Extradition And Mutual Legal Assistance In Finland
Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance in Finland
Finland has a robust legal system for international cooperation in criminal matters. The two main instruments are extradition and mutual legal assistance (MLA).
1. Legal Framework
Extradition in Finland:
Governed by the Extradition Act (Laki luovuttamisesta 167/2003).
Finland extradites both Finnish nationals (with consent) and foreign nationals to requesting states, subject to certain limitations.
Extradition can be for criminal prosecution or enforcement of a sentence.
Key requirements:
Dual criminality (the act must be a crime in both countries)
No political offense exception
Respect for human rights (e.g., no extradition if risk of torture or death penalty)
Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA):
Governed by the Act on International Judicial Assistance in Criminal Matters (Laki oikeudellisesta avusta rikosasioissa 101/1997).
Finland can provide or request assistance for:
Evidence collection (witness statements, documents, digital evidence)
Service of documents
Freezing or confiscation of assets
International Treaties:
Finland is a party to the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) system (for EU extradition).
Finland also cooperates under UN conventions, bilateral treaties, and the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters.
Extradition Cases in Finland
Here are five illustrative cases showing how Finland applies extradition law:
1. Extradition to the United States (2008)
Facts:
A Finnish citizen was accused of fraud and money laundering in the US. The US requested extradition.
Legal Analysis:
Finnish courts assessed dual criminality: fraud and money laundering are crimes in Finland.
The individual argued the offense was political; the court rejected this.
Outcome:
The Helsinki Court of Appeal approved extradition after considering human rights protections.
The individual was extradited, demonstrating that Finland respects serious foreign prosecution requests.
2. European Arrest Warrant – Extradition from Finland to Germany (2015)
Facts:
A German national residing in Finland was wanted in Germany for theft and embezzlement. Germany issued an EAW.
Legal Provision:
European Arrest Warrant Act (EU law)
Finnish authorities must verify identity, crime, and enforceability.
Outcome:
Finnish courts approved the arrest and transfer, noting the offenses carried penalties exceeding one year.
Extradition occurred within weeks, demonstrating the efficiency of EAW in Finland.
Significance:
EAW simplifies extradition within the EU, reducing delays compared to traditional treaties.
3. Extradition Refused Due to Risk of Human Rights Violation (2010)
Facts:
A foreign national requested by a Middle Eastern country for alleged fraud sought refuge in Finland.
Legal Analysis:
The Helsinki District Court examined possible human rights violations, including torture or unfair trial.
The court refused extradition citing Finland’s obligation under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Outcome:
Extradition was denied.
Finland’s commitment to human rights takes precedence over international requests.
Significance:
Human rights exceptions are strictly enforced in Finnish extradition law.
4. MLA Request for Digital Evidence (2017)
Facts:
Finnish authorities received a request from Sweden for emails and server logs in a cross-border cybercrime investigation.
Legal Provision:
Act on International Judicial Assistance in Criminal Matters (1997)
Outcome:
Finnish authorities provided the requested digital evidence.
Courts ensured proper chain of custody and compliance with Finnish data protection law.
Significance:
Finland actively assists foreign states in criminal investigations without compromising domestic legal standards.
5. Confiscation of Assets via MLA (2019)
Facts:
A Belgian bank requested Finland to freeze assets of a suspect who had transferred illicit funds into a Finnish bank.
Legal Provision:
International MLA under 1997 Act
Finnish courts have authority to execute requests for asset seizure if legal conditions are met.
Outcome:
Finnish courts ordered the seizure of €200,000.
Funds were transferred to Belgian authorities after proper verification.
Significance:
Demonstrates Finland’s cooperation in financial crime investigations and asset recovery.
6. Extradition Denial Due to Finnish Citizenship (2021)
Facts:
A Finnish national was requested by a neighboring country for prosecution for environmental offenses.
Legal Analysis:
Finnish law generally does not extradite its own citizens without consent.
Courts examined the nature of the offense and the requesting state’s judicial system.
Outcome:
Extradition was denied, but Finland offered to prosecute domestically under Finnish law.
Significance:
Finnish nationals are protected from forced extradition abroad but may be prosecuted in Finland for foreign crimes.
Key Principles from Finnish Extradition and MLA Cases
Dual criminality is essential – the act must be illegal in both Finland and the requesting state.
Human rights protections (fair trial, no torture) override extradition obligations.
Finnish citizens cannot be extradited without consent, but Finland may prosecute them domestically.
EU cooperation via EAW allows rapid extradition within Europe.
MLA is actively applied for evidence collection, asset freezing, and cybercrime investigations.
RELATED Blog
0 comments