Indrivning av skulder i utlandet - Utlandsbosatta med skulder i Sverige

[Lasseman]

Aha men kan man flytta utomlands med skulder hos KF lagligt liksom? Är det okej att göra så? O fortsätta utmätning genom manuella betalningar till KF? Om man har en inkomst menar jag.

Vad händer om man ej har tillräcklig inkomst och har löneutmätningen? Då avslutas den tills man får en inkomst?

Det är ju lagligt att flytta utomlands och inte olagligt att vara skuldsatt..

 

[Jerry85]

Det som Lasseman skriver stämmer inte i verkligheten. Kronofogdemyndigheten har ingen rätt att utöva exekutiv tvång i utlandet. Därmed har KFM inga befogenheter att utmäta löner som betalas ut av utländska arbetsgivare, tillgångar som finns på utländska bankkonton och fastigheter som finns på utländsk mark. KFM:s myndighetsutövning är i princip begränsad till Sverige.

Vad KFM kan göra när gäldenären är bosatt i utlandet och enbart har sina inkomster och tillgångar i utlandet är att skicka fordringen via handräckning till motsvarande verkställande myndighet eller domstol i det andra landet som tar över indrivningen. Detta gäller enbart fordringar som berör skatter, avgifter och böter som överstiger 1500 euro.

Övriga skulder som tex. privaträttsliga fordringar, studieskulder, hyresskulder, skulder till kommunal service och andra välfärdsrelatrade skulder till staten kan inte KFM skicka via handräckning utan där måste den enskilda fordringsägaren begära verkställighet i det berörda landet via inkassobyrå eventuellt vidta rättsliga processer i lokal domstol.

Lasseman försöker ge en bild av att KFM driver in skulder på utlandsbosatta vilket är helt fel. KFM kan enbart begära hjälp i utlandet via handräckning av vissa fordringar.

 

[Kronofogden]

Lasseman försöker ge en bild av att KFM driver in skulder på utlandsbosatta vilket är helt fel. KFM kan enbart begära hjälp i utlandet via handräckning av vissa fordringar.

Det är ju precis det han skriver.

 

[Jerry85]

Det är ju precis det han skriver.

Fast han skrev i sitt inlägg att han har ”värderat, visat och tömt fastigheter för utlandsboende” samt ”det är ett särskilt gäng som lägger löneutmätning på utlandsboende”. Jag tolkar det som att han vill ge en bild av att KFM verkställer utomlands vilket är helt fel.

 

[Lasseman]

Fast han skrev i sitt inlägg att han har ”värderat, visat och tömt fastigheter för utlandsboende” samt ”det är ett särskilt gäng som lägger löneutmätning på utlandsboende”. Jag tolkar det som att han vill ge en bild av att KFM verkställer utomlands vilket är helt fel.

Jag vidhåller att man inte ska lita så mycket på det du håller fram. Pröva inte att tolka så mycket, du gör det fel också.
"värderat, visat och tömt fastigheter för utlandsboende” samt ”det är ett särskilt gäng som lägger löneutmätning på utlandsboende” ska inte tolkas som att jag försöker ge en bild om att kfm verkställer utomlands utan tolkas i stället som det jag skrev. Dvs

"Jag har värderat, visat och tömt fastigheter för utlandsboende” samt ”det är ett särskilt gäng som lägger löneutmätning på utlandsboende”.

Kan i förväg säga att det inte heller denna gång kommer hjälpa att skriva ett långt inlägg med sånt du redan skrivit i denna och en annan tråd innan.

 

[Lasseman]

Det är ju precis det han skriver.

Nästan, går bra att driva in även om dom bor utomlands om det finns tillgångar i sverige

 

[Jerry85]

Ett tips till de utlandssvenskar som är intresserade av att kolla upp sina skulder utan att avbryta preskriptionstiden.

Man kan logga in hos Bisnode och Creditsafe ta del av sin kreditupplysning kostnadsfritt. Där kan se om man har ett registrerat mål hos KFM, skuldsaldo och betalningsanmärkningar.

