Trafficking in human beings for sexual and other purposes - Polisen

3. Criminal Development26Finally, foreign companies conducting business mustalso register a branch office in Sweden in accordancewith the Act (1992:160) concerning foreign branchoffices etc. 32 .With the new guidelines, the public authoritieswanted to show that the employee’s right to reasonableconditions will take priority over any objectionsfrom the berry industry. In addition, they put theauthorities and unions in a better position to act onthe basis of their respective areas of responsibility.The Swedish Tax Agency was given improved conditionsfor inspecting the companies and the unionswere given a physical partner for dialogue in Sweden.The stricter guidelines improved the situation in2011 for berry pickers from outside the EU by makingit harder for rogue operators to exploit them. In 2011the Swedish Migration Board granted 2,673 applicationsfor work permits for berry picking, as comparedto almost 4,500 in 2010. The majority of the applicationsconcerned people from Thailand, but also citizensof Bangladesh and Vietnam. As a result of themore stringent guidelines, the police only drew up afew reports concerning crimes against berry pickersfrom countries outside the EU in 2011, a significantimprovement on 2010. Despite the measures taken,however, it turned out that citizens from EU countries,who were recruited to pick berries, remained atrisk of abuse and exploitation in an unfair manner.This is because rogue operators recruit labour fromparticularly vulnerable groups such as certain ethnicminorities, people who can neither read nor write,and who do not need a work permit to pick berries inSweden.Two cases of particular interest in 2011In the Hudiksvall District Court, a Bulgarian couple,a man and a woman, were acquitted of human traffickingand sentenced instead for assault and molesta-32 The Swedish Migration Board, business area visits, residenceand citizenship, VCI 2/2011.tion, among other offences. According to the indictment,jointly and in agreement, the couple had misled,recruited under coercion, transported and accommodatedthree men from Bulgaria. The prosecutor alsoasserted that the couple had not made any payment tothe injured-parties for any work performed and thatthey had confiscated the injured-parties’ passports.The couple had also misled the victims with promisesof high wages for picking berries as well as freetravel, food and accommodation. However, thedefendants did not pay any wages and also assaultedone berry picker, for example, because he “ate toomuch”. The case came to the attention of the policebecause the victims escaped and contacted the localpolice authority and the Bulgarian Embassy.The District Court stated that the evidence wasinsufficient for a prosecution for human traffickingsince the prosecutor was unable to prove that the couplehad intended to cheat the berry pickers out oftheir wages even while still in Bulgaria. The man wastherefore convicted only of attempted assault, molestationand arbitrary conduct, and sentenced toimprisonment for three months, among other thingsfor having dragged one of the berry pickers behind acar. The woman was convicted of assault and arbitraryconduct, and sentenced to prison for threemonths, for having thrown an empty berry box at oneof the berry pickers, for example 33 .Another Bulgarian couple were remanded in custodyin autumn 2011 by Hudiksvall District Court onsuspicion of human trafficking. The pair werebelieved to have forced seven people from Bulgaria totravel to Bollnäs to pick berries in 2010. Several of thevictims went to the police and told them that they hadbeen beaten and forced to commit crimes if they didnot pick enough berries. The female victims had alsobeen threatened that they would be exploited in prostitution.The investigation was made more complexbecause the victims returned to Bulgaria, but it33 Hudiksvall District Court 31.10.2011, Case no. 1834-11.