Corruption Offences Under Finnish Criminal Law
Overview: Corruption in Finland
Corruption is criminalized under the Criminal Code of Finland (Chapter 30 – Offences against Public Authority). Key points:
Bribery (Ch. 30, Sec. 1–3):
Offering, giving, requesting, or receiving a bribe in exchange for misuse of official position.
Includes both active (offering a bribe) and passive (accepting a bribe) corruption.
Aggravated Bribery:
Bribery involving large sums, organized schemes, or serious harm carries heavier penalties.
Misuse of Office / Official Misconduct:
Officials abusing authority for personal gain, even without direct bribe exchange, may be prosecuted.
Penalties:
Standard bribery: up to 3 years imprisonment.
Aggravated bribery: up to 6 years imprisonment.
Procedural Protections:
Investigation by police and prosecutors.
Emphasis on evidence collection, witness protection, and transparency.
Case 1: KKO 2007:24 – Municipal Official Bribery
Facts:
A municipal official received gifts and cash from a construction company in exchange for approving building permits.
Legal Issue:
Whether the exchange constituted bribery under Ch. 30.
Outcome:
Supreme Court convicted the official of bribery, sentenced to 2 years imprisonment.
Company executives also held liable for active bribery.
Significance:
Clarified the mutual liability of giver and receiver in bribery offences.
Case 2: KKO 2010:18 – Health Care Procurement Corruption
Facts:
Hospital administrator accepted kickbacks from a supplier for awarding medical equipment contracts.
Trial Highlights:
Investigated by police; extensive documentary and bank evidence presented.
Defendant argued payments were legitimate “consulting fees.”
Outcome:
Supreme Court rejected justification, found evidence showed intent to secure improper advantage, sentenced to 3 years.
Significance:
Reinforced that hidden financial incentives in public procurement are prosecutable as bribery.
Case 3: KKO 2012:32 – Police Official Misconduct
Facts:
Police officer accepted money from organized crime groups in exchange for ignoring illegal activities.
Legal Issue:
Whether abuse of official position for personal gain constitutes bribery or official misconduct.
Outcome:
Convicted of bribery and official misconduct, sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Demonstrates the extension of bribery offences to law enforcement officials, emphasizing integrity in public office.
Case 4: KKO 2014:19 – Political Corruption
Facts:
Member of a municipal council accepted donations from developers with conditions on zoning decisions.
Trial Highlights:
Evidence included emails, financial records, and witness testimony.
Defendant claimed donations were “unconditional gifts.”
Outcome:
Supreme Court found sufficient evidence of quid pro quo, convicted for bribery, sentenced to 2.5 years.
Significance:
Reinforces principle that intent and conditionality of gifts are key in assessing bribery.
Case 5: KKO 2016:26 – Aggravated Bribery in Defense Contracting
Facts:
Executive involved in military procurement offered bribes to secure multi-million euro contracts.
Legal Issue:
Determining aggravation due to high financial stakes and cross-border element.
Outcome:
Convicted of aggravated bribery, sentenced to 5 years.
Court emphasized need to protect public resources and national security interests.
Significance:
Set precedent for aggravated corruption in high-value and sensitive sectors.
Case 6: KKO 2017:41 – Public Transport Sector Bribery
Facts:
City official accepted payments from a transportation company in exchange for route approvals.
Trial Highlights:
Court examined intent, communication, and timing of payments.
Defendant argued informal arrangement; court found clear quid pro quo.
Outcome:
Convicted for bribery, sentenced to 2 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Confirms Finnish courts’ approach: any conditional benefit influencing official decisions constitutes bribery.
Case 7: KKO 2019:11 – Corporate Gifts to Officials
Facts:
Corporate executives provided luxury gifts to local authorities to influence procurement decisions.
Legal Issue:
Whether gifts of nominal value vs. luxury items could constitute bribery.
Outcome:
Supreme Court distinguished value and intent; gifts above nominal value and intended to influence decisions were criminally liable.
Sentences ranged 1.5–3 years.
Significance:
Clarifies that value and purpose of gifts are critical in determining bribery under Finnish law.
Key Legal Principles Illustrated
Mutual Liability: Both giver and receiver are liable under bribery provisions.
Intent is Central: Only payments or gifts intended to influence official duties constitute bribery.
Aggravating Factors: High financial stakes, organized schemes, or sensitive sectors increase penalties.
Public Sector Integrity: Courts emphasize protection of public trust in officials and institutions.
Documentation and Evidence: Emails, financial records, and witness testimony are crucial.
Value of Gifts Matters: Small tokens are generally acceptable; substantial gifts intended to influence are criminal.
RELATED Blog
0 comments