Bribery Of Public Officials In Finland
Bribery of Public Officials in Finland: Legal Framework
Bribery in Finland is primarily governed by the Finnish Criminal Code (Rikoslaki 39/1889), particularly:
Chapter 16, Section 1: Bribery of Public Officials (lahjonta)
Criminalises offering, giving, or promising a bribe to a public official to influence official duties.
Applies to civil servants, judges, police officers, tax officials, and other public servants.
Chapter 16, Section 2: Acceptance of Bribe
Criminalises public officials who accept or solicit bribes in exchange for performing or refraining from official duties.
Aggravated Bribery (Chapter 16, Section 3)
Applies when bribery involves large sums, significant public interest, or serious abuse of office.
Penalties include imprisonment ranging from 4 months to 6 years depending on severity.
Other Related Offences
Embezzlement, misconduct in office, or corruption may be charged alongside bribery.
Finnish courts emphasise public trust and integrity as key factors in sentencing.
Case Law Illustrations
1. KKO 2002:49 – Minor Bribery by Municipal Official
Facts:
A municipal official received small gifts from a local contractor in exchange for favoring their bids.
Court Findings:
Court found the gifts constituted improper influence over official duties.
No large sums involved, but the principle of integrity was violated.
Outcome:
Conviction for minor bribery; suspended sentence imposed.
Significance:
Even small-value gifts are considered bribery if intended to influence decisions.
2. District Court Helsinki 2006:15 – Police Officer Bribery
Facts:
Police officer accepted cash in exchange for not reporting minor traffic violations.
Court Findings:
Officer abused public trust.
Court considered the impact on public confidence in law enforcement.
Outcome:
Conviction for accepting bribes; 6-month prison sentence imposed.
Significance:
Highlights that law enforcement officers are held to high integrity standards.
3. KKO 2010:23 – Tax Official Corruption
Facts:
Tax official solicited money from a company in exchange for reducing tax assessments.
Court Findings:
Court emphasised serious public harm and breach of fiduciary duty.
Outcome:
Conviction for aggravated bribery; imprisonment for 2 years.
Significance:
Demonstrates aggravating factors: large sums, abuse of office, and public interest.
4. District Court Turku 2013:7 – Construction Permit Bribery
Facts:
City building inspector received payments from a contractor for fast-tracking construction permits.
Court Findings:
Evidence included bank transfers and witness testimony.
Court noted corruption undermines public trust in municipal governance.
Outcome:
Conviction for bribery; prison sentence plus repayment of funds.
Significance:
Shows that municipal officials are equally accountable for bribery.
5. KKO 2015:18 – Bribery Involving Healthcare Procurement
Facts:
Hospital procurement official accepted gifts from medical suppliers for favoring certain contracts.
Court Findings:
Court highlighted systematic abuse of position and conflict of interest.
Outcome:
Conviction for aggravated bribery; multi-year imprisonment.
Civil liability for damages imposed on the official.
Significance:
Illustrates that public procurement processes are sensitive to bribery and strictly monitored.
6. District Court Oulu 2018:9 – Bribery Attempt
Facts:
Contractor attempted to bribe a customs officer to ignore import regulations.
Court Findings:
Officer reported the offer immediately.
Court distinguished attempted bribery from completed bribery, still punishable.
Outcome:
Conviction for attempted bribery; fines imposed.
Significance:
Demonstrates that even attempted bribery is criminalised.
7. KKO 2020:12 – High-Level Official Bribery Case
Facts:
Senior government official accepted large bribes from a foreign company for favoring contracts.
Court Findings:
Aggravated nature due to high-level office and public impact.
Court emphasized deterrence and public trust in government.
Outcome:
Conviction for aggravated bribery; 4-year imprisonment.
Property confiscation ordered.
Significance:
High-level officials face strict penalties due to potential widespread harm.
Key Observations from Case Law
| Case | Offender | Bribe Type | Outcome | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| KKO 2002:49 | Municipal official | Small gifts | Suspended sentence | Minor bribes still illegal |
| Helsinki 2006:15 | Police officer | Cash | 6-month prison | Law enforcement integrity |
| KKO 2010:23 | Tax official | Money for tax reduction | 2-year imprisonment | Aggravating public harm |
| Turku 2013:7 | Building inspector | Payments for permits | Prison + repayment | Municipal accountability |
| KKO 2015:18 | Procurement official | Gifts for contracts | Multi-year imprisonment | Conflict of interest & procurement integrity |
| Oulu 2018:9 | Customs | Attempted bribe | Fines | Attempted bribery criminalised |
| KKO 2020:12 | Senior govt official | Large bribes | 4-year imprisonment + confiscation | High-level office aggravates penalty |
Principles Illustrated
Strict Liability for Public Officials: Any abuse of office for personal gain is punishable.
Aggravating Factors: High office, large sums, and public impact increase penalties.
Attempted Bribery is Punishable: Not just completed acts.
Restoring Public Trust: Sentencing considers societal confidence in government.
Equal Accountability: Local, municipal, and national officials are all accountable.
Summary
Finland criminalises both giving and receiving bribes with strong emphasis on:
Public trust in governance
Fairness in public administration
Deterrence of corruption at all levels
Case law demonstrates that even minor gifts can constitute bribery, while high-level and large-scale corruption leads to strict imprisonment and property confiscation.
RELATED Blog
comments