Bouppteckningseden - uppkomst, syfte och nödvändighet

Sammanfattning: Under bankruptcy law the estate inventory-oath aims to persuade the debtor to disclose all the assets of the bankruptcy estate truthfully. This essay deals with the origin of oath from a legal historical perspective, with of aim of defining its purpose. It further examines the status of the estate inventory-oath in the current bankruptcy law and how necessary it is in practice. A study of legal history shows that the estate inventory-oath has been a hallmark of Swedish bankruptcy law since its inception. This is due largely to the nature of Swedish bankruptcy law and its focus on protecting the interests of creditors. A focus on the interest of creditors made gathering accurate and complete information on the assets of a bankruptcy estate of paramount of importance. Oaths were the methodology used in order to compel the debtor to provide accurate and complete information about the assets of the estate. The religious character of the oath was associated with the emergence which was at a time when religion played a crucial role and its religious nature emphasized the importance of the debtor truthfulness. The oath's religious nature was removed over time and the oath was developed. Initially, it was the debtor himself who had to establish the estate inventory and submit it to the Court. The debtor had only to establish the estate inventory truthfully. Later on this obligation came to mean that the debtor could be forced to swear an oath before a Court if any of the creditors demanded it. Eventually, the oath before a court became a general rule and has persisted in the Swedish bankruptcy law since that time. A recent governmental law committee addressed the issue if whether the mandatory oathmaking before a Court should be abolished since it is a time consuming and costly process for the Courts. The committee suggested that the mandatory oathmaking should be replaced by a meeting before the bankrupt’s receiver where the debtor in writing would confirm the truthfulness of the information contained in the estate inventory. The optional oathmaking would remain and be held before the Court at the request of the bankrupt’s receiver, the monitoring authority and creditors when it was considered justified. The group further suggested that the oath would still be criminally sanctioned. The proposal received mixed reviews during the consultative process. There were several instances where it was said that the swearing of an oath before the Court emphasized the debtor’s duty of truth and facilitated the bankrupt’s receiver’s undertaking. These arguments were given considerable weight during deliberations because they came from professionals who handled bankruptcies on a regular basis. A new law committee investigated the matter again and reaffirmed the previous commission's proposal to abolish the mandatory oathmaking before a Court and replace it with an oathmeeting before the bankrupt’s receiver. The proposed law reform has been circulated for comment and it received mixed reactions among the respondents, but has not resulted in any legislative reform to date and is postponed until further notice.