
• Authorities prosecute remaining networks effectively.

Without structural reform and resource allocation, our current defenses are merely symbolic – and criminals will keep winning.

Is it better or worse where you are?

• Is fraud more prevalent, more costly, better detected – or even more effectively reimbursed?
• Do your authorities and institutions invest more in capacity and infrastructure? Or rely on reactive measures?
• Are individuals and businesses aware and equipped – or are prevention mechanisms still immature?

---

Please share your experiences:
Do you see similar hidden fraud volumes? Are clearance rates higher or lower? How effective are your prevention strategies? I’d love to hear how different systems compare – and what we can learn from each other.

Regards