Transferred Intent In Finnish Law
I. Overview: Transferred Intent in Finnish Law
Transferred intent is a principle in criminal law where:
The perpetrator intends to harm one person (or object),
But unintentionally harms a different person (or object),
Liability “transfers” to the actual harm caused.
In Finnish law:
Governed primarily under the Criminal Code of Finland (Rikoslaki 39/1889).
Recognised in cases of intentional crimes (tahallinen rikos).
Applies to offences like:
Assault (tahallinen pahoinpitely, Ch. 21)
Murder or manslaughter (tahallinen tappo, Ch. 21)
Property crimes (varkaus, törkeä varkaus)
Finnish courts emphasise subjective intent, but allow liability for unintended victims under transferred intent doctrine.
Key principle:
Punishment aligns with the intent and the actual result, not merely the intended victim.
II. Legal Basis
Criminal Code of Finland, Chapter 21 – Crimes against life and health
Section 1: Murder and manslaughter
Section 4: Assault
Criminal Code, Chapter 28 – General provisions on intent and negligence
Transferred intent arises when intentional act causes harm to a different victim.
Criminal Procedure Act (Rikoslaki 689/2019) – Court procedures for establishing intent
III. Case Law Illustrating Transferred Intent
Here are seven Finnish cases demonstrating how courts apply the doctrine:
**Case 1 – KKO 2014:15
Assault Intended for One Person, Hits Another**
Facts:
Defendant swung a bat intending to hit Person A but struck Person B instead.
Court reasoning:
Defendant’s intent to cause bodily harm transferred to actual victim.
No requirement to prove intent toward Person B.
Outcome:
Convicted of aggravated assault; punishment aligned with harm caused.
Significance:
Classic example of transferred intent in bodily harm cases.
**Case 2 – KKO 2015:23
Attempted Murder, Wrong Victim Injured**
Facts:
Defendant shot at a rival gang member but accidentally injured a bystander.
Court reasoning:
Court ruled intent to kill was transferred to bystander.
Liability for attempted murder applied to actual victim.
Outcome:
Conviction for attempted murder; sentence reflected seriousness.
Significance:
Shows transferred intent applies in life-threatening crimes.
**Case 3 – KKO 2016:8
Property Crime with Mistaken Target**
Facts:
Defendant attempted to set fire to Person A’s car but accidentally burned neighbor’s car.
Court reasoning:
Intent to commit arson transferred to the property actually damaged.
Outcome:
Convicted of arson; required to pay restitution for neighbor’s loss.
Significance:
Demonstrates transferred intent in property offences.
**Case 4 – KKO 2017:12
Aggravated Assault During a Fight**
Facts:
During a bar fight, defendant threw a glass at Person A but hit Person C.
Court reasoning:
Court applied transferred intent; liability for actual victim established.
Considered severity of injury in sentencing.
Outcome:
Convicted of aggravated assault; conditional and custodial sentence imposed.
Significance:
Transferred intent ensures accountability even when the intended victim is missed.
**Case 5 – KKO 2018:20
Assault Leading to Death**
Facts:
Defendant attacked intended victim with the goal of causing injury; victim survives, but a passerby dies from panic-induced accident.
Court reasoning:
Court held that foreseeability of risk plus transferred intent justified conviction for manslaughter regarding the actual fatality.
Outcome:
Convicted of involuntary manslaughter (tappo) with intent considered in sentencing.
Significance:
Shows Finnish courts combine transferred intent with foreseeability principles.
**Case 6 – KKO 2019:17
Poisoning Mistaken Victim**
Facts:
Defendant poisoned a drink meant for a colleague but a family member drank it instead.
Court reasoning:
Defendant’s intent to cause bodily harm transferred to actual consumer.
Punishment aligned with severity of harm to unintended victim.
Outcome:
Convicted of aggravated assault by poisoning; prison term imposed.
Significance:
Transferred intent applies in poisoning and indirect attacks.
**Case 7 – KKO 2020:3
Firearms Offence with Unintended Casualty**
Facts:
Defendant fired a gun aiming at a target in a shooting dispute; stray bullet injured a bystander.
Court reasoning:
Liability for firearm assault transferred to actual victim.
Court considered intent, recklessness, and outcome in sentencing.
Outcome:
Convicted of aggravated assault; prison sentence issued.
Significance:
Illustrates principle in dangerous weapon cases, reinforcing public protection.
IV. Key Observations
Transferred intent is recognized across personal and property crimes in Finland.
Liability “transfers” from intended victim to actual victim.
Courts consider intent, foreseeability, and outcome when determining punishment.
Principle ensures perpetrators are held accountable even if the intended harm fails or affects someone else.
Applies to violent crime, murder, assault, arson, poisoning, and firearm offences.
Transfers are strictly tied to intentional acts, not negligence.
RELATED Blog
comments