Det går också att ta del av sin kreditupplysning via UC men det kostar 29 kr per upplysning där listas skulderna hos de flesta bankerna och kreditföretagen lite mer detaljerat.

 

[TheLawSister]

Applying in English, since I cam across this topic by chance:

To make a long story short: yes Kronofogden can enforce orders in for instance the Benelux. But the options are severely limited unless it is regarding tax and government liabilities. Anything else becomes a black box if Kronofogden tries to enforce abroad.



Let me give you the Benelux example. In this case there are 2 scenario’s, one being the claim being at the debt collection company and second the claim being with Kronofogden, because there is a difference between the 2 processes.

When the claim is only at the debt collection company they can easily send the collection to a collection company in the Benelux to claim there. Note in that case that there are constraints on the Swedish inkasso there, one being the interest rate that is being charged by the owner of the debt, that will have to be recalculated from when the debt was payable in full, which can, depending on the total debt can incur a loss for the incase company for a couple of hundreds, or thousands of euro’s. Then it goes through the legal system in the Benelux, and can be enforced through the courts, and then executed, unless there is an objection from the debtor, and he challenges the procedure. Usually Swedish inkasso companies tend to lose that once the law in the Benelux is applied, because the laws differ significantly when it comes to enforcing debt across the EU.



When Kronofogden has the determined the debt, things also change significantly. Note that Kronofogden cannot just send the debt to be enforced in the Benelux like it is in Sweden, there is a framework that has to be used, and is actually quite limiting.

Basically they are stuck with using the European Attachment Order, which only applies to the bank accounts of the debtor in the Benelux (or the EU, but I am mainly talking about the Benelux since that is my area of practice), but not on assets that the debtor owns abroad. They have, as of now, no possibility to attach the assets of the debtor, something that may change in the future, but which is a bridge too far for many EU countries. Also the bank account should be on the debtor only, so a shared account cannot be enforced. And I may be mistaken, it is also a one off, so it is mainly used for convicted criminals.



The next scenario is a Swedish only principle, where the debt collection companies, after the debt has become enforceable by Kronofogden after a while retract it from Kronofogden to try to enforce it later when the debtor has assets is in the Benelux not allowed. There is an actual ‘double jeopardy’ law where if the claim went to court, and became enforceable (in Sweden Kronofogden!), and is then retracted and then reasserted is invalid, because removing the claim from the court (Kronofogden!) means according to the law, at least in the Netherlands and Belgium that the debt does not exist anymore and cannot be reenforced.



Difficulty for enforcing is usually due to the mismatch in enforcement practices and the incompatibility of the laws in different countries addressing the way on how to enforce debts; Sweden is quite free, there Kronofogden takes all decisions without a judge, since they are Judge, Jury and Excecutioner. In other countries there is a clear divide between the roles.



Also someone mentioned that the public records are not as good in the Benelux as they are in Sweden. That is farther from the truth actually; public records are on par with Sweden if not better, the difference is that even though they are public, if it relates to a person, the person is deemed to be the sole owner of his/ her information, and no one else than the government and the citizen can access the information.

There is no ‘open’ setting of that information, it is by default hidden, and it can even be freely requested to further ‘hide’ the information from prying eyes, and that is lifelong. Heck if you send a document here with the person number visible on it they return it immediately stating that the personnumber (BSN) should be made invisible on the document prior to sending. So there is a clear change in handling.

The rate to which Kronofogden or the debt collection agencies have access to the population register in the Benelux is thus severely limited, or even none-existent.



So in short things are enforceable, but very limited, and not that easy to do. The chances of a crash and burn for the Swedish debt collection companies or Kronofogden are often far greater in front of the courts here than in Sweden of course. And people from the Benelux usually fight back a bit more than the average Swedish citizen. The difference is private vs state debts, state usually just get enforced anyway, private can be very difficult abroad, especially if the debt is ‘sold’ to a inkassobolag.



The law in the Benelux is definitely geared to make sure that the debtor pays, do not get me wrong, but the way that it is enforced is often too different to just be able to do it abroad.

