Key Laws and Regulations Governing the Swedish Banking Sector
A substantial portion of Swedish banking regulations is derived from EU directives and regulations, reflecting Sweden’s membership in the European Union. However, the primary domestic legislation governing the banking sector in Sweden is the Banking and Financing Business Act (SFS 2004:297). This Act covers various aspects, including rules related to authorisation, governance, operations, corporate provisions, credit assessment, ownership, and supervision.
In terms of financial soundness, the Capital Requirements Regulation ((EU) 575/2013) (as amended by Regulation (EU) 2019/876 (CRR II)) (CRR) is directly applicable. Supplementing this regulation are two additional pieces of legislation: the Credit Institutions and Securities Companies (Special Supervision) Act (SFS 2014:968) and the Capital Buffers Act (SFS 2014:966), implementing the Fourth Capital Requirements Directive (2013/36/EU) (as amended by Directive (EU) 2019/878 (CRD V)) (CRD).
For recovery and resolution matters, the Resolution Act (SFS 2015:1016) is the pertinent national legislation implementing the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (2014/59/EU) (as amended by Directive (EU) 2019/879 (BRRD II)) (BRRD).
Other laws and regulations applicable to the banking sector, depending on specific services offered, include:
The Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority (SFSA) also issues regulations and general guidelines that complement fundamental rules. Regulations are binding and require compliance, while general guidelines offer recommendations for adherence to binding provisions.
Regulators
Supervision of Swedish banks involves multiple authorities: the SFSA, the Swedish Central Bank (Riksbanken), the Swedish National Debt Office (Riksgälden), and the Ministry of Finance (Finansdepartementet). These entities collectively form the Financial Stability Council, a forum for discussing financial stability and crisis measures. Decisions, however, are made independently by the government and relevant authorities.
SFSA
The SFSA is responsible for micro- and macro-level supervision of banks and conducts on-site inspections and requests information to analyse and control operations. It also monitors systemic risks, such as financial imbalances in the credit market.
Swedish Central Bank
With a mandate to promote a stable financial system, the Central Bank focuses on maintaining a secure payment system and addressing potential financial crises. Regular monitoring includes analysis of risks to the financial system’s stability, encompassing payment systems, major banking groups, borrower profiles, and macroeconomic developments.
Swedish National Debt Office
Tasked with managing banks in crisis and overseeing the deposit insurance scheme, the Swedish Debt Office plays a critical role in financial stability.
Ministry of Finance
Responsible for formulating laws and regulations applicable to the financial system, the Ministry of Finance plays a key role in shaping the legal framework for the banking sector.
Types of Licences
Banking and financing operations, with certain exceptions, may only be conducted after obtaining authorisation from the SFSA. The prerequisites for conducting banking or financing business are set out by the Banking and Financing Business Act (2004:297) and the Banking and Financing Business Ordinance (2004:329). Special rules for savings banks are set out in the Savings Banks Act (1987:619) and for members’ banks in the Members’ Banks Act (1995:1570).
Definitions
Banking business encompasses:
Financing business encompasses:
Foreign Banks
Credit institutions (which include both banks and credit market undertakings) domiciled in an EEA country may conduct business in Sweden either through a branch or by providing services in Sweden from their home country. Credit institutions domiciled in a non-EEA country may conduct business in Sweden through a branch or a representation office.
Activities and Services Covered
A bank may engage in a broad range of activities, which include, inter alia:
This list is merely illustrative; consequently, a bank may conduct other financing operations, as well as operations that have a natural connection to financing.
Conditions for Authorisation
A licence to conduct financing business may be granted to Swedish limited companies and co-operative associations. Such entities are referred to as credit market undertakings. A licence to conduct banking business may be granted to Swedish limited liability companies, co-operative associations, and savings banks.
Other general conditions that need to be fulfilled in order to have a licence granted include:
When assessing a holder’s suitability, their reputation and financial strength will be considered. It shall also be taken into consideration as to whether there is reason to believe that:
Filing Documents
The Banking and Financing Business Ordinance (2004:329) lays down the formalities for applications and the information that should be included. This is further outlined in the SFSA’s general guidelines (FFFS 2011:50) regarding an application for authorisation to conduct banking or financing business, which stipulate that the application shall include the following:
The business plan should contain, and append to the plan, the information set out below:
Application Process
The original application and one copy should be submitted to the SFSA. An additional copy should be furnished to the company’s auditor. Applicants must pay a SEK 1,500,000 fee in conjunction with the application.
Once the application has reached the SFSA, it becomes a matter and is assigned a reference number. An administrator is then appointed as responsible for the matter and confirmation that the SFSA has received the application is sent out.
After the application fee is paid, the administrator conducts a formal review to verify that the application is complete. If there are any formal deficiencies, the SFSA will request supplementary information. Once the application is deemed formally complete, the SFSA initiates a review of the material documentation to assess whether the conditions for the authorisation are met. During the handling process, the SFSA may also request supplementary information before a decision is reached.
Provided that the application is formally complete and the fee has been paid, the SFSA will make a decision within six months.
Requirements Governing Change in Control
Prior to the acquisition of a qualified holding of shares, an application for authorisation to acquire shares must be submitted to the SFSA.
A “qualifying holding” is defined as a direct or indirect holding that represents 10% or more of the capital or of the voting rights, or which makes it possible to exercise a significant influence over the management (eg, through a shareholder agreement). Authorisation is also required when a direct or indirect holding increases above a prescribed percentage of 20%, 30% or 50%, or when it causes the undertaking to become a subsidiary. A notification shall be made to the SFSA if the holding falls below one of the mentioned thresholds (10%, 20%, 30% or 50%).
Authorisation must be obtained prior to the acquisition. Where the acquisition has occurred as a result of a division of joint marital property, testamentary disposition, corporate distribution, or any other similar measure, consent shall instead be required for the acquirer to retain the shares of participating interests. The acquirer shall thereupon apply for consent within six months of the acquisition.
Restrictions
There are currently no specific restrictions on private ownership or geographical restrictions on foreign ownership of Swedish banks. However, in December 2023, Sweden introduced a new legislation, the Screening of Foreign Direct Investments Act (the “FDI Act”), implementing the EU Screening Regulation (Regulation (EC) 2019/452). The FDI Act introduced a screening regime for certain foreign direct investment transactions. The purpose of such screening is to examine whether the relevant foreign investment may harm national security or public order. Any investment falling under the FDI Act must receive approval, or a decision to take no further action, from the screening authority before closing.
Factors to be Considered
Authorisation shall be granted for an acquisition where the acquirer is deemed suitable to exercise a significant influence over the management of a bank and it can be assumed that the anticipated acquisition is financially sound. Consideration shall be taken of the acquirer’s likely impact on the business of the bank.
