Swedish financial surveillance: Finansinspektionen requirements and best practices
In this article, we'll summarise how FI supervises the market, what challenges companies run into, and how to design a surveillance framework that keeps pace with both regulation and reality.
Sweden is home to one of Europe’s most trusted and transparent financial markets, and Finansinspektionen (FI) plays a key role in maintaining that reputation.
For compliance teams, working with FI’s expectations is less about reacting to problems and more about building the kind of structure that supports long-term resilience.
Whether you're handling MAR reporting, algorithmic trading governance, or AML integration, a well-aligned surveillance setup doesn’t just reduce risk, but it also gives you clarity in daily operations and confidence during audits.
In this article, we'll summarise how FI supervises the market, what challenges companies run into, and how to design a surveillance framework that keeps pace with both regulation and reality.
Why FI compliance matters even more in 2025
Sweden’s financial markets are globally connected, technologically advanced, and highly regulated.
At the centre of that oversight is Finansinspektionen (FI), or the Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority, tasked with ensuring market integrity, investor protection, and financial stability.
For firms operating in Sweden, compliance with Finansinspektionen (FI) goes beyond local obligations.
Since Swedish law incorporates EU-wide frameworks such as the Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) and the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II (MiFID II), gaps in compliance can lead to both national and cross-border consequences.
At the same time, fraud continues to be one of the most widespread financial crime risks across Europe, making collaboration between regulators and jurisdictions a top priority for financial institutions throughout the EU.
What FI supervises, and how
FI supervises a broad range of institutions, from banks and investment firms to insurers and market operators. Its surveillance expectations align with EU standards but are enforced with Swedish-specific priorities, such as:
- Market abuse prevention under MAR.
- Transaction and order monitoring under MiFID II/MiFIR.
- AML/CTF requirements, including enhanced due diligence for high-risk customers.
To meet Finansinspektionen’s expectations, firms must ensure that core compliance components are well-integrated and consistently applied in their operations.
This includes timely and well-documented submission of STORs (suspicious transaction and order reports) when market abuse is suspected, with clear reasoning and supporting evidence.
Surveillance coverage should span all relevant trading venues and asset classes, including OTC (over-the-counter) activity, and be capable of detecting patterns across fragmented flows.
Recordkeeping is equally essential: firms are required to retain both trade data and communications records for a minimum of five years, with systems in place to retrieve and review them efficiently.
In the area of algorithmic trading, FI expects thorough governance, including pre-trade controls, kill-switch mechanisms, and testing routines that reflect the Swedish market conditions.
Surveillance must also be connected with AML processes, particularly when trading activity involves high-risk clients or unusual patterns that could indicate financial crime.
Lastly, FI places strong emphasis on staff competence. Firms should ensure that surveillance and compliance teams receive regular, scenario-based training that covers MAR, MiFID II, and Sweden-specific enforcement practices.
Common compliance gaps
Strong compliance requires more than good intentions. FI places high expectations on firms, and gaps often arise when systems, thresholds, or reporting practices are not fully aligned with Swedish and EU standards. The most frequent shortcomings are:
- Reliance on fragmented systems that separate trade and communications surveillance.
- Failure to adjust thresholds for Swedish market conditions and asset-class characteristics.
- Neglect of cross-border reporting obligations when activity impacts other EU markets.
- Underestimation of the explainability requirement: FI expects detailed reasoning behind every STOR.
Best practices for meeting FI standards
Meeting FI standards calls for a structured approach that aligns technology, processes, and people with regulatory expectations.
By building a framework that is both thorough and adaptable, firms can strengthen their compliance posture and reduce risk.
- Centralise data across venues: Integrate all Swedish and relevant cross-border trading activity into a single surveillance platform.
- Localise detection rules: Calibrate alert thresholds to match Swedish market structure and FI enforcement focus.
- Integrate AML and market abuse monitoring: Ensure suspicious trades linked to high-risk clients are escalated in both frameworks.
- Maintain audit-ready workflows: Document detection logic, investigation steps, and decision-making rationale for each case.
- Continuous training: Use scenario-based training that reflects both MAR/MiFID II rules and FI enforcement examples.
Looking ahead: FI's evolving priorities
Crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) are receiving increased regulatory attention following the implementation of the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA). At the same time, cross-border coordination between national competent authorities (NCAs) is expected to expand, particularly in areas such as insider trading and market manipulation, where activity often spans multiple jurisdictions.
Talk to a Trapets expert and find out how technology for market and trade surveillance can help you prepare for FI's current and future demands.