Also there is a difference in the law: in Sweden the debtor has to prove if he/ she does not have a debt etc. In the Benelux the law is: “Wie eist, bewijst”, loosely translated: ‘He who demands, has the burden of proof’. In Sweden that is the opposite. And a very big incompatibility between the justice systems.

All one has to do is ask for the physical signature. If it is not there, the debt does not exist.

And electronic signature with Bank-Id does not count, based on the how the PN system works in those countries, plus the high incidence of identity fraud in Sweden does not help usually.



So enforcing is possible, and readily available, but extremely limited unless it is a state debt. I stood on both sides with clients, and can attest to how difficult it can be for private debts from Sweden to be enforced by Kronofogden in the Benelux.

 

[Kronofogden]

Svensk skuldlagstiftning är alltså helt och hållet riggad till statens favör kontra medborgarens, till skillnad från övriga Europa där medborgarna trots allt har vissa rättigheter även om de är skuldsatta.

 

[Jerry85]

Applying in English, since I cam across this topic by chance:

To make a long story short: yes Kronofogden can enforce orders in for instance the Benelux. But the options are severely limited unless it is regarding tax and government liabilities. Anything else becomes a black box if Kronofogden tries to enforce abroad.



Let me give you the Benelux example. In this case there are 2 scenario’s, one being the claim being at the debt collection company and second the claim being with Kronofogden, because there is a difference between the 2 processes.

When the claim is only at the debt collection company they can easily send the collection to a collection company in the Benelux to claim there. Note in that case that there are constraints on the Swedish inkasso there, one being the interest rate that is being charged by the owner of the debt, that will have to be recalculated from when the debt was payable in full, which can, depending on the total debt can incur a loss for the incase company for a couple of hundreds, or thousands of euro’s. Then it goes through the legal system in the Benelux, and can be enforced through the courts, and then executed, unless there is an objection from the debtor, and he challenges the procedure. Usually Swedish inkasso companies tend to lose that once the law in the Benelux is applied, because the laws differ significantly when it comes to enforcing debt across the EU.



When Kronofogden has the determined the debt, things also change significantly. Note that Kronofogden cannot just send the debt to be enforced in the Benelux like it is in Sweden, there is a framework that has to be used, and is actually quite limiting.

Basically they are stuck with using the European Attachment Order, which only applies to the bank accounts of the debtor in the Benelux (or the EU, but I am mainly talking about the Benelux since that is my area of practice), but not on assets that the debtor owns abroad. They have, as of now, no possibility to attach the assets of the debtor, something that may change in the future, but which is a bridge too far for many EU countries. Also the bank account should be on the debtor only, so a shared account cannot be enforced. And I may be mistaken, it is also a one off, so it is mainly used for convicted criminals.



The next scenario is a Swedish only principle, where the debt collection companies, after the debt has become enforceable by Kronofogden after a while retract it from Kronofogden to try to enforce it later when the debtor has assets is in the Benelux not allowed. There is an actual ‘double jeopardy’ law where if the claim went to court, and became enforceable (in Sweden Kronofogden!), and is then retracted and then reasserted is invalid, because removing the claim from the court (Kronofogden!) means according to the law, at least in the Netherlands and Belgium that the debt does not exist anymore and cannot be reenforced.



Difficulty for enforcing is usually due to the mismatch in enforcement practices and the incompatibility of the laws in different countries addressing the way on how to enforce debts; Sweden is quite free, there Kronofogden takes all decisions without a judge, since they are Judge, Jury and Excecutioner. In other countries there is a clear divide between the roles.



Also someone mentioned that the public records are not as good in the Benelux as they are in Sweden. That is farther from the truth actually; public records are on par with Sweden if not better, the difference is that even though they are public, if it relates to a person, the person is deemed to be the sole owner of his/ her information, and no one else than the government and the citizen can access the information.

There is no ‘open’ setting of that information, it is by default hidden, and it can even be freely requested to further ‘hide’ the information from prying eyes, and that is lifelong. Heck if you send a document here with the person number visible on it they return it immediately stating that the personnumber (BSN) should be made invisible on the document prior to sending. So there is a clear change in handling.