In conjunction with the assessment, the acquirer’s reputation and financial strength shall be taken into consideration. It shall also be taken into consideration whether:
any person who, as a result of the acquisition, will become a member of the board of directors of the credit institution or act as managing director or act as an alternate for either of the foregoing has sufficient insight and experience to participate in the management of a bank and is also otherwise suitable for such a task, as well as whether the board of directors, taken as a whole, has sufficient expertise and experience to run the institution;
there is reason to believe that the acquirer will impede the credit institution’s ability to operate in compliance with statutes regulating the business of the bank; and
there is reason to believe that the acquisition is connected to, or may increase the risk of, money laundering or terrorist financing.
Information to Include in the Application
The SFSA’s regulations regarding ownership, ownership management and management assessment in credit institutions (FFFS 2023:13) set out the information that a company must submit to the SFSA in conjunction with ownership assessments. These regulations apply during ongoing ownership assessments, but are not applicable at the time of applying for authorisation. During the authorisation phase, the following applies: the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/2580 of 17 June 2022 supplementing Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards that specify the information to be submitted in a credit institute’s authorisation application and the factors that can prevent competent authorities from conducting efficient supervision.
The information to be submitted includes:
As a part of the ownership assessment, the SFSA collects information from, for example, the Swedish Police, the Swedish Companies Registration Office, the Swedish Tax Agency, the Swedish Enforcement Authority and firms that provide credit assessments.
Application Process
A decision of the SFSA regarding an authorisation for an acquisition shall be issued within 60 working days of the confirmation being sent (the evaluation period). Where the SFSA requests supplementary information, the evaluation period may be extended. The SFSA shall be deemed to have given consent to the acquisition if the authority has not issued a decision on the application during the evaluation period. The fee is currently SEK33,000.
Governance Rules
The main corporate governance rules applicable to banks are set out in the SFSA’s regulations and general guidelines (FFFS 2014:1) regarding governance, risk management and control. The guidelines on internal governance issued by the European Banking Authority (EBA) are also applicable (EBA/GL/2021/05) in relation to banks’ governance arrangements, including their organisational structure and the corresponding lines of responsibility, processes to identify, manage, monitor and report all risks they are or might be exposed to, and the internal control framework. Due to domestic legislation being incompatible with the guidelines in a few areas, some provisions are not applicable (nomination committee and independent board members).
The main governance rules are summarised below.
General organisational requirements
The company shall ensure that it has an appropriate, transparent organisational structure with a clear allocation of functions and areas of responsibility that ensure sound and efficient governance of the undertaking and enable the SFSA to conduct efficient supervision.
The responsibility of the board of directors and the managing director
When the board of directors sets the company’s strategies, it must consider the company’s long-term financial interests, the risks it currently faces or may face, and the capital required to address them. Board members shall have a sound knowledge and understanding of the company’s organisational structure and processes to ensure they are consistent with the decided strategies. Board members shall be thoroughly familiar with and knowledgeable about the operations and the nature and scope of the risks.
The board of directors or the managing director shall regularly review and assess the efficiency of the organisational structure, procedures, measures, methods, etc, as established by the company to comply with laws and other statutes regulating operations that are subject to authorisation. The board of directors or managing director shall also take appropriate measures to address any deficiencies therein.
Ethical rules
The company shall conduct its operations in an ethically responsible and professional manner and maintain a sound risk culture.
Conflicts of interest in the operations
The company shall identify and address any conflicts of interest that exist or could arise in its operations. The company shall have internal rules specifying how it addresses conflicts of interest. The internal rules shall be appropriate, taking into account the size and organisation of the company, as well as the nature, scope, and complexity of the operations.
Risk management
The company shall have a risk management framework containing the strategies, processes, procedures, internal rules, limits, controls and reporting procedures required to ensure that the company may, on an ongoing basis, identify, measure, govern, internally report and exercise control of the risks to which it is or could perceivably become exposed.
Control functions
The company shall have a risk control function, a compliance function and an internal audit function. The control functions shall, in organisational terms, be separate from each other. In smaller companies with less complex operations, both the risk control and compliance functions can be combined.
Outsourcing arrangements
The company shall establish internal rules for managing its outsourcing agreements. It shall exercise due skill, care, and diligence when entering into, managing, and terminating outsourcing agreements related to work or functions of significant importance to its operations.
Regulatory Approval of Appointment
The main requirements applicable to senior management are set out in the Banking and Financing Business Act (SFS 2004:297) which stipulates that any person who is to serve on the board of directors or serve as managing director, or be an alternate for any of the aforesaid, possesses sufficient insight and experience to participate in the management of a bank and is otherwise suitable for such duties and the board of directors as a whole has sufficient expertise and experience to run the company.
Swedish banks are also, except for certain provisions, subject to the joint ESMA and EBA Guidelines on the assessment of the suitability of members of the management body (ESMA35-36-2319 and EBA/GL/2021/06) and key function holders, which further outline the requirements regarding the suitability of members of the management body.
An application regarding suitability assessment must be filed with the SFSA in connection with appointing a new person or making changes to the following positions in the bank:
As a part of the suitability assessment, the SFSA collects information from the Swedish Police, the Swedish Companies Registration Office, the Swedish Tax Agency, the Swedish Enforcement Authority and firms that provide credit assessments. Other information and documents that need to be included in the application are:
A decision of the SFSA shall be issued within 60 working days, provided that the application is complete and the fee of SEK18,000 has been paid.
For every change to the board of directors, the company must assess whether the board as a whole has the requisite knowledge and experience to manage the company.
Accountability
In terms of accountability, the bank’s board of directors is ultimately responsible for ensuring compliance with regulations governing banking operations.
The SFSA may intervene against a person who is a member of a bank’s board of directors, its managing director, or an alternate for any such person, where the bank has violated certain obligations pursuant to the bank’s business. An intervention may only take place where the infringement is serious and the person in question caused it intentionally or through gross negligence.
In addition, senior management may also have to compensate damages caused to the company, the shareholders or other persons due to infringements of the Banking and Financing Business Act (SFS 2004:297) and the Companies Act (SFS 2005:551) – provided, however, that the damages are caused intentionally or negligently.
General
The remuneration policies and practices of banks licensed in Sweden are governed by the SFSA’s regulations (FFFS 2011:1) on remuneration structures for credit institutions, investment firms, and fund management companies licensed to conduct discretionary portfolio management.
The regulation stipulates that the board of the bank shall establish a documented remuneration policy that is in line with and promotes sound and effective risk management and counteracts excessive risk-taking behaviour. The remuneration policy shall encompass all employees.
The board of directors shall decide on:
The decision of the board of directors shall, where applicable, comply with decisions made by the Annual General Meeting with regard to the company’s remuneration.
The total variable remuneration shall not limit the company’s ability to maintain, or, as needed, strengthen, a sufficient capital base. The control function shall annually review the company’s remuneration structure for compliance with the remuneration policy.
