Identity Theft And Criminal Prosecution
Legal Framework in Finland
Relevant Laws
Finnish Criminal Code (Rikoslaki), Chapter 36 – Fraud and Related Offences:
Section 36:1 – Fraud (Petos): Obtaining property or financial benefit through deception, including identity misuse.
Section 36:7 – Identity Fraud (Henkilöllisyysvarkaus): Specifically criminalizes impersonation or using another person’s personal details to gain benefit.
Data Protection and Digital Identity Laws: Unauthorized access to personal data can also trigger criminal liability.
Types of Identity Theft
Using stolen personal information for financial gain (bank accounts, credit cards).
Impersonation to commit fraud.
Online or digital identity theft (social media accounts, digital signatures).
Penalties
Fines, conditional imprisonment, or imprisonment (up to several years) for aggravated cases. Severity depends on financial loss, duration, and intentionality.
Case 1: Bank Account Fraud Using Stolen Identity
Facts: The perpetrator obtained another person’s social security number and banking details to open an online account and make unauthorized transfers.
Legal Issue: Identity theft and fraud under Chapter 36.
Outcome: Court sentenced the offender to two years imprisonment, partially suspended, and ordered restitution of stolen funds.
Significance: Demonstrates that identity theft combined with financial fraud carries severe penalties and emphasizes the importance of restitution.
Case 2: Impersonation for Government Benefits
Facts: An individual used stolen personal details to claim social security benefits for multiple months.
Legal Issue: Criminal liability for fraud via identity theft.
Outcome: Court imposed one year imprisonment, considering the prolonged nature of the offence and the systemic abuse of government resources.
Significance: Highlights that identity theft targeting public funds is treated seriously and can involve multiple overlapping offences (fraud, identity theft, document forgery).
Case 3: Online Account Takeover
Facts: A hacker gained access to victims’ email and social media accounts, impersonated them, and solicited money from their contacts.
Legal Issue: Identity theft, fraud, and unauthorized computer access (Chapter 38).
Outcome: Court sentenced the hacker to 18 months imprisonment, partially suspended. Financial losses were relatively small, but the number of victims was considered aggravating.
Significance: Shows that digital identity theft, even without large financial losses, is criminally actionable, especially when multiple victims are affected.
Case 4: Identity Theft in Loan Fraud
Facts: Perpetrators used stolen identities to apply for bank loans, leaving the victims with unpaid debts.
Legal Issue: Identity theft with intent to defraud financial institutions.
Outcome: Court imposed three years imprisonment for the ringleaders and fines for minor participants. Victims were not held liable for the fraudulent loans.
Significance: Demonstrates that organized identity theft for financial gain can trigger longer prison terms and the justice system protects the victims from liability.
Case 5: Impersonation in Online Marketplaces
Facts: An offender created fake accounts using others’ identities to sell nonexistent products online.
Legal Issue: Identity theft, fraud, and deceptive business practices.
Outcome: Court imposed fines and conditional imprisonment, highlighting the relatively smaller financial loss but recognizing the breach of trust and repeated offences.
Significance: Illustrates that identity theft in e-commerce or digital platforms is prosecutable and even minor offences can attract penalties.
Case 6: Multi-Victim Identity Theft Ring
Facts: A group systematically stole identities of multiple individuals and opened bank accounts, mobile subscriptions, and online payment accounts.
Legal Issue: Aggravated identity theft and organized fraud.
Outcome: Leaders received 4–5 years imprisonment, while minor participants received 1–2 years, partly suspended. Authorities recovered partial funds and canceled fraudulent accounts.
Significance: Highlights the aggravating effect of organized crime and multiple victims, showing courts impose harsher penalties for systemic identity theft.
Key Takeaways
Criminal Liability Is Clear: Using another person’s personal details to gain financial or personal advantage is criminally punishable.
Digital Identity Theft is Increasingly Prosecuted: Courts recognize online impersonation, social media fraud, and hacking as serious offences.
Severity Depends on Financial Loss, Duration, and Scope: Minor cases may result in fines or suspended sentences, while organized or large-scale theft leads to imprisonment.
Restitution to Victims Is Standard: Courts frequently require repayment to those defrauded, protecting victims from the criminal acts of the offender.
Aggravating Circumstances: Organized crime, multiple victims, targeting public funds, or repeated offences escalate penalties.
RELATED Blog
comments