A parent has been sentenced by the Court of Appeal for, among other things, commercial money laundering, gross offence, to imprisonment for one year and six months.
The Supreme Court emphasised that in the case of commercial money laundering, the prosecutor does not need to prove that the property originates from a crime or criminal activity and that the penal value of a commercial money laundering can therefore not be linked to the penal value of property crimes in the same way as in the case of money laundering offences. In light of this, the Supreme Court found that the penal value for the crime committed by the parent was equivalent to imprisonment for one year, even though the money laundering measure concerned significant amounts.
When the sanction for a parent is to be determined, the negative consequences of the punishment for his or her child may constitute a so-called equitable considerations that can affect the sentencing and choice of sanction. In the judgment, the Supreme Court states that the importance of a child's interests in this context has been concretised and to some extent enhanced by the fact that the Convention on the Rights of the Child now applies as Swedish law. The court concluded that the child would be disproportionately and unreasonably affected if the parent were sentenced to imprisonment, and that a prison sentence would be clearly incompatible with the best interests of the child. The parent was therefore sentenced to a conditional sentence and day-fines.
Case no: B 1793-23
Contact
Press contact
Telephone
08-561 666 30
Email
HDO-Presskontakt@dom.se