Corporate Criminal Liability In Finland
Corporate Criminal Liability in Finland
In Finnish law:
Legal Basis: Corporations can be criminally liable under the Finnish Penal Code (Chapter 47a: Liability of Legal Persons) for crimes committed in the interest or for the benefit of the corporation.
Scope of Liability: Typically applies to:
Environmental crimes
Economic crimes (fraud, embezzlement, insider trading)
Occupational safety violations
Bribery and corruption
Forms of Punishment: Corporations may be fined, have assets confiscated, or face administrative sanctions. Individuals within the company may face separate criminal charges.
Key Principle: The act must be committed by individuals with decision-making authority for the corporation’s benefit.
Case 1: Environmental Pollution – Supreme Court of Finland 2005: KKO 2005:87
Facts:
A manufacturing company illegally discharged toxic waste into a river.
The company claimed it followed internal procedures but employees acted independently.
Legal Principles:
Court emphasized corporate liability if the crime is committed by managerial staff or for the corporation’s benefit.
Liability is not negated if the act was outsourced.
Outcome:
Company fined €500,000.
CEO and environmental manager received 1–2 years suspended sentences for negligent environmental offenses.
Significance:
Demonstrates that corporations in Finland can be held financially responsible, while individuals face separate criminal sanctions.
Case 2: Occupational Safety Violation Leading to Death – Court of Appeal of Finland 2010: R 10/23
Facts:
Construction firm failed to ensure safety standards; worker died in an accident.
Legal Principles:
Corporate liability applies when lack of safety protocols benefits the company economically.
Individual criminal liability also considered for managers responsible for safety compliance.
Outcome:
Corporation fined €200,000.
Site manager sentenced to 18 months suspended sentence for negligent homicide.
Significance:
Reinforces dual liability: both the corporation and responsible individuals can be punished.
Case 3: Financial Fraud by a Bank – Supreme Court of Finland 2012: KKO 2012:58
Facts:
Bank employees falsified loan documents to inflate profits.
Senior management knew but did not act.
Legal Principles:
Corporate liability arises when senior management condones or benefits from criminal acts.
Evidence of knowledge and benefit to the corporation is crucial.
Outcome:
Bank fined €1.2 million.
Senior executives received 2–3 years suspended sentences for fraud and breach of trust.
Significance:
Establishes that corporations cannot hide behind employees’ actions if management is complicit.
Case 4: Bribery of Public Officials – Court of Appeal of Finland 2014: R 14/11
Facts:
Construction firm paid bribes to municipal officials to secure contracts.
Legal Principles:
Corporate liability attaches if the bribery benefits the company economically.
The company must implement measures to prevent such acts to mitigate liability.
Outcome:
Company fined €600,000.
CEO received 3 years conditional imprisonment.
Court emphasized need for compliance programs in companies.
Significance:
Shows Finnish law encourages corporations to maintain anti-corruption compliance systems.
Case 5: Environmental Crime – Hazardous Waste Handling – Court of Appeal of Finland 2017: R 17/45
Facts:
Chemical company illegally exported hazardous waste without proper permits.
Legal Principles:
Corporate liability requires direct benefit or intention to profit from illegal activity.
Directors are accountable if aware of illegal disposal practices.
Outcome:
Company fined €800,000.
Environmental director received 2-year suspended sentence.
Significance:
Highlights dual liability: corporate fines and individual criminal responsibility.
Case 6: Insider Trading – Helsinki District Court 2019: R 19/77
Facts:
Employees of a listed company shared confidential information to benefit trades.
The board failed to monitor compliance.
Legal Principles:
Corporate liability arises when lack of oversight allows financial crime to benefit the company.
Senior management may face negligence liability if due diligence is absent.
Outcome:
Company fined €1 million.
CEO and CFO received conditional fines and suspended sentences.
Significance:
Finnish law penalizes both the corporation and negligent executives, emphasizing compliance.
Case 7: Food Safety Violation – Court of Appeal of Finland 2021: R 21/12
Facts:
Food processing company knowingly sold contaminated products.
Legal Principles:
Corporate liability arises when actions endanger public safety and profit is obtained.
Individuals directly responsible are also liable.
Outcome:
Corporation fined €400,000.
Production manager sentenced to 12 months suspended imprisonment.
Significance:
Finnish law prioritizes public protection and imposes liability for corporate negligence.
Key Principles Demonstrated Across Cases
Dual Liability: Finnish law punishes both corporations and responsible individuals.
Decision-Maker Responsibility: Liability depends on management knowledge or benefit.
Scope of Crimes: Economic crimes, environmental offenses, safety violations, and corruption are common grounds for corporate liability.
Proportional Fines: Corporations face financial penalties; severity depends on benefit gained and harm caused.
Compliance Mitigation: Courts consider existing compliance systems; lack of them can aggravate liability.
RELATED Blog
comments