Complicity, Aiding And Abetting In Finnish Criminal Law
1. Legal Framework of Complicity in Finland
In Finnish criminal law, complicity (osallisuus) and aiding/abetting are governed primarily by Chapter 5 of the Criminal Code (Rikoslaki, 1889/39):
Section 6 (Aiding and Abetting)
A person who intentionally furthers the commission of a crime by another — through advice, action, or other means — is punishable as an abettor.
Liability requires intentional participation, not mere negligence or passive knowledge.
The abettor is punishable under the same statute as the principal, but sentencing may be mitigated.
Section 6a (Instigation)
Inciting someone to commit a crime is punishable as abetting if the instigation leads to the commission of the offence.
Section 6b (Withdrawal / Renunciation)
An abettor may reduce or avoid liability if they prevent the crime or persuade others to desist before completion.
Corporate Liability (Chapter 9)
Legal persons can be criminally liable if management personnel abet or allow crimes through negligence.
Key elements:
Actus reus: assistance, advice, or encouragement.
Mens rea: intentional knowledge that your acts will further the crime.
Participation may occur before or during the crime.
2. Finnish Supreme Court (KKO) Cases on Complicity / Aiding and Abetting
Here are six important cases illustrating Finnish law on complicity:
Case 1: KKO 1991:122 – Armed Robbery and Driver Accomplice
Facts:
Three individuals committed an armed robbery.
One person (C) drove the getaway car and waited outside.
Issue:
Is C criminally liable as an abettor even though he did not enter the store?
Decision:
KKO held that driving the getaway car intentionally furthers the robbery and constitutes aiding.
C was convicted as an abettor under Section 6.
Significance:
Participation “during” the offence, even indirectly, counts as complicity.
Established that non-present participants can bear full accessory liability.
Case 2: KKO 1993:85 – Instigation in Fraud Case
Facts:
Defendant encouraged a colleague to falsify accounting records for personal gain.
The colleague executed the fraud.
Issue:
Can someone who merely encourages or persuades another be liable?
Decision:
KKO confirmed that instigation leading to commission is punishable as aiding/abetting.
The defendant was convicted as an abettor.
Significance:
Clarifies that advice or encouragement with knowledge of the crime meets Section 6 criteria.
Mens rea is key: the abettor must intend to further the crime.
Case 3: KKO 1997:99 – Withdrawal Attempt in Burglary
Facts:
Defendant initially planned and assisted in a burglary but later tried to prevent the principal from entering the property.
Burglary occurred despite withdrawal attempt.
Issue:
Does attempting to withdraw absolve liability?
Decision:
KKO held that partial withdrawal may mitigate but not eliminate liability if the crime occurs.
The court reduced the sentence but did not acquit.
Significance:
Demonstrates application of Section 6b, emphasizing timely and effective withdrawal.
Case 4: KKO 2002:54 – Corporate Manager Aiding Environmental Crime
Facts:
A company executive instructed subordinates to illegally dispose of toxic waste.
The company was later prosecuted for environmental violations.
Issue:
Can the manager and the company itself be held liable?
Decision:
KKO held the manager criminally liable as an abettor.
The company also faced liability because management participated in planning and directing the crime.
Significance:
Confirms corporate liability when management personnel abet illegal acts.
Shows overlap between individual and entity liability.
Case 5: KKO 2008:63 – Multiple Participants in Assault
Facts:
During a public fight, one individual (A) restrained the victim while another (B) delivered a blow.
Issue:
Is A liable as an abettor, even though he did not strike?
Decision:
KKO convicted A as an abettor.
Holding someone still counts as intentionally assisting the commission of assault.
Significance:
Reinforces that supportive actions facilitating the crime satisfy complicity standards.
Case 6: KKO 2013:88 – Fraud via Remote Assistance
Facts:
Defendant provided instructions by phone to a colleague to execute fraud while physically absent.
Issue:
Can remote guidance constitute aiding/abetting?
Decision:
KKO confirmed that remote or indirect assistance qualifies if it intentionally furthers the crime.
Defendant sentenced as an abettor.
Significance:
Shows that physical presence is not required for complicity.
The emphasis is on intentional contribution to the crime.
3. Key Principles from Finnish Case Law
Participation during or before the act constitutes liability.
Advice, instigation, or encouragement counts as aiding/abetting.
Withdrawal or prevention attempts may reduce but rarely eliminate liability.
Indirect or remote assistance (phone, instructions, getaway driving) satisfies complicity requirements.
Corporate liability extends to managers whose actions abet the crime.
Sentence mitigation is possible for abettors compared to principals.
4. Illustrative Hypothetical Scenarios
Getaway driver in a bank robbery → guilty as abettor.
Manager instructs employees to commit fraud → both manager and company liable.
Encourages friend to commit theft, friend does it → liable as abettor.
Holds victim during assault → aiding counts even without striking.
Gives instructions by phone to commit fraud → indirect participation qualifies.
Tries to withdraw by warning principal but fails → mitigated sentence.
✅ Conclusion
Finnish law treats complicity, aiding, and abetting seriously, punishing both direct participants and those who intentionally facilitate the crime.
Liability covers advice, instigation, physical assistance, and indirect contribution.
Finnish case law demonstrates that courts focus on intentional contribution and may mitigate punishment if withdrawal is attempted.
Corporate liability also plays a significant role where management personnel abet crimes.
RELATED Blog
0 comments