Remuneration Structure
Where a company’s remuneration contains variable components, it shall ensure that the fixed and variable components are appropriately balanced. The fixed components shall represent a sufficiently large portion of the employee’s total remuneration that the variable components can be set at zero.
The performance assessment for calculating variable remuneration components will primarily focus on risk-adjusted profit measures. This assessment will take into account both current and future risks, as well as the actual costs of capital and the liquidity needed for business activities.
Specially Regulated Staff
Senior management and employees in the following categories of staff are identified as specially regulated staff:
A risk taker is an employee belonging to a category of staff whose professional activities can have a material impact on the firm’s risk level. This normally refers to employees who can:
Variable remuneration to specially regulated staff shall be based on both the employee’s performance and the overall performance of both the business unit and the company. Both financial and non-financial criteria shall be considered in assessing the employee’s performance. The variable compensation for this category may not exceed the fixed compensation.
The company shall ensure that at least 40% of the variable remuneration to specially regulated staff, whose variable remuneration over a period of one year totals at least SEK100,000, is deferred over a period of not less than three to five years before it is paid or the right of ownership passes to the employee. The company shall also defer at least 60% of variable remuneration for members of senior management and other employees who are members of the firm’s specially regulated staff with particularly high variable remuneration.
A significant bank shall ensure that at least 50% of the variable remuneration to a member of senior management consists of the firm’s shares, participations or instruments linked to the firm’s shares or participations, or other instruments that fulfil the conditions for Tier 1 capital contributions. Where appropriate and possible, the company shall allow the variable remuneration components within the meaning of the foregoing.
A significant bank shall ensure that the shares, participations, and other instruments are subject to restrictions such that the employee may not exercise control over the instruments for at least one year, or longer, depending on the bank’s long-term interests, after the ownership rights to the instruments have passed to the employee. This applies regardless of whether the variable remuneration has been deferred or not.
The company shall ensure that deferred variable remuneration components are paid or passed to the employee only to the extent justified by the financial situation and the performance of the company, the business unit in question, and the employee. The deferred portion of the remuneration may also be cancelled in full for the same reasons.
Breaching the Requirements
Where a bank violates the requirements in the foregoing, the SFSA has the authority to, and shall, intervene. Depending on the specific circumstances at hand, the board of directors may also be liable for damages.
The main AML and CTF legislation in Sweden is the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Prevention) Act (SFS 2017:630), transposing the fourth EU Anti-Money Laundering Directive ((EU) 2015/849) (as amended by the fifth EU Anti-Money Laundering Directive (2018/843/EU)). This is further accompanied by the SFSA’s regulations (FFFS 2017:11) regarding measures against money laundering and terrorist financing.
The regulations impose a range of obligations on banks including:
In addition, banks in Sweden should adhere to the EBA’s guidelines on the use of remote customer onboarding solutions (EBA/GL/2022/15), the EBA’s guidelines on the role of AML/CFT compliance officers (EBA/GL/2022/05) as well as the EBA’s guidelines on customer due diligence and the factors credit and financial institutions should consider when assessing the money laundering and terrorist financing risks associated with individual business relationships and occasional transactions (EBA/GL/2021/02), which have been amended by the EBA’s guidelines regarding crypto assets and crypto service providers (EBA/GL/2024/01).
Banks are also required to comply with various international financial sanctions issued by the EU and the United Nations.
The Swedish deposit insurance scheme was introduced in 1996 and the responsible competent authority is the Swedish National Debt Office. The deposit insurance scheme has been extended on several occasions and today all deposits in banks and credit market institutions are covered.
Deposit insurance applies to all private persons (including minors), as well as companies and other legal persons, such as the estate of a deceased person. However, financial institutions and public and local authorities are not eligible for compensation.
All types of accounts are covered by the deposit insurance regardless of whether they are restricted or free to withdraw. However, individual pension accounts are not covered. Deposit insurance also does not apply to bank money orders (cashier’s cheques) because these fall outside the definition of deposits under the Deposit Insurance Act (SFS 1995:1571).
For client accounts, the main rule is that every underlying individual owner of the money receives compensation up to the maximum amount covered. A client account is an account in which a company has deposited money for several customers in a single account.
If the account is protected by deposit insurance, the depositor is entitled to receive compensation equal to the amount deposited, including interest, up to either the date the institution was declared in default or the date the decision to activate the deposit guarantee scheme was made. The insurance provides compensation of up to SEK1,050,000 per depositor. If an account is opened in two or more persons’ names, each person is counted separately.
The deposit insurance scheme is financed by contributions from the member banks and institutions, which are invested in a fund. The fees are calculated based on a number of risk indicators and the institute’s guaranteed deposits as of 31 December of the previous year. The institute’s fee is also affected by the fact that the total fee must amount to 0.1% of total guaranteed deposits. Based on the risk indicators, a risk score is calculated for each institute. Based on the risk score, the institutes are then divided into different risk classes. The institution’s risk class and size of guaranteed deposits then determine which fee the institution must pay.
Duty of Confidentiality
An individual’s relationship with a bank may not be disclosed without authorisation (this includes both physical and legal persons). Bank confidentiality covers all information exchanged between the individual and the bank, whether written or oral. This also includes whether or not a certain individual is an actual customer at the bank.
However, the duty of confidentiality is not strict, and exceptions can be made when:
For example, the Swedish Parental Code (SFS 2008:913) contains provisions regarding the obligation of banks to provide information to the chief guardian. A bank is also obliged to disclose information regarding an individual’s relations with the bank where such information is requested by the investigating officer in the course of an investigation pursuant to the provisions regarding preliminary investigations in criminal actions, by the public prosecutor in a matter pertaining to legal assistance in criminal actions, on application by another country or an international court, or in a matter of recognition and execution of a European Information Order.
Additional statutory obligations to provide information on individuals’ relationships with banks include, inter alia:
Violation of bank secrecy is, depending on the relevant circumstances, punished by:
Capital Requirements
The capital requirements in Sweden are based on principles set by the Basel Committee, which have been implemented through EU capital adequacy regulations, Swedish laws, and SFSA regulations. The principles contain minimum own funds requirements (Pillar 1), additional own funds requirements (Pillar 2), and combined buffer requirements.
Pillar 1
Banks measure their risks and calculate minimum own funds requirements in accordance with the rules and calculation models set out in the EU Capital Requirements Regulation (575/2013/EU).
The minimum own funds requirement is 8% of the value of the bank’s assets and other assumptions adjusted for their risk, which is called the risk-weighted exposure amount (REA). The requirement is calculated for credit, market and operational risks.
Pillar 2
Banks must hold capital that adequately covers all risks to which they are or may be exposed. To ensure that a bank knows which risks it may be exposed to, the Banking and Financing Business Act (2004:297) requires a bank to identify, measure, govern, internally report, and exercise control over the risks associated with its business.
