Insurance Fraud Cases
Legal Context: Insurance Fraud in Finland
Insurance fraud in Finland is primarily governed by Chapter 36 of the Criminal Code (Rikoslaki) under fraud (petos).
Types include:
False claims: Submitting claims for damages or losses that did not occur.
Exaggerated claims: Inflating legitimate claims for higher payouts.
Arson or staged accidents: Deliberately causing damage to collect insurance.
Aggravating factors: Large financial sums, organized activity, repeated offenses.
Penalties range from fines to imprisonment, depending on the severity.
Case 1: Helsinki Car Accident Fraud (2013)
Facts:
A man staged a car accident and claimed damages from his insurer for a vehicle that had not actually been damaged.
Charges:
Fraud and false insurance claim.
Court Reasoning:
Court emphasized intentional deception to obtain money.
Surveillance evidence confirmed no accident occurred.
Outcome:
1.5 years imprisonment, restitution of €12,000 to insurer.
Significance:
Demonstrates that fabricated accidents are treated as serious fraud in Finland.
Case 2: Espoo Health Insurance Fraud (2014)
Facts:
A clinic submitted false patient treatment invoices to health insurers, claiming services never provided.
Charges:
Aggravated fraud, organized crime involvement.
Court Reasoning:
Court noted systematic and repeated deception.
Involvement of multiple employees demonstrated organized criminal activity.
Outcome:
Clinic fined €200,000; director sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Highlights that institutional or corporate involvement aggravates insurance fraud penalties.
Case 3: Turku Arson for Insurance (2015)
Facts:
Business owners set fire to their own warehouse to claim insurance for lost inventory.
Charges:
Fraud, aggravated arson, endangerment.
Court Reasoning:
Aggravating factors included risk to public safety and premeditation.
Evidence from fire investigation confirmed deliberate ignition.
Outcome:
Owners sentenced to 5 years imprisonment; restitution of €150,000.
Significance:
Illustrates how destructive methods to commit fraud increase criminal liability.
Case 4: Helsinki Life Insurance Fraud (2016)
Facts:
An individual faked a relative’s death to claim life insurance benefits.
Charges:
Fraud, falsification of documents.
Court Reasoning:
Court emphasized deception and manipulation of official records.
Intent to obtain large financial gain was central to sentencing.
Outcome:
4 years imprisonment; repayment of €80,000 to insurer.
Significance:
Life insurance fraud involving false death claims is prosecuted seriously, with substantial restitution.
Case 5: Oulu Workers’ Compensation Fraud (2017)
Facts:
An employee falsely claimed a workplace injury to obtain compensation. Evidence showed the injury was fabricated.
Charges:
Fraud against an insurance company, false reporting.
Court Reasoning:
Court considered intentional deception and abuse of social insurance system.
Employee’s previous criminal record slightly aggravated sentencing.
Outcome:
10 months imprisonment; repayment of €25,000.
Significance:
Even smaller-scale personal fraud is prosecuted if evidence proves deliberate false claims.
Case 6: Helsinki Car Theft Claim Fraud (2018)
Facts:
A man reported his luxury car stolen, but it had been sold secretly. Insurance company investigation revealed deception.
Charges:
Insurance fraud, false reporting of theft.
Court Reasoning:
Court emphasized intent to obtain unjust enrichment.
Prior warnings from insurer regarding suspicious claims were considered aggravating.
Outcome:
2 years imprisonment; restitution of €60,000.
Significance:
Selling property while claiming insurance for theft is treated as aggravated fraud.
Key Observations from Cases
Intent Matters: Courts focus on deliberate deception to obtain monetary gain.
Corporate vs. Individual Fraud: Corporate involvement (clinics, businesses) leads to harsher penalties.
Method of Fraud: Fabricated accidents, arson, false deaths, or staged thefts are treated severely.
Restitution: Courts consistently require repayment of ill-gotten gains.
Aggravating Factors: Large financial sums, multiple victims, organized activity, and endangerment increase penalties.
RELATED Blog
comments