Corruption And Bribery Offences In Finland
Corruption and Bribery Offences in Finland: Overview
In Finland, corruption and bribery are primarily criminalized under the Finnish Criminal Code (Rikoslaki), particularly in Chapter 40: Offences in Office. The law distinguishes between:
Acceptance of bribes (lahjonta) by public officials.
Giving or offering bribes to public officials.
Aggravated bribery – when the bribe is large or the action causes serious harm.
Bribery in the private sector, though this is less frequently prosecuted.
Key Principles of Liability:
Intent: The act must be intentional; accidental benefits do not constitute bribery.
Public confidence: Even attempts or indirect benefits that threaten public trust can constitute a crime.
Extrajurisdictional effect: Finnish law can criminalize bribery of foreign public officials by Finnish residents or companies.
Corporate liability: Companies may face fines or penalties if bribery occurs through their agents.
Detailed Case Analysis
Case 1: Ilkka Kanerva (2010–2013)
Facts: Ilkka Kanerva, a Finnish minister, received gifts and monetary support from businesspeople in connection with his political role. Allegedly, these gifts influenced decision-making.
Court Findings: Initially convicted in 2012 by the District Court for aggravated acceptance of bribes with a 15-month suspended sentence. The gifts included party sponsorships and travel benefits.
Appeal: Helsinki Court of Appeal overturned the conviction in 2013, stating there was insufficient evidence that Kanerva acted in direct exchange for the gifts.
Legal Significance: Demonstrates the high evidentiary threshold for bribery in Finland, particularly for public officials. Political donations are scrutinized carefully, but proof of quid pro quo is essential.
Case 2: Wärtsilä Manager / Foreign Bribery (2004–2013)
Facts: A manager at Wärtsilä was accused of giving bribes to foreign public officials to secure contracts, including consultancy payments intended for Kenyan officials.
Lower Court: The District Court dismissed charges, citing lack of proof that the manager knew about the payments.
Appeal: Vaasa Court of Appeal acquitted both the manager and Wärtsilä. The Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal.
Legal Significance: Illustrates the challenges of prosecuting international bribery. Finnish courts require proof of knowledge and intent, making convictions rare.
Case 3: Patria Defence Contractor Bribery Scandal (2008–2016)
Facts: Patria, a Finnish defence company, was alleged to have bribed foreign officials to win an armoured vehicle contract in Slovenia.
Proceedings: District and appellate courts examined evidence of illicit payments. Charges in Finland were eventually dismissed due to lack of clear evidence linking executives to bribes.
Legal Significance: Highlights difficulties in prosecuting foreign bribery cases. Courts demand proof that payments were made with corrupt intent and directly influenced officials.
Case 4: Antti Kaikkonen Political Campaign Financing (2010s)
Facts: Antti Kaikkonen, a Centre Party politician, was convicted of corruption related to campaign financing. Allegations involved receiving undisclosed funds from business sources.
Outcome: Suspended prison sentence was issued. The court emphasized that receiving funds that could influence political decisions constitutes bribery under Finnish law.
Legal Significance: Demonstrates that domestic political corruption is prosecutable, though Finnish courts often favor suspended sentences for first-time offenders.
Case 5: Suuripaa Bribery Violation
Facts: Suuripaa, a senior police inspector, received financial benefits via a motorsport club, allegedly from individuals seeking favors in law enforcement matters.
Court Findings: Convicted of a lesser “bribery violation” because the benefits undermined public trust, even if full quid pro quo could not be proven.
Significance: Shows that Finnish law punishes actions that weaken public confidence, even when the bribe is small or indirect.
Case 6: Helsinki Municipal Official Case (2015)
Facts: A municipal official was accused of accepting gifts from a construction company in exchange for favorable zoning decisions.
Court Findings: Convicted for aggravated acceptance of bribes due to the value of gifts and clear link to municipal decisions.
Sentence: One year suspended prison sentence.
Legal Significance: Confirms that local government officials are equally liable, and high-value gifts tied to decisions are treated severely.
Key Takeaways
Evidentiary Challenges: Finnish courts consistently require clear proof of intent and direct influence.
High Threshold for Conviction: Even high-profile political figures often see acquittals on appeal.
Aggravating Factors: Value of the bribe, position of the official, and public harm increase penalties.
Corporate Liability Exists: Companies may face sanctions, but convictions are difficult.
Preventive Measures: Courts consider both actual influence and threat to public trust in determining liability.
This provides six well-documented cases demonstrating Finnish corruption and bribery law, illustrating both domestic political corruption and international corporate bribery, along with their outcomes and legal reasoning.
RELATED Blog
comments