The banks must evaluate their capital requirements for non-Pillar 1 risks through the Internal Capital Adequacy Assessment Process (ICAAP) and determine their total capital requirements. The SFSA conducts a supervisory review and evaluation process (SREP) for the bank’s governance structures, processes and procedures related to its ICAAP and assesses the bank’s risks and capital needs. After an SREP, the SFSA determines an additional own funds requirement and provides guidance on it. The bank’s and the SFSA’s risk and capital assessments are both parts of the Pillar 2 framework.
Combined buffer requirement
Requirements for maintaining different types of capital buffers are set out in the Capital Buffers Act (2014:966). A bank may use the buffers, although only in specific circumstances and subject to restrictions.
Capital conservation buffer
Banks must hold a 2.5% capital conservation buffer in addition to the minimum own funds requirements and the additional own funds requirements. The buffer is an additional layer of capital that the bank should be able to use to cover losses without breaching minimum or additional capital requirements.
Capital buffer for systemically important banks
The SFSA evaluates annually which Swedish banks are systemically important and which must hold a buffer to provide extra protection against the negative effects that problems in the bank could cause in the financial system. Systemically important banks must hold an institution-specific capital buffer of 1%.
Systemic risk buffer
This buffer must protect against systemic risks that are not covered by other capital requirements. Every other year, the SFSA reviews the systemic risk buffer and the banks subject to it. Banks subject to the requirement must hold a systemic risk buffer of 3%.
Countercyclical capital buffer
During periods of strong economic growth and rapid credit growth, banks should build capital buffers they can draw upon during periods of financial uncertainty. The objective of the countercyclical capital buffer is to enhance the banks’ resilience and prevent future financial crises. The SFSA sets the countercyclical capital buffer quarterly based on the current economic conditions.
Liquidity Requirements
Since 1 January 2018, binding EU regulations apply in full (CRR and the liquidity coverage requirement regulation (EU) 61/2015 (LCR)). These set out the following requirements:
Quantitative requirement for liquidity coverage (Pillar 1)
The EU regulation imposes a 100% Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) requirement, meaning that an institution must maintain sufficient liquid assets to withstand actual and simulated cash outflows during a stressed period of 30 days.
The Pillar 1 requirement in EU regulation is not expressed in individual currency levels; rather, it imposes a general requirement that the liquidity buffer’s currency composition align with net outflows by currency. If there is an imbalance between the currency composition of a bank’s liquidity buffer and the net outflows in individual currencies, the supervisory authority may require the bank to address this imbalance. This may involve setting limits on the proportion of liquid assets in one currency that the bank can use to cover liquidity outflows in another currency.
Quantitative requirement for the stable net financing ratio (Pillar 1)
Since 2021, the EU regulations have included a binding requirement for the stable net financing ratio (NSFR) in addition to the minimum binding requirement for the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR). The NSFR requirement means that a company must have sufficient stable funding to cover its financing needs over a one-year horizon under both normal and stressed conditions. The NSFR requirement in EU regulations is set at 100%.
Risk Management
The SFSA’s regulations and general guidelines (FFFS 2014:1) regarding governance, risk management and control at credit institutions apply to Swedish banks and impose an obligation on banks to ensure they have an appropriate, transparent organisational structure with a clear allocation of functions and areas of responsibility that ensure sound and efficient governance of the undertaking and enable the SFSA to conduct efficient supervision.
Banks need to have a risk management framework containing the strategies, processes, procedures, internal rules, limits, controls and reporting procedures required to ensure that the company may, on an ongoing basis, identify, measure, govern, internally report and exercise control of the risks to which it is or could perceivably become exposed.
Banks must further have a procedure for regularly reporting the risks that exist or which could perceivably arise in the operations to the board of directors and the risk committee, if such has been appointed, the managing director and other functions that require such information, so that they receive reliable, current and complete reports in a timely manner.
A bank must set clear boundaries (limits and mandates) for the person who is to make decisions within the framework of the company’s risk appetite.
Swedish Developments
For several consecutive years, the SFSA has prioritised sustainable finance as a key area of supervision, focusing on risks such as greenwashing and the failure to fully consider climate-related risks in financial assessments.
For example, on 15 September 2025, the SFSA released a new supervisory report examining how Swedish banks are incorporating climate risks into their stress testing frameworks. The report highlights a significant shift in the financial sector’s approach to sustainability and risk management. In anticipation of upcoming EU regulations requiring banks to assess their resilience to long-term ESG risks starting in January 2026, the SFSA asked banks to include a climate-related scenario in their 2024 stress tests. The goal was to evaluate how far banks have come in integrating climate risks and to prepare them for future regulatory demands (the EBA’s guidelines on the management of ESG risks [EBA/GL/2025/01]).
The SFSA concludes by stressing the importance of continued development in this area. Banks are expected to align their climate stress testing with materiality assessments and comply with the forthcoming regulations. The SFSA will continue to monitor progress as part of its ongoing supervisory activities, viewing climate stress testing as a crucial tool to enhance the financial sector’s resilience to climate-related risks.
EU Developments
The regulatory framework for ESG-related issues has been growing in the financial sector. Although the main focus so far has been on channelling investments into sustainable finance projects, several initiatives are also affecting the banking sector.
For example, as mentioned above, the EBA’s guidelines on the management of ESG risks (EBA/GL/2025/01), published by EBA in January 2025, establish a comprehensive framework for financial institutions to identify, measure, manage, and monitor ESG risks. These guidelines aim to embed ESG considerations into governance structures, strategic planning, and risk management systems, ensuring institutions are resilient to sustainability-related challenges. Key requirements include regular materiality assessments (annually for most institutions, biennially for smaller, non-complex ones), robust data collection, and scenario-based methodologies to evaluate ESG impacts across traditional risk categories like credit, market, and operational risks. Institutions must also develop transition plans aligned with the EU’s climate neutrality goals by 2050, including clear targets and milestones. The guidelines apply from January 2026 for most institutions and from January 2027 for smaller entities, with a proportionality principle allowing tailored approaches based on size and complexity. Also, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), initially intended to start applying to large listed companies from 1 January 2024, with the first reporting obligation in 2025 for the financial year of 2024 (and subsequent years for all other large companies and, eventually, all listed companies except micro-cap companies), has been “stopped”. The Omnibus package proposed by the European Commission in January 2025 includes a “stop the clock” mechanism, under which the CSRD reporting requirements for large companies and listed SMEs (second- and third-tier) are delayed by two years. The purpose of the legislative proposal is to streamline rules in areas such as sustainable finance, corporate sustainability reporting, due diligence, and the EU Taxonomy, with the goal of cutting administrative costs by 25% for all businesses and 35% for SMEs.
Key changes in the Omnibus package include narrowing the scope of the CSRD to only cover large companies with over 1,000 employees and significant turnover or balance sheet totals, thereby removing around 80% of companies from its requirements. A voluntary SME reporting standard will be introduced to shield smaller firms from excessive data requests. The proposal also simplifies the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), eliminates the obligation for sector-specific standards, and maintains a limited assurance level for sustainability reports.
