9. Summary and conclusion

This report has mapped the existing knowledge about unlawful influence by organised crime in the justice sector in the Nordic countries, as well as the preventive measures implemented. The report is based on previous research and official reports on unlawful influence, supplemented by media coverage, as well as relevant government proposals and official documents.

The general finding is that the presence of unlawful influence by organised crime in the Nordic justice sector appears uneven across countries, largely unknown and understudied. In Sweden, official reports have documented a variety of such influence in the justice sector, and research based on victim surveys has confirmed this picture. In the other Nordic countries, there are isolated examples of unlawful influence in the justice sector, but systematic empirical examinations of the phenomenon are lacking.

A limitation of this report is that the research available is scarce and captures only a partial perspective on the overall phenomenon. Similarly, official documentation cannot provide a comprehensive picture of how the phenomenon is understood or addressed. It is difficult to determine exactly how widespread the problem is, whether the influence is systematic and possible changes in its levels and forms.

Unlawful influence on justice authorities poses a critical threat to the rule of law and democracy, especially if such activities expand. Determining how often organised crime is behind unlawful influence remains a key challenge. The starting point of this report has been to study what we know about reported workplace violence and offences against public officials in the justice sector. Nevertheless, previous research has shown that studying unlawful influence reported to the criminal justice system captures only a small part of the phenomenon.

Offences against public officials

Throughout the country-specific sections, this report has examined offences against public officials. Figure 6 shows a slight increase in reported violence and threats against public officials in all Nordic countries during the 2020s, although no dramatic changes have occurred. Country comparisons of the level of offending are difficult, as the terminology and scope of offences vary between jurisdictions. Therefore, trends rather than levels should be compared. The take-home message is that the reported level of offences against public officials has increased, though not dramatically, in most Nordic countries. Longer-term increases across the Nordic countries are identifiable since the 2000s, even if this trend has been less visible over the past decade.

Figure 6. Reported offences of violence and threats against public officials in Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Iceland, per 100, 000 inhabitants.
Source: National statistics on population data and reported offences (including Brå for Sweden and the National Commissioner of the Icelandic Police).

Figure 6 is somewhat surprising, especially regarding Sweden, considering the numerous reports of increasing violence and threats not least within the police and prison systems. There may be several reasons for this. Firstly, unlawful influence is not a legal definition. For it to result in a conviction, it must manifest and be considered as a criminalised act such as violence, threat or corruption. The idea of unlawful influence is however implemented in our current legislation. Using or threatening to use violence to compel a public official to take or not take an action in the course of their duties is punishable under current legislation on offences against public officials. Moreover, legislation on corruption can be used to punish improper or unlawful behaviours involving the abuse of power for personal or organisational gain, such as bribery, fraud, extortion and abuse of authority.

As a second reason to the decreasing Swedish numbers, unlawful influence is known to be characterised by a large number of hidden acts. Influence goes unreported if it remains unnoticed, is considered insignificant, is perceived by the influenced as shameful, or is deemed not worth reporting because it is not illegal. Unlawful influence is a phenomenon without a clear definition, which makes it difficult to assess its scope. Measurement is particularly complicated by the fact that intent is extremely difficult to prove.

Despite these factors, it remains essential for public trust that violence, threats and other forms of unlawful influence against staff are reported and properly investigated. Therefore, it is important to raise awareness so that incidents of unlawful influence are reported to a greater extent.

Influence by organised crime

The sources from which we have been able to infer something about unlawful influence suggest that most of it appears to involve activities other than organised crime. Nevertheless, unlawful influence and corruption seem to be increasingly important modes of operation for organised crime (e.g., Europol, 2025).

Although it does not clearly emerge in this report, we know that organised crime is becoming increasingly entrenched in European societal structures. Even if this development is not equally visible in all Nordic countries, it cannot be avoided. And even if it is not openly recognised, it is likely present.

An important insight highlighted by the sources in this report is that, contrary to common perceptions, organised crime often uses soft, subtle forms of influence that are difficult for authorities to detect (Brå, 2016b, 2025c; NOU 2020:4; Riksrevisionen, 2022). Moreover, the influencing is characterised by legal awareness, disruption and personal targeting (Brå, 2016b; Paasonen, 2021). The goal often appears to be access to sensitive information. Therefore, preventive work requires equally sophisticated approaches.

While it is important to recognise the risks connected to organised crime and unlawful influence, it is also important to be aware that not only organised crime drives this development. Broader societal trends fuelled by social media contribute to a harsher public debate and increased polarisation, leaving public authorities more exposed.

