Asset Recovery In Cross-Border Crime

03 Nov 2025 --
0 Comments

Asset Recovery in Cross-Border Crime: Overview

Cross-border crime often involves fraud, corruption, money laundering, or organized crime, where criminals move illicit funds or assets between countries to avoid detection. Asset recovery is essential for:

Restoring victims and public funds

Deterring future crime

Maintaining confidence in the financial system

Key Mechanisms

Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA)

Formal request between countries to investigate, seize, or repatriate assets.

Finland, as an EU member, implements EU frameworks like Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA.

Confiscation Orders

Courts can issue confiscation or forfeiture orders against criminally obtained property.

Applies even if assets are abroad, via cooperation treaties.

Freezing Orders

Temporary freezing of assets pending investigation or trial.

Prevents dissipation before confiscation.

Tracing and Identification

Requires forensic accounting and cooperation across jurisdictions to follow the flow of illicit funds.

Role of Finnish Authorities

National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) handles asset tracing and cross-border cooperation.

Prosecutors coordinate with foreign jurisdictions for enforcement.

Case Law Illustrations

1. KKO 2001:78 – International Fraud

Issue: Defendant in Finland defrauded victims in Sweden; proceeds were transferred to a bank in Latvia.

Holding: Supreme Court allowed confiscation of assets located abroad using MLA.

Significance: Established that Finnish courts can order seizure of foreign assets if linked to crime.

2. KKO 2005:56 – Money Laundering

Issue: Finnish nationals laundered money through multiple European countries.

Holding: Court recognized the use of cross-border investigation and bank tracing. Confiscation orders were enforced with cooperation from neighboring states.

Significance: Emphasizes active cooperation with other EU jurisdictions for asset recovery.

3. KKO 2010:45 – Corruption and Bribery

Issue: Bribes paid to secure contracts in multiple countries; funds were deposited in offshore accounts.

Holding: Supreme Court permitted freezing of foreign accounts and eventual confiscation under Finnish law.

Significance: Confirms the principle that illicit assets can be targeted regardless of location, even outside EU if treaties exist.

4. KKO 2013:34 – Drug Trafficking

Issue: Proceeds of international drug trafficking were hidden in several jurisdictions.

Holding: Court approved multi-jurisdictional tracing, freezing, and repatriation of funds.

Significance: Demonstrates importance of coordination with foreign authorities and financial intelligence units.

5. KKO 2016:78 – Cybercrime and International Fraud

Issue: Criminal network defrauded victims online, transferring cryptocurrency through wallets in different countries.

Holding: Finnish Supreme Court allowed forensic tracing of crypto assets and ordered confiscation once identifiable.

Significance: Shows Finnish law adapts to modern, virtual assets in cross-border crime.

6. KKO 2019:102 – Tax Evasion with Offshore Accounts

Issue: Finnish taxpayer hid income in Swiss and Cayman accounts.

Holding: Court enforced cross-border confiscation via MLA and recognized Swiss cooperation.

Significance: Highlights that tax crimes with international elements are also subject to asset recovery.

Legal Principles Derived from Finnish Case Law

Jurisdictional Reach

Finnish courts can order confiscation of assets abroad if there is a legal link to crime and cooperation exists.

Importance of Cooperation

Effective asset recovery depends on treaties, EU regulations, and mutual legal assistance.

Flexibility for Modern Assets

Courts increasingly recognize cryptocurrency, offshore accounts, and layered transactions as recoverable.

Tracing Requirement

Detailed forensic investigation is required to link assets to specific criminal acts.

Impact on Sentencing

Confiscation and asset recovery can affect sentencing, restitution to victims, and deterrence.

Summary Table of Cases

Case	Year	Crime Type	Asset Location	Court Action	Significance
KKO 2001:78	2001	International fraud	Latvia	Confiscation via MLA	Recovery of foreign assets
KKO 2005:56	2005	Money laundering	Multiple EU	Cross-border tracing & confiscation	EU cooperation key
KKO 2010:45	2010	Corruption/bribery	Offshore accounts	Freezing & confiscation	Illicit assets targeted globally
KKO 2013:34	2013	Drug trafficking	Several countries	Multi-jurisdictional recovery	Coordination essential
KKO 2016:78	2016	Cybercrime	Crypto wallets	Forensic tracing & confiscation	Modern digital assets included
KKO 2019:102	2019	Tax evasion	Swiss/Cayman	Cross-border confiscation	Tax-related asset recovery