Another piece of legislation relevant to Swedish banks is the EU Green Bond Regulation (2023/2631), which entered into force at the end of 2024. The regulation has introduced a robust framework for issuing bonds labelled as European Green Bonds (EuGBs), aiming to strengthen trust and transparency in sustainable finance. For banks, this regulation provides a clear and credible pathway to raise capital for environmentally sustainable projects. To qualify as an EuGB, 100% of the bond proceeds must be allocated to activities aligned with the EU Taxonomy, with a limited flexibility allowance of up to 15% for projects not yet covered by the taxonomy. Issuers are required to publish a pre-issuance factsheet verified by an independent reviewer, followed by annual allocation reports and environmental impact disclosures throughout the bond’s lifecycle. All documentation must be publicly accessible for at least one year after the bond matures. The regulation also establishes a supervisory framework for external reviewers, managed by ESMA, to ensure consistency and prevent greenwashing. Although voluntary, the EuGB label is designed to become the gold standard for green bonds, helping banks demonstrate alignment with EU climate goals and attract sustainable investment.
National Legislative Measures Related to DORA
As of 17 January 2025, the Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 on digital operational resilience for the financial sector (DORA) has applied across the Union. The vast majority of financial undertakings are now subject to DORA.
In Sweden, legislative measures to complement the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) and the related Amending Directive (EU) 2022/2556 have advanced over the past year. This progress includes the enactment of Law 2024:1278, which provides additional provisions for DORA. The new law grants the Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority (SFSA) and the Central Bank clear supervisory and enforcement powers under DORA.
The supplementary act sets out:
In addition, amendments to the Banking and Financing Business Act (2004:297) and other sectoral laws now clarify that institutions must comply with DORA’s provisions on ICT risk management, incident reporting, third-party risk governance and information sharing. The intervention provisions authorise the SFSA to act against members of the board of directors or senior management if an institution fails to comply with key obligations set out in DORA.
In parallel, the SFSA has actively begun implementing its supervisory approach. In March–April 2025, the SFSA circulated extensive questionnaires to banks and other financial institutions to assess their DORA readiness, focusing on ICT risk frameworks, incident management and third-party registers. The authority has indicated that the findings will inform the first targeted DORA inspections during 2026.
In March 2025, institutions were also required for the first time to submit the Information Register under DORA, reporting all third-party ICT service providers. Many institutions encountered challenges in consolidating group-wide data and determining the scope of “ICT services” and subcontractors. The SFSA subsequently issued technical guidance and adjustments to the reporting in May 2025.
Overall, by late 2025, Sweden’s legal and supervisory framework for DORA implementation is largely in place, with an extensive package of new and amended regulations and guidelines issued by the SFSA. The SFSA has transitioned from preparatory oversight to active supervisory follow-up, and the coming year is expected to mark the start of on-site inspections and further harmonisation between DORA, the forthcoming Cybersecurity Act implementing NIS2, and EBA’s extended guidelines on third-party risk management.
The main upcoming regulatory developments are outlined below.
Sweden
In October 2025, the Swedish government submitted its proposal for a new Cybersecurity Act (prop. 2025/26:28) to implement the EU’s NIS2 Directive, signalling a major upgrade in the regulatory regime governing network and information system security. The proposed law covers both public authorities and private operators in designated sectors and mandates risk-based security measures, supply-chain and continuity obligations, incident reporting to a supervisory authority, and fresh enforcement powers including fines and leadership bans. Although the law is scheduled to enter into force on 15 January 2026, banks and other financial institutions – which already face overlap with DORA and ICT risk regimes – should already be reviewing their incident-management frameworks, supplier contracts and governance structures. The trend points to a tighter cybersecurity compliance landscape in Sweden, aligned with broader digital-resilience efforts across the EU.
EU
The European Union’s overhaul of the payment services framework is now entering the trialogue phase, with the draft PSD3 and PSR (Payment Services Regulation) reaching the negotiating table in mid-2025. The package aims to combat fraud, enhance interoperability (especially mobile and offline channels), extend open banking provisions, increase transparency of fees and strengthen national supervisory powers. Although full implementation is not anticipated until 2027 or later, Swedish banks and payment service providers should already be initiating gap analyses and readiness programmes covering fraud prevention, strong customer authentication, third-party contracting and cross-border payments. The forthcoming regime emphasises operational resilience, consumer protection and competitive payment markets across the EU. The forthcoming Financial Data Access Regulation (FiDA) marks a major evolution in the EU’s digital finance agenda. Building on the open banking model established under PSD2, the regulation expands data-sharing requirements to include the banking, investment, insurance, and pension sectors. Agreements reached by the Council in December 2024 have paved the way for implementation in 2027, with transitional periods allowing institutions to adapt. Swedish banks and finance groups should already be mapping data flows, modernising API infrastructures and reviewing third-party access arrangements in preparation for the new regime. While not yet in force, FiDA underscores the structural shift towards open finance, with increased consumer data rights, intensified competition from fintechs and technology firms, and a renewed focus on data governance and system interoperability.
The EBA’s forthcoming guidelines on third-party risk will extend the scope of outsourcing regulation beyond ICT services under the DORA, to encompass a broader array of function- and service-provider relationships. The draft consultative guidelines, open until 8 October 2025, anticipate new requirements on governance (including board oversight of third-party arrangements), comprehensive third-party registers, enhanced exit and continuity plans for “critical or important functions”, and a wider set of institutions in scope, including MiCAR-authorised issuers of asset referenced tokens, investment firms and non-bank creditors (under the mortgage credit directive). Swedish banks and financial institutions should begin reviewing their contracts, outsourcing policies and supplier registers now, ensuring readiness for the two-year implementation phase following final publication.
The EU Banking Package (CRR3/CRD6) entered into force on 9 July 2024, following its publication in the Official Journal on 19 June 2024.
During 2025, banks and supervisors have focused on implementation and transitional preparations ahead of the main application date, 1 January 2025, for CRR III. The package strengthens the risk-based capital framework, introduces an output floor, refines credit-, market-, and operational-risk approaches, and embeds ESG-risk considerations into prudential supervision. The European Commission confirmed in 2025 that the Fundamental Review of the Trading Book (FRTB) will apply from 1 January 2027, following the one-year postponement announced in 2024 and formalised through a delegated act adopted in April 2025.
For Sweden, legislative work to transpose CRD VI is ongoing. The Government’s memorandum “EU:s bankpaket” was published in May 2025, aiming for entry into force on 11 January 2026, with rules on third-country branches becoming applicable from 11 January 2027. The proposed new legislation establishes new governance, fit-and-proper and sustainability-risk requirements for banks and investment firms.