The rate to which Kronofogden or the debt collection agencies have access to the population register in the Benelux is thus severely limited, or even none-existent.



So in short things are enforceable, but very limited, and not that easy to do. The chances of a crash and burn for the Swedish debt collection companies or Kronofogden are often far greater in front of the courts here than in Sweden of course. And people from the Benelux usually fight back a bit more than the average Swedish citizen. The difference is private vs state debts, state usually just get enforced anyway, private can be very difficult abroad, especially if the debt is ‘sold’ to a inkassobolag.



The law in the Benelux is definitely geared to make sure that the debtor pays, do not get me wrong, but the way that it is enforced is often too different to just be able to do it abroad.

Also there is a difference in the law: in Sweden the debtor has to prove if he/ she does not have a debt etc. In the Benelux the law is: “Wie eist, bewijst”, loosely translated: ‘He who demands, has the burden of proof’. In Sweden that is the opposite. And a very big incompatibility between the justice systems.

All one has to do is ask for the physical signature. If it is not there, the debt does not exist.

And electronic signature with Bank-Id does not count, based on the how the PN system works in those countries, plus the high incidence of identity fraud in Sweden does not help usually.



So enforcing is possible, and readily available, but extremely limited unless it is a state debt. I stood on both sides with clients, and can attest to how difficult it can be for private debts from Sweden to be enforced by Kronofogden in the Benelux.

You are correct that there is a difference between state debt and private debt when it comes to the Swedish Enforcement Authority (Kronofogden) ability to collect debts by debtors that lives abroad and has left behind their debts in Sweden.

That's the case only if the debtor has a state debt (A-mål) for example tax debts, fees and legal fines that extends 1.500 euro. Then Kronofogden can easily transfer the debt to the similar civil authority or court in the country where the debtor lives that will take over the case and collect the debt by seizing the debtors assets. This coorporation exists internationally between countries enforcements authorities and courts because there are signed international treaties between Sweden and 130 countries that makes it possible to enforce debt collecting on debtors that has tax debts, fees and fines who lives abroad.

But, firstly must Kronofogden have access to the debtors address and contact details abroad to transfer the tax debt to the court abroad, when that's not the case Kronofogden can't do anything. Kronofogden can only seizure assets that are on Swedish soil. Kronofogden itself has no juristic right to seize debtors assets abroad. As long as the debt is a tax debt, fees, legal fines they have the possibility to transfer the debt further to the other country court, only if they know that the debtor lives there.

When it comes to private debts (E-mål) for example bank loans, credit card debts, debts to private companies, then Kronofogden can't do anything because there are no mechanisms or international treaties to enforce debts collecting on private debts on debtors living abroad between the countries enforcement authorities and civil courts.

Here must the bank and credit card company itself go further and sell the debt to a debt collection agency (Inkassobolag) like Intrum, Lindorff in the country where the debtor lives. If the debtor still refuse to pay, then the bank and credit card company can sue the debtor in the countrys civil court according to that countries civil laws.

Most Swedish banks and credit card companies doesn't go so far because it's costs a lot of money and time to enforce private debts in a foreign court. If the private debt is lower than 200.000 SEK then they will not process further by suing the debtor through lawyers in a court abroad since it's simply not financially motivated.

There is a exception when it comes to the Nordic countries where it's possible to enforce private debts over the borders because the Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Finnish and Icelandic civil courts system are very similar and cheap to enforce in witch makes it easy for an Swedish bank to make legal proceedings on a debtor in the neighboring countries.

Otherwise it's very difficult and limited for a Swedish bank and credit card company to collect debts on debtors that lives outside the Nordic countries. In addition there are no cooperation in EU to collect private debts on debtors that moves within the EU because there is a huge difference between the EU countries civil laws witch has made it difficult to agree for a common solution.

To conclude it's easy for a debtor to leave Sweden and dodge from paying debts as long as it's not a state debt and the authorities and banks doesn't have the debtors address and contact details abroad.