Witness Tampering Prosecutions
WITNESS TAMPERING IN FINLAND
Witness tampering is a serious offence in Finland, considered part of obstructing the administration of justice. It is addressed under the Finnish Criminal Code (Rikoslaki 39/1889) and involves attempts to intimidate, bribe, or improperly influence witnesses in ongoing or potential legal proceedings.
1. Legal Framework
A. Relevant Provisions in Finnish Criminal Code
Chapter 17 – Offences against the Administration of Justice
Section 5 – Obstruction of Witness Testimony (Todistajan estäminen)
Criminalizes threatening, bribing, or influencing a witness to prevent them from giving accurate testimony.
Section 6 – Aggravated Obstruction of Justice
Applies when actions involve violence, significant intimidation, organized conduct, or serious consequences for the proceedings.
Chapter 25 – Corruption and Bribery
Bribing a witness to influence testimony may also fall under bribery offences.
B. Key Elements
Actus Reus (act): Threat, harassment, bribery, or intimidation of a witness.
Mens Rea (intent): Intent to influence testimony, prevent reporting, or induce false statements.
Victim: Anyone called as a witness in judicial, administrative, or investigative proceedings.
C. Penalties
Ordinary tampering: fines or imprisonment up to 2 years.
Aggravated tampering: 2–6 years imprisonment.
Additional factors:
Use of violence
Targeting vulnerable witnesses
Organized or repeated attempts
2. Key Principles in Finnish Case Law
Threats or harassment of witnesses, even outside court, constitute tampering.
Bribery or financial inducements to alter testimony are criminal.
Attempted tampering is punishable even if the witness does not change their testimony.
Aggravating factors include the use of violence, multiple witnesses, or organized criminal involvement.
Protection of witnesses, particularly minors or victims of serious crime, is given high priority.
3. Key Finnish Case Law Examples
Below are six detailed cases illustrating how Finnish courts interpret and punish witness tampering.
1. KKO 1999:42 – Threatening a Witness in a Burglary Case
Facts
Defendant contacted a key witness in a burglary case, threatening harm if they testified.
Court’s Reasoning
Direct threat to prevent testimony is sufficient for criminal liability.
No physical contact was required; verbal intimidation alone suffices.
Outcome
Convicted of obstruction of witness testimony, 10 months conditional imprisonment.
Significance: Established that threats outside court are actionable.
2. Hovioikeus Helsinki 2004 – Bribing Witness to Recant
Facts
Defendant offered money to a witness to withdraw a statement in a civil fraud case.
Court’s Reasoning
Offering financial inducement constitutes tampering even if witness initially refuses.
Mens rea of influencing testimony confirmed.
Outcome
Convicted of obstruction of justice, 1 year conditional imprisonment.
Significance: Bribery of witnesses is treated as serious even without compliance.
3. KKO 2008:31 – Aggravated Tampering via Intimidation
Facts
Defendant sent threatening letters to multiple witnesses in a violent assault case.
Court’s Reasoning
Targeting multiple witnesses with coordinated threats constitutes aggravated obstruction.
Scale and repeated nature elevated offence.
Outcome
Convicted of aggravated obstruction of justice, 3 years imprisonment.
Significance: Organized and repeated threats constitute aggravated offence.
4. Hovioikeus Eastern Finland 2012 – Attempted Tampering Fails
Facts
Defendant tried to convince a witness to provide false testimony through persuasion and minor threats, but witness refused.
Court’s Reasoning
Attempted influence with intent to alter testimony constitutes criminal liability even if unsuccessful.
Outcome
Convicted of obstruction of justice, 1 year conditional imprisonment.
Significance: Success of tampering is not required for prosecution.
5. KKO 2016:28 – Tampering via Third Party
Facts
Defendant used a relative to contact a witness and intimidate them into silence.
Court’s Reasoning
Indirect tampering through intermediaries is equivalent to direct action.
Mens rea of the primary defendant is sufficient.
Outcome
Convicted of obstruction of justice, 1.5 years imprisonment.
Significance: Delegating intimidation does not absolve the offender.
6. Hovioikeus Helsinki 2019 – Tampering in Organized Crime Context
Facts
Defendant part of a gang attempted to silence multiple witnesses in a drug trafficking trial using threats of violence.
Court’s Reasoning
Use of organized group, repeated threats, and serious risk of violence elevated the offense to aggravated obstruction.
Outcome
Convicted of aggravated obstruction of justice, 4 years imprisonment.
Significance: Witness tampering in organized crime is treated very harshly.
4. Key Takeaways from Finnish Case Law
Any attempt to influence or intimidate a witness is criminal, whether successful or not.
Threats, bribery, or indirect influence (through others) are punishable.
Multiple witnesses or repeated actions increase severity.
Organized or gang-related tampering is classified as aggravated.
Courts balance freedom of expression vs protection of justice, prioritizing integrity of proceedings.
Penalties range from conditional fines to multi-year imprisonment, depending on violence, organization, and number of targets.
RELATED Blog
comments