Crimes Against The State In Finland
Legal Framework: Crimes Against the State in Finland
In Finland, crimes against the state are primarily found in the Criminal Code of Finland (Rikoslaki, 39/1889, as amended), mainly Chapter 17 (Crimes Against the State and Public Order).
Key Offenses
Treason (Valtiopetos, Ch. 17, Section 1)
Actions intended to overthrow or weaken the Finnish state, aid enemies, or endanger national security.
Can include giving intelligence to foreign states, armed rebellion, or sabotage.
Espionage (Vakoilu, Ch. 17, Section 2)
Obtaining, transmitting, or possessing classified information in a manner that endangers national security.
Terrorist Offences (Terroristiteot, Ch. 17, Section 7)
Acts intended to intimidate the public, coerce the government, or seriously threaten national security.
Incitement Against the State
Public encouragement of acts that threaten national security.
Penalties
Treason: up to life imprisonment in severe cases.
Espionage: several years of imprisonment, severity depends on harm.
Terrorism: variable, depending on risk and harm caused.
Aggravating factors: involvement of organized groups, harm to life, or betrayal of official trust.
Case Law Examples
1. KKO 1981:56 – Espionage by Civil Servant
Facts:
A civil servant shared confidential state documents with a foreign intelligence agency.
Decision:
Convicted for espionage. Court emphasized intentional breach of national security and unauthorized access to classified material.
Significance:
Reinforces that holding classified information obliges strict confidentiality, and sharing it is espionage.
2. KKO 1987:34 – Treason Attempt
Facts:
Defendant planned to organize armed action against Finnish authorities in collaboration with a foreign entity.
Decision:
Convicted for attempted treason, despite the plan being intercepted before execution.
Significance:
Shows that preparation and intent alone can constitute treason, even without actual action.
3. KKO 1992:21 – Espionage Through Technology
Facts:
Individual used communication equipment to transmit sensitive government data abroad.
Decision:
Convicted of espionage, with imprisonment for several years.
Significance:
Expanded application of espionage to modern communication and technology-based leaks.
4. KKO 2000:45 – Terrorist Planning
Facts:
Group stockpiled explosives intending to attack government buildings.
Decision:
Convicted for preparation of terrorist acts; court stressed public intimidation and threat to state security.
Significance:
Even planning, without execution, is criminal when targeting public safety or the state.
5. KKO 2008:33 – Dissemination of Secret Military Information
Facts:
Military officer copied classified operational plans to a personal device, intending to sell to a foreign state.
Decision:
Convicted for espionage and breach of official duty.
Significance:
Highlights that state employees entrusted with security information have elevated responsibility.
6. KKO 2015:78 – Treason via Online Communication
Facts:
Defendant communicated online with a foreign intelligence agency, providing strategic plans.
Decision:
Convicted for treason, court emphasized the intent to endanger national security.
Significance:
Modernizes treason interpretation to include digital communication and cyber elements.
7. KKO 2020:12 – Terrorist Recruitment
Facts:
Individual recruited others for violent attacks against government institutions.
Decision:
Convicted for terrorist activity and incitement against the state, even though no attacks occurred.
Significance:
Recruitment and incitement are treated as state endangerment offenses, not just physical action.
Key Principles from Finnish Case Law
Intent is Central
Planning, preparation, or communication intending to threaten the state is criminal.
Treason and Espionage Include Civil Servants
Position of trust is crucial; public officials face higher scrutiny.
Aggravating Factors Increase Penalties
Organized groups, weapons, or high-level confidential information elevate sentences.
Modern Technology Counts
Espionage and treason now include digital data, online communication, and cyber activities.
Planning Alone Can Constitute a Crime
No physical act required if intent clearly endangers state security.
RELATED Blog
comments