By late 2025, EU institutions and national authorities are transitioning from legislative adoption to supervisory implementation, as banks finalise internal models, ESG data integration, and disclosure processes ahead of the first CRR III reporting cycle in 2026.
Engelbrektsplan 1
Box 7225
103 89 Stockholm
Sweden
+46 8 20 40 11
info@harvestadvokat.se www.harvestadvokat.se
In recent years, the Swedish financial sector has been subject to several new regulations as well as supervisory activities affecting the market and the financial institutions conducting business operations in Sweden. For example, the sustainable finance framework has been in focus for quite some time and remains a main area of relevance, not only from a regulatory standpoint but also from a business perspective. Digital resilience and cybersecurity are other key areas for the financial sector, driven by the implementation of the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) and the upcoming NIS2 Directive. Also, the Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority (SFSA) has continued to exercise a high degree of supervisory oversight, leading to the imposition of significant sanctions and the adoption of evolving practices within the financial market.
The Sustainable Finance Regulatory Framework
Sustainability practices in Sweden
Sweden has a long history in sustainable finance, as demonstrated by the pervasive commitment among its financial institutions to integrate sustainability principles into their daily operations and corporate identities.
In the asset management sector, fund managers have voluntarily disclosed their funds’ sustainability profiles in response to growing consumer appetite for sustainable asset management. However, since the implementation of the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) on 10 March 2021, the integration of even more stringent sustainability considerations into investment processes for financial products, particularly funds, has progressed at a relatively moderate pace. As the regulatory landscape is complex, asset managers have struggled to correctly implement and comply with disclosure requirements.
The banking sector in Sweden has long been attuned to sustainability, as evidenced by products such as green mortgages and sustainability-linked loans. In recent years, banks have significantly expanded their sustainability departments, mirroring a broader industry trend. Despite these efforts, a discernible gap persists between the asset management sector and the loan operations of Swedish banks in terms of sustainability integration. The surge in customer interest in “green” banking solutions extends beyond private customers, indicating both a need for further improvements and the potential to generate business value in this area.
Activities by the regulator
The SFSA has long prioritised sustainability issues, and the introduction of the SFDR has further propelled the SFSA to take a leading role in international efforts to standardise reporting for all companies (ie, not only financial institutions). Despite expected regulatory relief at the EU level with the proposed Omnibus initiative presented by the European Commission in February 2025, it is evident that the SFSA has continued to focus on this area in its supervisory activities.
Regarding the Omnibus package, the SFSA responded to the European Commission in April 2025, expressing concern that the proposed changes may undermine the availability of reliable and comparable data necessary for informed investment decisions and regulatory compliance. The SFSA highlights the lack of thorough impact analyses regarding how these changes could affect transparency, the application of related EU regulations such as SFDR, and the broader financial ecosystem. It also questions the implications for value chain reporting, the role of auditors, and the coherence between the CSRD and other standards, such as ESRS. The SFSA calls for deeper analysis and alignment to ensure that simplification efforts do not compromise the effectiveness of sustainability reporting and its role in promoting sustainable finance.
The SFSA has conducted a supervisory review of how Swedish banks incorporate climate risks into their stress testing frameworks. The SFSA has previously identified climate transition risks in Swedish banks’ loan portfolios, and the purpose of this recent supervisory activity was to evaluate the maturity of banks’ approaches and their preparedness for upcoming EU regulations that will require more robust ESG risk management starting in 2026 (the European Banking Authority’s (EBA) Guidelines on the management of ESG risks). The guidelines will become applicable from 11 January 2026 for most institutions (11 January 2027 for smaller, non-complex institutions) and mandate that banks must identify, assess, and manage ESG risks across their operations, including through scenario analysis and stress testing. They also require banks to integrate ESG considerations into their governance structures and risk management systems, and to develop strategic plans that address the financial risks associated with the transition to a climate-neutral economy by 2050.
In the supervisory report published on 15 September 2025, the SFSA emphasises that these regulations will significantly raise expectations of banks and that it will closely monitor their progress to ensure compliance and resilience. The report further shows that all 11 surveyed banks included climate-related risks in their 2024 stress tests, marking a clear step forward. However, the authority observed substantial variation in how these risks were assessed, even among banks with similar business models. This inconsistency suggests that the sector is still in an early phase of methodological development, according to the SFSA.
In terms of modelling, a few banks have begun quantifying the impact of climate risks on credit metrics such as probability of default (PD) and loss given default (LGD). Others have explored how climate risks might affect customer savings, consumption patterns, and ultimately, bank revenues. One of the key challenges identified is access to relevant data. To accurately assess exposure to climate risks, banks need detailed information, including emissions data, property energy classifications, geolocation data, and industry-specific risk factors. While some banks have started using such data, gaps remain that need to be addressed.
The SFSA notes that while progress has been made, further development is needed, especially in linking stress tests to materiality assessments and improving data quality. Climate stress testing is still in its early stages of development, and banks must continue refining their methodologies. The SFSA intends to deepen its oversight of how individual banks incorporate climate risks into their stress-testing frameworks and will monitor how banks adapt to the forthcoming EBA guidelines. The SFSA also expects banks to improve their ability to quantify climate-related impacts on credit risk and other financial exposures. This will be part of the authority’s ongoing supervisory activities, during which it will evaluate the relevance and robustness of the scenarios used, the quality of the data, and the integration of materiality assessments.
More broadly, the SFSA has identified climate-related sustainability risks as a priority area in its supervisory strategy for 2025. It aims to ensure that financial institutions can fulfil their core functions in an increasingly uncertain environment shaped by climate change. The SFSA’s supervision will be risk-based, proactive, and clearly communicated, and the authority is prepared to take strong action if necessary to safeguard financial stability.
Summary
To summarise, Sweden has a strong tradition in sustainable finance, with financial institutions actively integrating sustainability into their operations. Asset managers have voluntarily disclosed sustainability profiles, but the adoption of stricter standards under the SFDR has been slow due to regulatory complexity. Swedish banks have embraced sustainability through products such as green mortgages and expanded sustainability departments, though a gap remains between asset management and lending practices. The SFSA has taken a proactive role, especially in response to the EU’s proposed Omnibus initiative, expressing concern that simplifications could weaken data quality and regulatory coherence. The SFSA has also reviewed how banks incorporate climate risks into stress testing, finding progress but noting methodological inconsistencies. With upcoming EU guidelines requiring robust ESG risk management by 2026, the SFSA emphasises the need for improved data, scenario relevance, and integration of materiality assessments. Climate-related risks are a supervisory priority for 2025, and the SFSA is committed to ensuring financial institutions remain resilient in the face of climate change.
Digital Resilience and Cybersecurity
Supervisory focus on DORA implementation
The SFSA has made digital operational resilience one of its top supervisory priorities for 2025. In light of increased geopolitical tensions and a highly interconnected financial sector, the SFSA has launched a three-phase analysis of how 50 selected banks, insurers, payment institutions and trading venues are implementing the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA). The review covers ICT-risk governance, incident reporting, testing, and management of third-party ICT providers, and will serve as preparation for the SFSA’s first on-site DORA inspections in 2026.
