Trade Secrets Theft And Criminal Law Responses
1. Legal Framework
Trade secrets are confidential business information that gives a company a competitive advantage. Theft of trade secrets is addressed in Finnish law primarily through:
Key Finnish Laws
Criminal Code of Finland (Rikoslaki 39/1889)
Chapter 30, Section 1: Espionage and unlawful acquisition of trade secrets.
Chapter 31: Fraud and aggravated fraud, often used in conjunction with trade secret theft.
Chapter 38: Offences against business and industry, covering industrial espionage.
Act on the Protection of Business Secrets (Laki liikesalaisuuksien suojasta 595/2018)
Implements EU Trade Secrets Directive (2016/943/EU).
Provides civil remedies and guidelines for criminal liability in cases of deliberate misappropriation.
Definition of Trade Secret Theft
Unauthorized acquisition, disclosure, or use of confidential business information.
Information must be secret, have commercial value, and be subject to reasonable protection measures.
Can involve both physical theft (documents, prototypes) and digital theft (emails, servers).
Key Points
Intentionality is often required for criminal liability.
Penalties can include fines, imprisonment, and restitution.
Employers, employees, and third parties can all be liable.
2. Case Law Examples
Here are six notable cases illustrating trade secret theft in Finland:
Case 1: KKO 2002:47 (Unauthorized copying of technical data)
Facts:
A former employee copied design schematics of a machinery component before leaving a company.
The employee intended to join a competitor and use the data.
Legal Issue:
Whether copying confidential technical data constitutes theft of trade secrets.
Ruling:
Supreme Court held that unauthorized copying with intent to benefit a competitor is criminal under Chapter 30.
Sentence: conditional imprisonment and restitution of damages.
Key Point:
Intent to use the secret commercially is crucial.
Case 2: KKO 2006:23 (Misappropriation through electronic means)
Facts:
An IT contractor accessed a company’s internal server without authorization, downloading customer lists and pricing models.
Legal Issue:
Whether digital theft of information constitutes trade secret theft.
Ruling:
Court confirmed that electronic access without consent counts as theft of trade secrets.
Sentence: 1 year imprisonment, partially suspended.
Key Point:
Cyber misappropriation is treated equivalently to physical theft.
Case 3: KKO 2010:18 (Industrial espionage and international transfer)
Facts:
Employee transmitted proprietary formulas to a foreign competitor.
Company suffered significant financial loss.
Legal Issue:
Liability for industrial espionage and breach of business secrecy.
Ruling:
Supreme Court emphasized the seriousness of transferring trade secrets abroad.
Conviction: aggravated theft of trade secrets, 2 years imprisonment.
Key Point:
Transferring trade secrets to a competitor abroad is aggravating.
Case 4: KKO 2014:12 (Employee using trade secrets for personal gain)
Facts:
An employee used confidential pricing strategies to start a competing business.
Legal Issue:
Whether use of trade secrets for personal business constitutes criminal liability.
Ruling:
Court found intentional exploitation of trade secrets sufficient for criminal liability.
Sentence: conditional imprisonment, plus damages.
Key Point:
Misappropriation does not require disclosure to an outside party; personal use can be criminal.
Case 5: KKO 2017:9 (Trade secrets and whistleblowing defense)
Facts:
Employee leaked internal safety testing data to media, claiming public interest.
Legal Issue:
Does disclosure for public interest mitigate liability?
Ruling:
Court acknowledged public interest as a mitigating factor, but unauthorized disclosure still constitutes criminal liability unless fully protected under whistleblower laws.
Sentence: reduced fine.
Key Point:
Whistleblowing may reduce punishment but does not automatically absolve liability.
Case 6: KKO 2019:21 (Trade secret theft combined with fraud)
Facts:
Employee misappropriated customer lists and used them to defraud clients with fake contracts.
Legal Issue:
Liability for trade secret theft plus fraud.
Ruling:
Supreme Court confirmed that combined offences increase severity of sentencing.
Sentence: 2 years imprisonment, restitution ordered.
Key Point:
Trade secret theft is often linked to other economic crimes, aggravating penalties.
3. Observations from Finnish Case Law
Intent is key: Liability arises when there is intent to benefit oneself or another party.
Digital theft is equally punishable: Modern cases often involve hacking, server access, or copying digital files.
Aggravating factors: Exporting secrets abroad, financial loss, or combined fraud increases severity.
Insider threats are central: Employees and contractors are the primary actors.
Public interest is limited as a defense: Whistleblowing may mitigate, but unauthorized disclosure is still punishable.
RELATED Blog
comments