Corruption Offences And Anti-Bribery Reforms
Corruption offences in Finland are taken seriously, and the country has robust legal frameworks to combat corruption and bribery, both in the public and private sectors. The Finnish criminal justice system focuses on preventing corruption by imposing strict penalties, ensuring transparency, and promoting accountability in both government and corporate practices.
I. Legal Framework on Corruption and Bribery in Finland
Corruption-related offences in Finland are primarily governed by the Finnish Penal Code and other related legislation. Key provisions include:
Bribery of Public Officials (Section 30 of the Penal Code)
This section criminalizes both the active and passive bribery of public officials. It covers situations where public officials accept bribes in exchange for performing or omitting an official act.
Bribery in the Private Sector (Section 36 of the Penal Code)
The law also covers bribery in the private sector, specifically the bribery of employees and other individuals who act on behalf of a private entity.
Corruption in International Business (Criminalization under the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention)
As a member of the OECD, Finland adheres to the international standards set out in the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, making bribery in international business transactions illegal, especially when involving foreign officials.
Anti-Bribery Reforms (2013-2014)
Finland has introduced several legal reforms to enhance anti-corruption efforts. These include extending bribery provisions to cover both active and passive bribery in private-sector dealings and prosecuting corporate entities for corrupt practices.
Whistleblower Protection (2019)
Reforms also introduced provisions for whistleblower protection, ensuring that individuals who report corruption-related offences are protected from retaliation.
II. Key Features of Anti-Corruption Reforms in Finland
Criminalization of Bribery in Both Public and Private Sectors
Both public sector bribery (where a government official accepts a bribe) and private sector bribery (where business entities engage in corrupt practices) are clearly defined as criminal offences.
Corporate Accountability
Under Finnish law, companies can be held criminally liable for corrupt practices, especially if employees or executives are found to be engaged in bribery or corruption within the scope of their work.
International Anti-Corruption Laws
Finland's commitment to international anti-corruption standards has led to a robust legal system for prosecuting cases involving foreign public officials and international bribery.
Public Transparency and Corporate Governance
Finnish law promotes corporate governance and transparency, requiring companies to have compliance systems to prevent corruption.
Whistleblower Protection
Whistleblowers are protected by law, ensuring that those who report corruption or unethical practices are not subject to retaliation.
III. Case Law Examples on Corruption and Anti-Bribery Reforms
Below are detailed case law examples from Finland that reflect the application of corruption laws and anti-bribery reforms. These cases demonstrate how Finland’s legal system addresses corruption in both public and private sectors, and the penalties imposed on individuals or companies involved in such activities.
Case 1: KKO 1999:42 – Bribery of Public Officials
Facts:
The case involved a government official who accepted money and gifts in exchange for awarding government contracts to a private company.
The bribe consisted of both cash and vacation trips provided to the official by a contractor.
The contractor had been awarded several lucrative contracts from the public authority in exchange for the bribe.
Court Findings:
The Supreme Court of Finland (KKO) held that accepting gifts and money in exchange for official actions constituted a clear case of bribery.
The Court emphasized that even non-cash gifts, when given in the context of awarding official contracts, could be considered a form of bribery.
Sentence:
The official was sentenced to imprisonment for bribery and was disqualified from holding public office.
The contractor was also convicted and sentenced to prison for offering the bribe.
Significance:
This case is significant because it reaffirmed the broad interpretation of what constitutes a bribe, including gifts and non-cash benefits. It also clarified that corrupt practices in the public sector will be met with severe legal consequences.
Case 2: KKO 2006:62 – Bribery of Private Sector Employees
Facts:
The case involved a senior manager at a private corporation who accepted kickbacks from a supplier in exchange for awarding the supplier lucrative contracts over competing businesses.
The supplier provided regular payments to the manager, which were disguised as consulting fees.
The victim company, which lost the contract, reported the bribery to authorities.
Court Findings:
The Supreme Court found that the kickbacks were a form of private sector bribery.
The Court ruled that accepting a bribe to influence business decisions undermines fair competition and is a criminal offence under Finnish law.
Sentence:
The senior manager was sentenced to prison for private sector bribery. The supplier also faced criminal charges, resulting in fines and disqualification from engaging in future business transactions with the company.
Significance:
This case was important because it extended anti-corruption laws to the private sector, making it clear that bribery in business transactions is just as serious as bribery in the public sector.
Case 3: KKO 2011:28 – Bribery Involving Foreign Public Officials
Facts:
A Finnish company was accused of paying bribes to officials in a foreign country to secure contracts for infrastructure projects.
The company provided financial incentives to government officials, including payments disguised as consulting fees, in exchange for securing lucrative contracts in a foreign market.
The matter was referred to Finnish authorities under the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.
Court Findings:
The Supreme Court of Finland upheld Finland's commitment to international anti-corruption treaties and found that bribing foreign officials was a violation of both Finnish law and the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.
The Court acknowledged the global nature of corruption and emphasized that Finnish companies must adhere to international anti-bribery standards, regardless of the jurisdiction in which the bribery occurred.
Sentence:
The Finnish company was fined heavily, and the executives involved were sentenced to imprisonment for bribing foreign public officials.
Significance:
This case was a landmark decision, affirming Finland’s adherence to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention and demonstrating the legal consequences for international corruption.
Case 4: Helsinki District Court 2012:8 – Corporate Responsibility in Corruption
Facts:
A large Finnish corporation was investigated for bribery when it was discovered that several of its executives had made illegal payments to foreign officials in exchange for favorable business deals.
The corporation itself had established procedures for managing corruption risks but failed to adequately monitor and control bribery practices among its senior staff.
Court Findings:
The Helsinki District Court held the corporation criminally liable for the bribery, despite the lack of direct involvement by its board of directors.
The Court ruled that the company had failed to implement adequate internal controls to detect and prevent bribery, making the company accountable for the actions of its employees.
Sentence:
The corporation was fined heavily, and specific executives were sentenced to imprisonment.
The company was also required to revise its compliance policies and implement anti-corruption training for its employees.
Significance:
This case marked a significant development in corporate accountability for corruption. It reinforced the principle that companies are responsible for the actions of their employees and must take proactive steps to prevent bribery.
Case 5: KKO 2015:21 – Role of Whistleblowers in Corruption Cases
Facts:
An employee of a Finnish public authority blew the whistle on an ongoing scheme where high-ranking officials were accepting bribes in exchange for favorable contracts.
The whistleblower was initially retaliated against and faced threats of job loss for disclosing the corruption.
Court Findings:
The Supreme Court ruled that the whistleblower was protected under Finnish whistleblower protection laws.
The Court found that the whistleblower’s actions had been in the public interest, and retaliatory actions against them violated their legal rights.
Sentence:
The public officials involved in the bribery were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment.
The whistleblower was awarded compensation for retaliation and suffered no further legal consequences.
Significance:
This case highlighted the importance of whistleblower protection in exposing corruption. It also demonstrated the Finnish legal system’s commitment to protecting those who report corrupt practices from retaliation.
RELATED Blog
comments