At the same time, Sweden is finalising its new Cyber Security Act – the national act implementing the NIS2 Directive – which will impose complementary requirements on incident handling, supply-chain security and continuity planning across critical sectors, including finance.
Parallel to this, the EBA is consulting on extended guidelines on third-party and outsourcing risk, broadening supervisory expectations beyond ICT-outsourcing to all external service arrangements. Together, DORA implementation, the Cybersecurity Act and the EBA guidelines form one of the most dynamic regulatory themes in Sweden’s financial sector, driving heightened scrutiny of operational resilience, vendor oversight and cyber-preparedness.
NPL Market and Emergence of Specialised Debt Restructurers (SDRs)
During 2025, the Swedish market has seen renewed attention to the management of non-performing loans (NPLs), driven by the EU’s continued implementation of its NPL action plan and the so-called “NPL backstop” under the Capital Requirements Regulation.
Banks are increasingly incentivised to dispose of distressed loan portfolios rather than hold them on their balance sheets, as the backstop requires full capital coverage for unsecured NPLs after three years and for secured exposures after seven years. This has fostered a more structured secondary market for distressed debt across the EU.
A key development is the emerging implementation of the framework, with several Swedish banks and credit management companies currently exploring the establishment of, or collaboration with, SDR entities as part of their broader NPL and portfolio restructuring strategies. The initiative aims to enhance market transparency, investor confidence and overall financial stability.
Instant Payments and the Push for Real-Time Euro Transfers
Implementation deadlines and market impact
The adoption of the Instant Payments Regulation (IPR) by the EU on 13 March 2024 marks a significant milestone in the drive towards fully real-time credit transfers across euro-area Member States. Under the regulation, payment service providers must offer instant credit transfers in euros, ensure cost-parity between instant and standard transfers, and provide a free-to-payer “verification of payee” service. With different implementation deadlines (depending on the service/requirement), banks operating in Sweden must begin aligning their infrastructure and pricing models, particularly for cross-border euro payments or services directed at EU markets. For Swedish banks more focused on domestic SEK payments, the regulation nonetheless signals the wider European push towards instant payments, heightened cost competition, and increased technical and compliance complexity.
EU Bank Crisis Management Reform (CMDI Framework)
Reinforcing resolution tools and depositor protection
The political agreement reached on 5 June 2025 between the Council and the European Parliament marks a key step in reforming the EU’s Crisis Management and Deposit Insurance (CMDI) framework. The revised regime aims to strengthen the resolution process for small and medium-sized banks by allowing, under strict safeguards, access to industry-funded safety nets such as national resolution funds and, within the Banking Union, the Single Resolution Fund. This “bridge-the-gap” mechanism enables failing banks with insufficient loss-absorbing capacity (MREL) to use deposit-guarantee or resolution funds to finance resolution without resorting to depositor bail-ins.
The reform also clarifies how resolution authorities should conduct the public interest assessment, broadening the criteria for resolution over liquidation when it better supports financial stability or depositor protection. A harmonised “least-cost test” ensures consistent use of deposit-guarantee resources across the EU while maintaining the existing depositor-preference hierarchy, which prioritises protected deposits, followed by uncovered household and SME deposits.
Implications for Swedish institutions
For Swedish institutions, the CMDI reform signals tighter EU coordination on crisis management tools and deposit protection rules, reinforcing expectations that even smaller banks maintain credible resolution plans and sufficient MREL buffers.
A Tighter Consumer Credit Market
On 1 March 2025, amendments to the Swedish Consumer Credit Act (SFS 2010:1846) entered into force. These amendments introduced stricter rules on interest rate and cost caps, with the aim of counteracting high-risk lending and preventing individuals from becoming overindebted by granting loans they are unable to repay.
Under the new provisions, the credit interest rate or default interest rate on loans may not exceed the applicable reference rate by more than 20 percentage points. The previous cap of 40 percentage points has thus been both reduced and extended to cover all credits (except mortgage loans) under the Consumer Credit Act.
The amendments also expand the scope of the cost cap, which limits the total cost of credit. It now applies to all loans under the Consumer Credit Act, except for mortgage loans, overdraft facilities primarily connected to credit purchases, and loans where the credit amount is less than 2% of the price base amount.
A further restriction was introduced on the possibility of extending credit at a cost. A creditor may no longer extend the term more than once if doing so would impose an additional cost on the consumer. However, it is still permitted to extend the term at no cost or in connection with an agreement on a reasonable repayment plan.
Repeal of the Consumer Credit Operations Act
The most notable amendment, however, pertains to the repeal of the Certain Consumer Credit-related Operations Act (SFS 2014:275) (the “Consumer Credit Operations Act”) by the Swedish Parliament on 21 May 2025.
As of 1 July 2025, consumer credit may only be granted or brokered by banks and credit market companies authorised under the Swedish Banking and Financing Business Act (2004:297) (the “Banking Act”). Exceptions are made only for credit activities specifically regulated by other legislation, such as the Swedish Housing Credit Activities Act (SFS 2016:1024) and the Swedish Payment Services Act (SFS 2010:751).
When the Consumer Credit Operations Act was introduced in 2014, it was considered appropriate to impose a special licensing requirement for consumer credit institutions, but the regulation was made less onerous than that applicable to banks and credit market companies. In light of developments in the credit market and rising levels of overindebtedness, the Government and the Parliament have now concluded that this regulatory distinction is no longer justified. The Government Bill Enhanced Consumer Protection in the Credit Market (Sw. Stärkt konsumentskydd på kreditmarknaden, prop. 2024/25:138) emphasises that imposing equivalent requirements on credit intermediation and credit granting is both appropriate and proportionate, in order to prevent incentives to shift responsibility between credit providers and intermediaries. At the same time, it is emphasised that the repeal of the Consumer Credit Operations Act does not mean a ban on credit intermediation as such, but that it is credit intermediation that contributes to overindebtedness that should cease.
On 12 February 2025, the Council on Legislation (Sw. Lagrådet) issued a statement regarding the proposal. According to the statement, the Council recommended that the Parliament reject part of the Government’s proposal to repeal the Consumer Credit Operations Act. While the Council on Legislation’s statements are not formally binding, they have historically been respected by the Swedish Parliament and Government. According to the Council, the proposal that only Swedish or foreign credit institutions may conduct business activities aimed at providing or brokering credit to consumers would constitute a restriction on the constitutional freedom of enterprise, the freedom of establishment, and the freedom to provide services under EU law. Such restrictions must be proportionate, appropriate to achieve the desired objective, and must not go beyond what is necessary.
