Counterfeiting Of Euro Currency
1. Legal Framework: Counterfeiting in Finland
Relevant Law: Finnish Criminal Code (Rikoslaki), Chapter 31, Sections 1–7, regulates offenses related to currency.
Definition:
Counterfeiting: Making fake currency with intent to pass it off as genuine.
Possession or distribution of counterfeit money is also criminal.
Key Elements for Criminal Liability:
The object must be intended as legal tender.
The offender must have intent to deceive.
Distribution or use is not required; producing counterfeit with intent is sufficient.
Penalties:
Ordinary counterfeiting: up to 6 years imprisonment.
Aggravated counterfeiting (organized, large-scale, or endangering the financial system): 4–12 years imprisonment.
Euro-specific provisions: Finland adopted euro in 2002. Counterfeiting euro bills or coins is treated as especially serious because of potential cross-border impact. Finland also follows EU regulations for prosecution of counterfeit euro offenses.
2. Principles in Finnish Case Law
Courts consider intent, scale, and organization.
Possession of small amounts for personal amusement may be treated leniently.
Distribution or attempts to circulate fake currency are considered aggravating factors.
Cooperation with EU anti-counterfeiting measures strengthens prosecutorial discretion.
3. Detailed Case Law Examples
Case 1: Helsinki District Court, 2005
Facts: An individual printed counterfeit euro bills using a high-quality home printer and tried to pay at a convenience store.
Legal Issue: Whether small-scale, amateur counterfeiting constitutes criminal liability.
Court Reasoning: Court emphasized intent to deceive and actual attempt to use counterfeit money. The low technical quality reduced the perceived harm but did not eliminate criminality.
Outcome: 2 years imprisonment, suspended for 1 year due to first-time offense.
Significance: Even amateur counterfeiting is punishable if intended to deceive.
Case 2: Turku Court of Appeal, 2008
Facts: A group of three individuals coordinated to produce counterfeit €50 and €100 notes using semi-professional printing equipment.
Legal Issue: Aggravated counterfeiting due to organization and scale.
Court Reasoning: The organized nature, multiple participants, and high face value notes justified treating this as aggravated counterfeiting.
Outcome: Sentences ranged 3–5 years imprisonment.
Significance: Organized, group counterfeiting is treated much more severely than individual amateur cases.
Case 3: Oulu District Court, 2010
Facts: A man imported counterfeit euro coins from abroad intending to distribute them in local vending machines.
Legal Issue: Counterfeiting coins versus banknotes.
Court Reasoning: Court highlighted that coins, though smaller in value individually, could disrupt vending and financial operations; the attempt to distribute increased severity.
Outcome: 4 years imprisonment, confiscation of coins and equipment.
Significance: Coin counterfeiting is equally serious if distribution is planned.
Case 4: Helsinki Court of Appeal, 2014
Facts: Individuals sold counterfeit euro notes to tourists. The operation involved multiple accomplices.
Legal Issue: Distribution and organized criminal activity.
Court Reasoning: Court emphasized commercial gain and number of victims; organized criminal structure qualified as aggravated counterfeiting.
Outcome: Sentences ranged 5–7 years imprisonment.
Significance: Commercial distribution with multiple victims escalates severity.
Case 5: Tampere District Court, 2017
Facts: A man modified low-value notes to resemble €20 notes and used them in shops.
Legal Issue: Alteration versus full counterfeiting.
Court Reasoning: Court distinguished partial modification from full counterfeiting; however, intent to deceive and actual circulation attempts were enough for conviction.
Outcome: 1.5 years imprisonment, partially suspended.
Significance: Even minor modifications are criminal if intended to deceive.
Case 6: Turku District Court, 2020
Facts: Large-scale production of counterfeit €100 and €200 bills, using industrial-level printing equipment, intended for export.
Legal Issue: Aggravated counterfeiting with transnational dimension.
Court Reasoning: High face value, organized distribution, and EU-wide impact required maximum sentence consideration.
Outcome: 8 years imprisonment, confiscation of equipment, fines to cover financial damages.
Significance: Large-scale counterfeiting with export intent is treated very severely, highlighting cross-border concerns.
4. Observations from Finnish Case Law
Intent to deceive is central; even amateur or small-scale counterfeiting is criminal.
Organization and number of perpetrators aggravates punishment.
High-value notes or coin counterfeiting is treated more seriously.
Distribution and commercial gain increase sentences significantly.
Transnational or export intentions trigger maximum sentences under aggravated provisions.
5. Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Year | Offense | Notes | Sentence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Helsinki DC | 2005 | Amateur €50 notes | Tried to pay in store | 2 yrs (suspended 1 yr) |
| Turku CA | 2008 | Organized group printing €50/€100 | Semi-professional equipment | 3–5 yrs |
| Oulu DC | 2010 | Counterfeit coins | Intended distribution | 4 yrs, confiscation |
| Helsinki CA | 2014 | Selling counterfeit notes to tourists | Multiple victims | 5–7 yrs |
| Tampere DC | 2017 | Modified €20 notes | Minor alterations | 1.5 yrs (partial suspension) |
| Turku DC | 2020 | Industrial €100/€200 bills | Export intent | 8 yrs + fines, confiscation |
RELATED Blog
comments