Institution associated with network resources
Svea Eknonomi Abuse Role
Svea Eknonomi Abuse Role is a institution associated with network resources with public network-resource records including AS9045, AS211899, AS41634.
- Institution associated with network resources
At a glance
- Autonomous system numberLinked with AS9045, AS211899, AS41634High confidence
Basic information
- Display nameSvea Eknonomi Abuse RoleHigh confidence
- Legal typeInstitutionHigh confidence
- Directory categoryInstitutionHigh confidence
- Last updatedJun 12, 2026High confidence
Locations
- Geography scopeUnavailableUnrated
Network identity
- Autonomous system numberAS9045High confidence
- Autonomous system numberAS211899High confidence
- Autonomous system numberAS41634High confidence
Other network resources
- NetworkSvea Eknonomi Abuse Role ASN/IP network resourcesHigh confidence
People and contacts
- ContactsPolicy, AbuseMedium confidence
- Available contact typesPolicy, AbuseMedium confidence
Registry and related records
- Editorial contextCompleted According to Whose Plan? Svea Bank's Self-Reported AML Remediation Meets the Regulator's Record, When Sweden's financial supervisor Finansinspektionen (FI) announced a sanction against Svea Bank AB on 17 December 2025, the operational part of the decision contained exactly two points: a formal remark (anmärkning) and an administrative fine of SEK 170 million. There was no remediation order, no reporting obligation, and no regulator-defined list of corrective milestones. Ten months later, the bank's own Annual Report 2025 declares the outcome: "All measures have now been completed according to plan." This article asks what such a claim can mean when the plan was never published, the validation comes from an audit function inside the same corporate structure that owns the claim, and the same report mischaracterizes the sanction itself — calling it "a warning" when the regulator's decision imposed a distinct and lower sanction level.Medium confidence
- Editorial contextThree Names on One Netblock: How Custody of Svea's Legacy Abuse Contact Split Across a Merger, When a Swedish bank merges, its internet number resources do not disappear — they inherit. The RIPE Database record for 193.105.138.0/24 is a rare case where you can read the aftermath directly in a public registry object: three distinct legal parties, one dissolved predecessor, and an abuse contact that still resolves to a carrier domain nobody at the bank administers. This investigation traces how custody of that record split across the January 2022 merger, and asks what would have to change in the record for accountability over it to re-attach to the operator who routes the block today.Medium confidence
- Editorial contextThree Months After the Fine: No Follow-Up, No Appeal, No Documented Remedy for Svea Bank, On 17 December 2025, Sweden's financial supervisor Finansinspektionen (FI) gave Svea Bank AB (org. no. 556158-7634) a formal remark (anmärkning) and a sanction fee of SEK 170 million for breaches of core anti-money-laundering rules (https://www.fi.se/sv/publicerat/sanktioner/finansiella-foretag/2025/svea-bank-far-en-anmarkning-och-en-sanktionsavgift/). The decision, FI dnr 23-13249, contains exactly two operative points — the remark and the fee — with no remediation order (föreläggande) and no reporting obligation (https://www.fi.se/contentassets/d388bf1d1d1c47a1ac5dff513567510c/beslut-svea.pdf). Three months later, the public record shows what has and has not happened since: no FI follow-up against Svea, no appeal by Svea of this decision, and no independent, documented remediation from either of the two accountability channels that surround the bank — the regulator's sanction and the RIPE registry's annually validated abuse contact on the legacy netblock 193.105.138.0/24. Both channels verify signals. Neither yet proves that anything was repaired.Medium confidence
- Editorial contextSanctioned but Not Ordered: Svea's Two Accountability Channels, When a Swedish financial regulator fined Svea Bank AB 170 million kronor in December 2025, the fine made headlines. What the decision itself ordered — and, more precisely, what it did not — tells a sharper story about where accountability for the bank and for its internet-facing abuse-contact chain actually verifies anything. This investigation reads the regulator's decision text against the registry policy that governs the abuse contact displayed for Svea's legacy routed network block, and finds two accountability channels that each check something other than working remedy.Medium confidence
- Editorial contextThe Mailbox Was Never the Remedy: Where Accountability Actually Fired in the Svea Abuse-Contact ChainMedium confidence
- Editorial contextThe Svea Abuse-Role Record: Validated Contactability, No Documented ProcessingMedium confidence
- Editorial contextThe Mailbox That Exists Only in the Registry: Svea's Abuse Contact and the Limits of "Valid"Medium confidence
- Editorial contextControl Split: Who Held Prevention and Detection on the Svea Abuse-Contact Surface, Svea Ekonomi AB merged into Svea Bank AB on 3 January 2022, but the RIPE registry objects that describe the group's abuse-contact surface have barely moved since 2021 and 2022. A timestamp-by-timestamp reading shows that recent maintenance in this chain fell almost entirely on the sponsoring-LIR side, not on Svea's own records — while the only accountability that demonstrably fired in this case was an independent Swedish regulator acting on a different failure channel entirely.Medium confidence
Source basis
- public registry sourcePublic registry sourceHigh confidence
Related research
- Primary articleCompleted According to Whose Plan? Svea Bank's Self-Reported AML Remediation Meets the Regulator's RecordHigh confidence
- Primary articleThree Names on One Netblock: How Custody of Svea's Legacy Abuse Contact Split Across a MergerHigh confidence
- Primary articleThree Months After the Fine: No Follow-Up, No Appeal, No Documented Remedy for Svea BankHigh confidence
- Primary articleSanctioned but Not Ordered: Svea's Two Accountability ChannelsHigh confidence
- Primary articleThe Mailbox Was Never the Remedy: Where Accountability Actually Fired in the Svea Abuse-Contact ChainHigh confidence
- Primary articleThe Svea Abuse-Role Record: Validated Contactability, No Documented ProcessingHigh confidence
- Primary articleThe Mailbox That Exists Only in the Registry: Svea's Abuse Contact and the Limits of "Valid"High confidence
- Primary articleControl Split: Who Held Prevention and Detection on the Svea Abuse-Contact SurfaceHigh confidence
- Primary articleThe Ladder That Has Not Fired: What the Public Record Shows About Enforcement on the Svea Abuse-Contact SurfaceHigh confidence
- Primary articleThe Chain That Was Touched: Where Attention Fell in the Svea Abuse-Contact RecordHigh confidence
- Primary articleFiling the Complaint: The Public Remedy Path Behind the Svea Abuse ContactHigh confidence
- Primary articleThe Remedy That RIPE Policy Already Defines: What Compliance Would Look Like for the Svea Abuse SurfaceHigh confidence
- Primary articleRegistered Valid, Operationally Unproven: Where the Svea Abuse Surface Stands After the Finansinspektionen SanctionHigh confidence
- Primary articleWhat Would Prove the Repair Is Durable? The Svea Abuse Roles After the Finansinspektionen SanctionHigh confidence
- Primary articleNearly Four Years After the Merger, the Svea Abuse Surface Still Splits Between Record and ResponsibilityHigh confidence
- Primary articleRegistered Validity Is Not Accountability: What the Svea Abuse Roles Prove After the MergerHigh confidence
- Primary articleWho Answers When the Registry Names a Company That No Longer Exists: The Svea Remedy Path in the RIPE RecordHigh confidence
- Primary articleWhen the Registry Outlives the Company: Who Answers the Svea Abuse Line?High confidence
- Primary articleWhen Abuse Contacts Outlive the Company They Name: Inside the Svea Registry RecordHigh confidence