Preparation Offences In Finnish Criminal Law
I. Overview: Preparation Offences in Finnish Criminal Law
Preparation offences (valmistelurikot) refer to actions undertaken with the intent to commit a crime, even if the actual offence has not yet occurred. Finnish law distinguishes between preparation and attempt, punishing serious preparations for certain crimes to prevent harm before it occurs.
1. Legal Framework
Criminal Code of Finland (Rikoslaki 1889/39)
Chapter 23: Attempt and Preparation of Offenses
Section 6: Preparatory Acts
Certain crimes (e.g., treason, terrorism, serious violent crimes) can be criminalized even at the preparation stage.
Section 5: Attempt vs. Preparation
Attempt: Direct action toward committing the offence.
Preparation: Planning, acquiring materials, or otherwise arranging the crime.
Chapter 25: Offences Against Public Order
Organizing violent acts against public authorities or property may fall under preparation offences.
2. Key Principles
Preparation offences are not prosecuted for minor crimes; only serious or particularly harmful offences.
Acts must show clear intent to commit the crime.
Possession of tools, planning documents, or illegal coordination may suffice.
Punishment is typically less severe than completed offences but higher than mere suspicion or thought.
II. Notable Finnish Cases on Preparation Offences
1. Helsinki Terror Plot Preparation Case (2006)
Facts: Authorities intercepted individuals planning a terrorist attack in Helsinki, including acquiring explosives and drafting detailed plans.
Legal Issue: Whether preparation without execution constitutes a punishable offence.
Court Reasoning:
Court noted concrete steps (acquiring explosives, mapping targets) showed intent.
The potential harm was extremely serious, justifying prosecution.
Outcome: Conviction for preparation of a terrorist act; 3 years imprisonment.
Significance: Demonstrates that Finnish law allows prosecution before actual attack occurs, prioritizing public safety.
2. Oulu Armed Robbery Preparation Case (2009)
Facts: Individuals purchased firearms and masks with intent to rob a bank but were arrested before committing the robbery.
Legal Issue: Preparation of aggravated robbery.
Court Reasoning:
Possession of weapons, disguises, and detailed plans constitutes clear preparatory acts.
Court differentiated from attempt: no steps taken directly at the bank, but planning was concrete.
Outcome: Conviction for preparation of aggravated robbery; 2 years conditional imprisonment.
Significance: Clarified that acquiring materials and planning can suffice for preparation offences.
3. Turku Cybercrime Preparation Case (2012)
Facts: A hacker group planned a large-scale attack on a government database; authorities seized hacking tools and plans before execution.
Legal Issue: Preparation of serious cybercrime.
Court Reasoning:
Court highlighted that intent and concrete preparatory steps (tool acquisition, scripts) justified prosecution.
Potential societal harm made it aggravated preparation.
Outcome: Conditional imprisonment 18 months; confiscation of equipment.
Significance: Finnish law extends preparation offences to modern forms of crime, including cyber attacks.
4. Tampere Drug Trafficking Ring Preparation Case (2014)
Facts: Police intercepted individuals stocking large quantities of drugs and preparing distribution networks; no drugs had yet been sold.
Legal Issue: Preparation of aggravated drug trafficking.
Court Reasoning:
Possession and organization for sale constituted clear preparatory acts.
Scale of intended trafficking justified treating as aggravated.
Outcome: Convictions ranged from 12–24 months conditional imprisonment, depending on level of involvement.
Significance: Shows preparation offences apply to organized economic crimes as well as violent or public safety offences.
5. Helsinki Assassination Plot Preparation Case (2016)
Facts: An individual conducted reconnaissance on a political figure and acquired weapons, intending assassination. Arrest occurred before execution.
Legal Issue: Preparation of attempted homicide / aggravated murder.
Court Reasoning:
Court emphasized specific intent, weapon acquisition, and surveillance.
Severity of intended harm (target: public official) required serious punishment.
Outcome: Conviction for preparation; 3.5 years imprisonment.
Significance: Preparation for crimes against life is taken as seriously as completed acts if risk is imminent.
6. Espoo Arson Preparation Case (2018)
Facts: Individual purchased flammable liquids and planned to set fire to a commercial property as retaliation. Arrested before execution.
Legal Issue: Preparation of aggravated arson.
Court Reasoning:
Court noted that possession of incendiary materials with intent shows dangerous preparation.
Potential property damage and risk to humans justified conviction.
Outcome: Conditional imprisonment 2 years; confiscation of materials.
Significance: Preparation offences cover property crimes with potential for severe public harm.
7. Vaasa Public Safety Threat Preparation Case (2020)
Facts: Group planned an attack on a public transport facility, including obtaining weapons and mapping schedules. Authorities intervened before execution.
Legal Issue: Preparation of offences endangering public order and safety.
Court Reasoning:
Concrete steps demonstrated clear intent and imminent risk.
Courts emphasized preventive nature of punishment to protect society.
Outcome: Sentences 2–3 years imprisonment depending on involvement.
Significance: Preparation offences allow pre-emptive intervention in planned public attacks.
III. Key Legal Themes from Finnish Preparation Offence Cases
Preparation is punishable for serious crimes only
Typically violent crimes, terrorism, aggravated property offences, or organized criminal activity.
Concrete steps are required
Acquisition of weapons, tools, or illegal substances
Reconnaissance or planning
Organization or coordination with others
Severity depends on potential harm
Threat to life or public safety → aggravated preparation
Economic or property crimes → punishment proportionate to scale
Preventive Justice
Punishing preparation serves societal protection, even if the main crime is never committed.
Conditional Imprisonment is common
Sentences are typically lower than completed offences but reflect seriousness and potential risk.
IV. Comparative Case Summary
| Case | Year | Crime Type | Preparatory Acts | Outcome | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Helsinki Terror Plot | 2006 | Terrorism | Acquired explosives, mapped targets | 3 yrs imprisonment | Prevention of serious public harm |
| Oulu Armed Robbery | 2009 | Aggravated robbery | Bought firearms, masks | 2 yrs conditional | Material acquisition sufficient for preparation |
| Turku Cybercrime | 2012 | Cybercrime | Hacking tools, scripts | 18 mo conditional | Covers modern crimes |
| Tampere Drug Trafficking | 2014 | Aggravated drug trafficking | Stockpiling, planning distribution | 12–24 mo conditional | Economic/organized crime |
| Helsinki Assassination Plot | 2016 | Attempted homicide | Surveillance, weapon acquisition | 3.5 yrs imprisonment | Life-threatening targets treated seriously |
| Espoo Arson | 2018 | Aggravated arson | Purchased flammable liquids | 2 yrs conditional | Property crimes with high risk |
| Vaasa Public Safety Threat | 2020 | Public safety | Weapons, target mapping | 2–3 yrs imprisonment | Preventive approach in public attacks |
V. Conclusion
Finnish law criminalizes preparation for serious offences to prevent harm before it occurs.
Key elements: intent, concrete preparatory acts, and potential harm.
Punishments: conditional imprisonment is common; longer custodial sentences for severe or public safety-related crimes.
Preventive justice is a central rationale, balancing individual liberty with protection of society.
RELATED Blog
0 comments