Preventive practices

When summarising existing knowledge on prevention practices in the Nordic countries, a pattern emerges of heavy reliance on penalties. In Sweden, for example, penalty levels for offences against public officials have been increased several times over the past decade. Similar increases are planned in other Nordic countries. Finland stands out for clearly shorter penalties in the comparison. In most Nordic countries, the legislation on offences against public officials increasingly identifies specific professional groups (police, prison and probation staff, customs officers, and rescue and ambulance personnel) as important and provides for harsher penalties for offences against them, while considering organised crime as an aggravating factor.

Sweden showcases a broader range of responses to unlawful influence than the other Nordic countries. In particular, the need to raise awareness of the problem and to build organisational robustness has been emphasised, for example in rigorous recruitment processes and strengthened internal security measures. This comprehensive focus on unlawful influence in Sweden has, in turn, inspired further legislation in the area. The issue of identity shielding within the police and the prison and probation services has sparked discussions about necessary measures and legislation in both Sweden and Norway. In this context, both research and official reports on these matters have concluded that it is difficult to determine how to balance personal integrity with the public interest (Brå, 2025c; NOU 2020:4; SOU 2023:67; SOU 2024: 1).

Figure 7 summarises what we have identified as the most important proactive measures, risks and reactive measures connected to unlawful influence. The proactive measures mainly focus on organisational practices, while general awareness of the problem is also crucial. The risks connected to unlawful influence range from a normalisation of undue and unlawful influence to the emergence of parallel justice systems.

The reactive measures include both internal handling within organisations and external actions such as reporting incidents to the police and the potential punishments that may follow. What the figure illustrates is that, although punishment is important, it represents only a very limited part of the overall response to unlawful influence (see also Muttilainen et al., 2025). A wide range of both proactive and reactive measures must be implemented alongside formal sanctions such as punishment.

Prevetive measures		Risks		Reactive measure
Raising awareness Operational culture and practices Training Recruitment processes Whistleblowing functions and reporting systems Risk assessment and guidelines	→	Normalization of threats and violence against public officials Undue and unlawful influence of public officials Corruption Enablers and insiders Parallel justice	←	Internal handling Advice and support Support for victims Reporting to the police Punishments

Figure 7. Summary of risk management measures connected to unlawful influence in the justice sector

Future research

One area that has received limited research attention is unlawful influence on prosecutors, courts, witnesses and control authorities such as the border and coast guard, customs and the tax agency. Although the focus on witness protection has resulted in some legal changes, research on this topic remains limited. In witness protection, crime that goes unreported to authorities is an important aspect of unlawful influence and organised crime worth further study. The decision not to report is often linked to serious criminality, and in such situations the fear of retaliation may be particularly pronounced. Moreover, we see the need for generally broadening the research perspective on what concerns unlawful influence, to include a wide range of methods and their flexible use. Therefore, the interconnections between different methods of influence are an increasingly important subject for study. For example, sexually motivated abuse of power has recently been raised as sexual corruption in Nordic police research (Lundgren & Wieslander, 2025; Thomassen & Strype, 2024), showing the diversity of corruption while emphasising the responsibility of those who abuse their positions of power.

This study is based on existing information from data sources that are in many ways fragmented. One potential topic for further research would be to develop indicators for collecting comparable data on unlawful influence across countries, and to analyse the scope, characteristics and changes of the phenomenon.

Conclusion

This report has shown that unlawful influence from organised crime is perceived and reported to be an increasing problem within the justice sector in the Nordic countries. The lack of systematic data and research on the topic (with Sweden as the exception) makes it difficult to determine how widespread it is. Notably, reported levels of offences against public officials have not shown any dramatic increase in the Nordics, despite the significant focus on the phenomenon.

Altogether, the findings of this report suggest that an informed and sober approach is needed when assessing the risks and planning prevention of unlawful influence.

First of all, further research is needed, using victim surveys, interviews, administrative registers and other types of data. Secondly, other countries can take the example of the Swedish focus on raising awareness and building organisational robustness. Rigorous recruitment processes and strengthened internal security measures in organisations are good preventive actions that can be implemented at all organisational levels. In this context, efforts to combat unlawful influence could be strengthened by linking them more closely with anti-corruption initiatives. At the same time, prevention measures must be carefully considered to balance personal integrity with the public interest, so as not to undermine the openness and trust that are hallmarks of Nordic society. In a time characterised by polarisation and changing facets of organised crime, it is likely that questions of unlawful influence will become more pressing. It is therefore important to have a clear and articulated way of handling these cases.

Unlawful influence encompasses a wide range of methods, applied flexibly and targeting numerous public actors and organisations, and unlawful influence by organised crime is increasingly regarded as a national security concern. Effective prevention therefore requires strong coordination of measures between a wide array of responsible authorities. This does not necessarily mean that punishments are the only or correct solution, because the threshold for reporting is high and the perceived benefit of prosecuting crimes limited. Unlawful influence therefore needs to be prevented more than punished.