A Swedish court upheld the dismissal of a Migration Agency case officer after finding the agency had lawful grounds to fire him based on security concerns linked to contacts with Iranian intelligence operatives and people connected to organized crime.
In a ruling published on Friday, Solna District Court said the employee had, over several years, maintained extensive contacts with "an Iranian intelligence officer, an agent linked to refugee espionage and individuals connected to a motorcycle gang environment," according to Swedish media.
The court said the contacts posed "a concrete risk" that sensitive information held by the Migration Agency could be passed on and amounted to a serious breach of the employee's duty of loyalty.
National security concerns
The Migration Agency argued it was particularly vulnerable to foreign intelligence activity because it holds information on asylum seekers, Iranian government critics and others who could be of interest to foreign states.
The court agreed that the employee's contacts were incompatible with his position, saying they undermined confidence in both the individual and the agency.
Court rejects appeal
The former official, who had worked at the agency since 2016 and was dismissed in February 2025, sought reinstatement and damages, arguing the agency lacked sufficient grounds to dismiss him.
The court rejected the claims, found testimony from Sweden's Security Service (Säpo) to be credible and detailed, and ruled the agency had acted within the legal time limit for the dismissal.
The former employee was also ordered to pay the state 168,000 Swedish kronor ($17,600) in legal costs.
The newspaper wrote that banking outages have become almost routine for many Iranians over the past two years. Cards stop working, ATMs and mobile banking services fail, customers line up outside branches, and officials ask people to be patient and follow news from official sources.
Then, after hours, days or sometimes weeks, services return without a full explanation of the cause, the damage, the vulnerable points in the system or the responsibility of the banks and regulators involved.
The latest wave of disruption hit several major banks in June, including Melli, Saderat, Tejarat and the Export Development Bank of Iran. Mobile banking, internet banking, ATMs, point-of-sale terminals and card-based services were disrupted. The Coordination Council of Banks and the Informatics Services Corporation confirmed cyberattacks but said customer data remained safe.
Days later, another wider disruption affected card-based services across the banking network, with Melli, Saderat and Tejarat again among the banks most affected. The Informatics Services Corporation said some services had been deliberately restricted to prevent unauthorized access and protect customers’ data and assets.
But Shargh said many users were still reporting problems even after officials said services had been restored. The paper said ordinary transactions had become difficult for some people, including buying bread, paying taxi fares and transferring or receiving money.
The pattern is not new. During the 12-day Iran-Israel war last year, Bank Sepah suffered a major cyberattack that disrupted non-branch services.
The hacker group Predatory Sparrow claimed responsibility and said it had destroyed part of the bank’s infrastructure. Bank Pasargad was also hit shortly afterward. The government confirmed attacks on both banks and said public data had not been harmed, but full restoration of some services took days or weeks.
Shargh said the repeated failures have left one central question unanswered: why does Iran’s banking network collapse every few months, while no transparent report is published on the cause of the attacks, the scale of the damage or the responsibility of the institutions in charge?
Nima Amirshakari, an electronic banking specialist, told Shargh that the root of the problem is Iran’s weak connection to the outside world. He said parts of the country’s banking infrastructure are nearly three decades old and were built around systems bought long ago from foreign companies.
According to Amirshakari, many of those systems have been expanded through hardware upgrades, with more processors, storage and equipment, but their core software has not been properly modernized. A system that is not updated, patched or redesigned, he said, becomes easier for attackers to predict.
He argued that banks connected to the global financial system are forced to keep pace with changing standards in security, credit, lending and technology. Iranian banks, by contrast, operate in a closed environment where modernization is often treated as a choice rather than a necessity.
Shargh also quoted cybersecurity expert Saeed Souzangar as saying that the problem is not just technology. Sanctions, internet restrictions, weak administrative structures and limited investment in skilled personnel have left many institutions with expensive equipment but not enough expertise to use it securely.
Souzangar said banks and regulators in Iran do not appear to face a serious obligation to inform the public during cyber incidents. In many countries, organizations hit by cyberattacks must explain the scope of the incident, the number of users affected and the corrective steps taken. In Iran, he said, such reporting is often replaced by short and general statements.
That absence of accountability may be the most damaging part of the crisis. If banks face no clear legal, financial or reputational cost for service failures or security weaknesses, there is little pressure to invest seriously in prevention, training and public reporting.
The latest attacks have also triggered a political dispute over whether access to the international internet made the banking system more vulnerable.
Some officials blamed the reopening of internet access, but Behdad Akbari, deputy communications minister and head of Iran’s Infrastructure Communications Company, rejected the claim, saying the affected core banking systems were not connected to the public internet.
Shargh’s experts said blaming internet access alone is not a serious explanation. Internet restrictions can weaken security by limiting updates and access to global tools, but the causes of repeated banking failures cannot be reduced to a single technical claim without a proper investigation.
Iran finished third in Group G with three points from three draws after Belgium beat New Zealand 5-1 in the simultaneous match to top the group. Egypt also advanced, finishing second on five points but behind Belgium on goal difference.
The draw leaves Iran in the ranking of third-placed teams, with the expanded 48-team World Cup sending the top two teams from each group and the eight best third-placed teams into the Round of 32.
Iran can still qualify with three points if one of several remaining results goes its way: Ghana beats Croatia, DR Congo fail to beat Uzbekistan, or the Austria-Algeria match produces a winner.
Any one of those outcomes would be enough to keep Iran inside the qualifying places among third-placed teams.
The match began badly for Iran. Mahmoud Saber scored for Egypt in the fifth minute, the fastest World Cup goal in Egypt’s history, after Iran failed to clear inside the area.
Iran had a quick chance to respond when Mehdi Taremi stepped up for a penalty six minutes later, but Egypt goalkeeper Ahmed Shobeir saved his shot.
Ramin Rezaeian equalized in the 14th minute, finishing from a tight angle after Milad Mohammadi’s shot had been pushed away.
Rezaeian has now scored in two of Iran’s three matches at this World Cup, after also scoring in the opening 2-2 draw with New Zealand.
The game then settled after a frantic start. Egypt lost Mohamed Salah in the second half when he was substituted in the 57th minute, apparently because of discomfort in his hamstring.
Iran’s biggest moment came deep into stoppage time. Shoja Khalilzadeh appeared to have scored a late winner that would have sent Iran through automatically, but the goal was ruled out for offside after a VAR review.
Moments later, Saeid Ezatolahi struck the post from close range, leaving Iran with another draw and no control over its own qualification.
Iran had entered the final group match after two draws: 2-2 against New Zealand in its opener and 0-0 against Belgium in its second game.
The three-match unbeaten run is the first time Iran has completed a World Cup group stage without defeat, though it has still not won a match at the tournament.
The result is therefore both Iran’s strongest unbeaten group-stage return and another missed opportunity.
The match also took place in a politically charged atmosphere for Iranians.
The national team remains a divisive symbol for many inside Iran and across the diaspora, with some viewing it as a football team to be separated from politics and others seeing it as inseparable from the Islamic Republic it officially represents.
Those tensions had already followed Iran through the tournament. Before the Egypt match, FIFA said rainbow flags would be allowed inside the stadium, while Iran’s pre-revolutionary Lion and Sun flag remained barred from World Cup venues under rules against political symbols.
