If the charge is proved, liability follows under Section 24 of the Restraining Orders Act (1988:688), carrying imprisonment for up to one year, or a fine if the offence is minor.
If a restraining order has been breached, an extended restraining order must be combined with electronic monitoring, unless there are special reasons against doing so.
The new risk of prosecution lies in each attempted contact, because the prohibition also covers attempts to reach the protected person digitally. The legal issue is whether the man’s calls, text messages and Instagram messages during September and October 2025 breached an existing restraining order. This is determined primarily by Sections 1, 12, 22 and 24 of the Restraining Orders Act (1988:688).
The prosecutor must prove that a restraining order was in force and that the alleged contacts fell within the meaning of the prohibition. The material indicates several attempted contacts with Frida Karlsson and also contact with her mother, Mia.
The practical outcome depends first on whether the court assesses the contacts as breaches and not as minor offences. A conviction may therefore result in a fine, but the penalty scale extends to imprisonment for up to one year under Section 24 of the Restraining Orders Act (1988:688). For Frida Karlsson, the consequence may be continued or strengthened protection, particularly if the court views the new contacts as an escalation. For the man, the consequence may be both a new criminal conviction and stricter restraining-order conditions. The previous case remains procedurally relevant, because both the man and the prosecutor have appealed the judgment from April 2025.
After signature, the centre of gravity shifts from freedom from conflict to contractual binding force. If a party considers that the notice was unlawful, the practical route is a labour dispute before the Labour Court under Section 1 of the Labour Disputes Act.
Dynami must accept the collective agreement as a binding source of law, not as a unilateral undertaking that can be set aside. The fact that the agreement was concluded after notice of strike action does not render it invalid, provided that the purpose of the industrial action was to secure collective-agreement coverage and the other conditions were met. The precise legal issue is whether the Swedish Electricians’ Union’s notice constituted lawful industrial action aimed at obtaining a collective agreement. That issue is governed primarily by Sections 41, 41 b, 41 d, 42 and 43 of the Employment Co-Determination Act (1976:580), and by the jurisdictional rule in Section 1 of the Labour Disputes (Judicial Procedure) Act (1974:371). An industrial action must not be unlawful under Section 41 of the Employment Co-Determination Act, including by breaching the duty to maintain industrial peace or by pursuing a dispute of rights. For small family businesses, Section 41 b protects against industrial action aimed at securing a collective agreement, but Dynami has 14 employees. Once a collective agreement has been concluded, it is binding under Section 26, and conflicting agreements are invalid under Section 27.
Dynami describes the collective agreement as voluntary but economically difficult to refuse. That description does not alter the legal position, because the applicable framework regulates when industrial action is unlawful, not how strongly commercial pressure may be felt. The Electricians’ Union’s demand was directed at an employer with employees and, according to the report, was intended to secure a collective agreement. That indicates that the action falls within the permitted core, provided that the decision and negotiations were carried out in the proper manner. Under Section 41 d, the action is unlawful if it was not duly decided by the employee organisation. It is also unlawful if the purpose is not to establish collective-agreement coverage between the employer and the employee organisation. It is unlawful if the employee organisation has not negotiated its demands, unless there was an obstacle outside the organisation. It is unlawful if the requested agreement is intended to displace an existing collective agreement. The material does not state that Dynami was already bound by another collective agreement. There is therefore no apparent obstacle under the rule on displacement of an existing collective agreement. Section 41 means that employers and employees bound by a collective agreement may not use strikes, lockouts, blockades or boycotts in certain contractual disputes and disputes of rights. The company’s previous flexibility may therefore continue only within the framework of the collective agreement. A local agreement on terms that conflict with the agreement cannot be made valid under Section 27. If unlawful industrial action is nevertheless taken, organisations may not organise, support or participate in it under Section 42. If bound employees take unlawful industrial action, the employer and the relevant employee organisation must confer immediately under Section 43. Disputes concerning industrial action under Sections 41, 41 b and 41 c are heard by the Labour Court as the court of first instance under Section 1 of the Labour Disputes (Judicial Procedure) Act.
For Dynami, the practical consequence is that personnel matters such as overtime, training and employment terms must now be handled against the binding norms of the collective agreement. Bonuses, flexibility and employee benefits may remain, but not on terms that conflict with the agreement. For the union, the consequence is that the use of industrial action becomes more limited after the agreement has been concluded. Once the agreement applies, the duty to maintain industrial peace under Section 41 enters into effect for the matters covered by the Act and the agreement. For other employers, the case shows that collective-agreement coverage can be achieved through lawful industrial action even where the level of union membership is lower. The report states that 66 percent were unionised in 2024 and that collective-agreement coverage was around 90 percent. If the notice complied with Section 41 d, the collective agreement remains binding under Section 26.
For ordinary extortion, the penalty under Chapter 9, Section 4 of the Swedish Penal Code is imprisonment for at most three years.
For aggravated extortion, the same provision prescribes imprisonment for not less than two and not more than eight years.
The convicted individuals face sanctions that already show that the court treated the threats as punishable attempts at extortion, not as debt collection. The old debt therefore does not alter the legal position, since the demand, according to the judgment, was accompanied by threats and claims for sums in the millions.
Here, according to the material, the district court convicted five men, but the sanctions differ depending on role, age and participation. The 29-year-old who conveyed the demand via speakerphone was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment for attempted extortion. One of the youths was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment for the same offence, while two others received youth care and probation.
The immediate legal position is that the convicted individuals must serve the sanctions imposed by Jönköping District Court, if the judgment stands. For the family, the judgment means that the threats have legally been classified as attempted extortion involving demands for sums in the millions.