The Council on Legislation also rejected the part concerning consumer credit intermediaries and noted that the main reasons cited relate to credit granting and its negative consequences, not to credit intermediation. Although the Government acknowledges a lack of moderation in credit intermediaries’ marketing, the Council believes that repealing the Consumer Credit Operations Act is not the most effective measure to address aggressive marketing. Less far-reaching but still effective measures can be taken, for example, through changes to the rules on credit marketing. Moreover, the Council considered that the Government had not substantiated its argument regarding the risk of circumvention, nor had it demonstrated that the proposal was appropriate and proportionate given its restrictive impact on the freedom of trade and establishment of intermediaries. The Council recommended that this issue be further examined within the legislative process for implementing the EU’s new Consumer Credit Directive.
Notwithstanding the criticism mounted by industry stakeholders and the recommendation to reject the proposal by the Council on Legislation (a noteworthy occurrence in itself), the Swedish Parliament resolved to repeal the Consumer Credit Operations Act.
New Licensing Requirements for Consumer Credit Institutions
The repeal of the Consumer Credit Operations Act means that companies previously operating as consumer credit institutions must now obtain authorisation as credit institutions (banks or credit market companies) under the Banking Act to continue providing or brokering consumer credit.
The authorisation process is both lengthy and resource-intensive. It also imposes significantly more far-reaching requirements than previously, including capital requirements and requirements concerning governance, organisation, and risk management.
The legislative changes have also removed previous exemptions from the licensing requirement for payment institutions, electronic money institutions and mortgage credit institutions. This has relatively significant consequences for companies that offer consumer credit within the framework of a payment institution or a mortgage credit institution. However, companies that are authorised to carry out payment transactions through credit facilities under the Swedish Payment Services Act (SFS 2010:751) still have some scope to provide credit to consumers. The legislative amendments do not target credit under any regulations except the now-repealed Consumer Credit Operations Act.
However, it is crucial that such credit is provided strictly within the scope of payment transactions where the funds are covered by the user’s credit facility under the Payment Services Act. Should the credit fall outside this definition, a licence under the Banking Act is required. For mortgage credit institutions that also engage in consumer credit activities, such activities must therefore either be discontinued or the institution must apply for a license with the SFSA.
Applications are assessed by the SFSA, and the application fee is currently SEK 1,500,000. A grace period applies to enable an orderly transition. Companies that had a licence under the Consumer Credit Operations Act on 1 July 2025 may continue their operations until 31 July 2026, or until their application for a licence under the Banking Act has been finally assessed. For the business to continue after the end of the grace period, an application must be submitted and approved. Given the significant thresholds for authorisation under the Banking Act, it is probable that the majority of the approximately 70 independent consumer credit companies in Sweden will be wound up.
Companies applying must, among other things, meet the capital requirements under EU regulations and Swedish law, as well as the SFSA’s regulations, including minimum requirements for own funds (Pillar 1), additional capital (Pillar 2) and combined buffer requirements.
Proposals to Ease Mortgage Caps and Amend Repayment Requirements
While consumer protection has been tightened in the area of high-cost short-term credit, a parallel review of borrower-based macroprudential measures for mortgages is ongoing. The aim is to lower the thresholds to the housing market and strengthen households’ liquidity buffers.
In April 2023, a government committee was tasked with reviewing, inter alia, the mortgage cap and amortisation requirements. The Swedish Ministry of Finance presented a memorandum (Fi2025/01375) in June 2025 with proposals for consultation, which, if adopted, are proposed to enter into force on 1 April 2026.
The key proposals are:
raising the mortgage cap from 85-90% of the market value of the property;
lowering the maximum permitted total loan-to-value ratio to 80% for additional credit on existing mortgages;
abolition of the stricter amortisation requirement (additional one percentage point for debt ratios above 4.5), while other amortisation rules remain unchanged: at least 1% per year for loan-to-value ratios of 50–70% and at least 2% per year above 70%; and
transfer of the regulation of mortgage caps and amortisation requirements from SFSA’s regulations to law, for greater clarity and predictability.
The SFSA has analysed the effects of the mortgage cap. In a report dated 22 February 2024 The SFSA’s View on Raising the Mortgage Cap from 85-90%, the SFSA noted that unsecured loans have likely played a significant role in housing finance for certain borrower groups since the introduction of the cap in 2010. Between 2009 and 2018, annual new lending by niche banks for unsecured loans exceeding SEK50,000 increased from approximately SEK3 billion to SEK24 billion. Given that unsecured loans are typically more expensive than secured housing loans, this development may undermine consumer protection.
Several banks and industry representatives welcome measures that facilitate entry for young people and first-time buyers. At the same time, the SFSA, among others, has expressed concerns about increased indebtedness and rising house prices, with potential risks to financial stability. Many parties also emphasise the need for long-term supply-side measures, not least increased housing construction, to address the fundamental problems in the market.
Supervisory Activities on AML/CFT Compliance
Background
The SFSA has remained very active in supervisory activities related to AML/CFT. In recent years, the SFSA has initiated several investigations into the AML/CFT routines and processes at financial institutions to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. Several of these investigations are still ongoing and concern banks, as well as Swedish branches of banks licensed in other EEA countries.
A couple of recent sanction decisions made by the SFSA will now be looked at more closely.
Decision regarding Klarna Bank AB (bank)
In December 2024, the SFSA announced that Klarna Bank AB (“Klarna”) would receive a warning and a penalty fee of SEK500 million for violations of key parts of the anti-money laundering regulations, including the rules for general risk assessment and customer due diligence procedures. In its decision, the SFSA pointed out that the general risk assessment had significant shortcomings, including a lack of assessment of how Klarna’s products and services could be used for money laundering or terrorist financing. Klarna’s general risk assessment included typologies based on information from authorities, but lacked explanatory descriptions of how they are relevant to the bank’s operations. In addition, the general risk assessment showed that Klarna sent 61 suspicious activity reports to the Police Authority during the first four months of 2021, yet the bank did not take into account the information and circumstances that emerged from these reports in its general risk assessment.
Furthermore, the SFSA considered that Klarna lacked procedures and guidelines covering all situations in which customer due diligence measures must be taken with regard to customers who use the invoice product. These situations primarily involve defining business relationships and establishing a procedure for model risk management concerning customer due diligence requirements.
The decision states, among other things, that Klarna established specific criteria for determining when customer due diligence measures should apply to consumers using the invoice product. The assessments had been made on the basis of these criteria, which had been standardised and automated. According to the SFSA, the procedure used by Klarna constituted a model within the meaning of the Money Laundering Act, but Klarna had no routine for model risk management for that model.
Overall, the sanction decision highlights the importance of linking all risks and risk assessments to the company’s specific services and characteristics.
Engelbrektsplan 1
Box 7225, 103 89 Stockholm
Tel +46 (0)8 20 40 11
+46 (0)8 20 40 11
info@harvestadvokat.se www.harvestadvokat.se