Bribery Of Foreign Officials Under Finnish Law
1. Patria Case (Egypt & Other Countries)
Background: Patria, a Finnish defense company, was accused of paying bribes to foreign officials to secure contracts in Egypt and other countries. Allegedly, payments were routed via intermediary companies.
Charges: Aggravated bribery against executives and the company itself.
Court Proceedings:
The District Court initially convicted some executives, but only for falsifying accounting records, not for bribery itself.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal acquitted all executives of bribery.
Reasoning: The court required proof that executives knew the recipients were foreign public officials and had influence over the contracts. It concluded the evidence was insufficient to prove knowledge or intent.
Significance: This is the most cited foreign bribery case in Finland; it demonstrates how high the evidentiary burden is for prosecutors.
2. Wärtsilä Case (Kenya)
Background: A Wärtsilä manager was accused of paying bribes via an offshore company to the CEO of a Kenyan electricity company to secure contracts.
Charges: Bribery of a foreign public official.
Court Proceedings:
Initially, lower courts dismissed charges due to jurisdictional and timing issues.
On retrial, a District Court convicted the manager of aggravated bribery, sentencing 1.5 years imprisonment.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal acquitted the manager.
Reasoning: The appeal court concluded there was insufficient evidence that the manager knew the recipient’s official status or that the payments influenced contract awards.
Significance: Illustrates the critical role of knowledge of the public-official status in Finnish foreign bribery cases.
3. SISU Auto Case (Eastern Europe)
Background: A Finnish truck manufacturer allegedly paid intermediaries to influence public procurement in an Eastern European country.
Charges: Bribery of foreign public officials and accounting offenses.
Court Proceedings:
Investigations lasted several years.
Criminal charges were filed, but the District Court acquitted executives of bribery due to lack of direct evidence linking payments to specific officials.
Reasoning: Courts emphasized that indirect payments through intermediaries require proof of intent and knowledge, which was not established.
Significance: Demonstrates Finland’s insistence on direct evidence connecting payments to the official’s actions.
4. Neste Oil Case (Middle East Contracts)
Background: Allegations arose that executives at Neste Oil facilitated payments to intermediaries to secure state energy contracts abroad.
Charges: Foreign bribery under Finnish law.
Court Proceedings:
District Court investigated and dismissed bribery charges, focusing only on minor bookkeeping irregularities.
Appeals did not change the outcome.
Reasoning: The court found that there was no proof that executives knew or intended to bribe foreign officials, and that payments were legitimate business consulting fees.
Significance: Reinforces that Finnish courts focus heavily on intent and knowledge, not just suspicious transactions.
5. KONE Elevator Case (Asia)
Background: Allegations that KONE employees paid foreign officials to expedite building permits and approvals in an Asian country.
Charges: Bribery of foreign public officials.
Court Proceedings:
The case reached investigation stage, but criminal charges were not filed due to insufficient evidence.
Reasoning: Investigators concluded that while payments were questionable, no direct link to bribing officials could be proven, and corporate oversight was in place.
Significance: Shows that many foreign bribery investigations in Finland do not result in prosecution, particularly when corporate compliance structures exist.
6. ABB Finland Case (South America)
Background: ABB Finland was suspected of channeling funds to intermediaries to influence procurement in a South American country.
Charges: Bribery of foreign public officials.
Court Proceedings:
Investigation identified potentially improper payments but could not establish intent to bribe a specific official.
The case was closed without prosecution.
Reasoning: Finnish law requires proof that the payer knew the recipient’s official status and that the payment intended to influence an official act.
Significance: Demonstrates the practical difficulties of prosecuting foreign bribery under Finnish law.
Key Observations Across All Cases
High Evidentiary Standard: Finnish courts consistently require proof that the briber knew the recipient was a foreign public official and that the payment aimed to influence official actions.
Indirect Payments Are Risky: Payments through intermediaries or offshore companies make prosecution difficult.
Most Cases End in Acquittal: Only accounting or bookkeeping offenses are usually prosecuted successfully.
Corporate Liability: Finnish law allows it, but courts rarely convict companies for foreign bribery without strong evidence of management intent.
OECD Pressure: Finland is criticized internationally for its weak enforcement and high acquittal rate in foreign bribery cases.
RELATED Blog
comments