Criminal Liability For Perjury

03 Nov 2025 --
0 Comments

1. Legal Framework in Finland

In Finnish law, perjury (valanrikkomus / väärä vala) is criminalized under the Criminal Code (Rikoslaki, Chapter 17, Sections 1–3):

Chapter 17, Section 1: A person who, while giving evidence under oath in court or official proceedings, knowingly gives false testimony is guilty of perjury.

Section 2: If the false testimony is especially serious, e.g., causing serious consequences for another person, the offence is aggravated perjury, which carries a heavier penalty.

Section 3: Intentionally falsifying documents or statements in a sworn context can also constitute perjury-related offences.

Key points:

The person must knowingly give false testimony. Mistaken statements are not perjury.

The false statement must be made under oath or in a context where the law explicitly requires truthfulness.

Aggravating factors include serious consequences, repeated offences, or organized schemes to mislead.

2. Key Cases on Criminal Liability for Perjury

Case 1: KKO 2005:67 — False Testimony in a Civil Trial

Facts: A witness intentionally lied about the existence of a contract in a civil dispute, influencing the court’s decision on property rights.

Issue: Whether knowingly providing false testimony under oath constituted perjury, even though it was a civil case.

Decision: The Supreme Court confirmed the perjury conviction. The false testimony materially affected the court’s assessment, satisfying the requirement of knowingly false statements under oath.

Principle: Even in civil trials, perjury liability arises if the witness intentionally misleads the court under oath.

Case 2: KKO 2008:32 — Perjury in Criminal Proceedings

Facts: A witness in a criminal case denied involvement in a minor assault, despite video evidence proving their presence at the scene.

Issue: Whether the court could convict for perjury when the false statement contradicted clear evidence.

Decision: The Supreme Court held the witness guilty of perjury.

Principle: The presence of clear contradictory evidence strengthens the prosecution’s case for perjury, showing that the statement was knowingly false.

Case 3: KKO 2010:45 — Aggravated Perjury Affecting Sentencing

Facts: A defendant provided false testimony about a co-defendant’s involvement in a theft, attempting to shift blame.

Issue: Whether the perjury could be considered aggravated, given the false testimony had serious consequences for another individual.

Decision: The Court found aggravated perjury. The co-defendant faced higher criminal liability due to the false statements.

Principle: Perjury becomes aggravated when the false statement materially affects another person’s legal responsibility or results in serious consequences.

Case 4: KKO 2012:53 — Sworn Statement to Authorities

Facts: An individual gave a false sworn statement to the police during an official investigation about financial fraud.

Issue: Whether perjury liability extends beyond court proceedings to official sworn statements to authorities.

Decision: The Supreme Court held that sworn statements to authorities under penalty of law are covered. The individual was convicted of perjury.

Principle: Perjury is not limited to courtroom testimony; it also applies to official statements made under oath.

Case 5: KKO 2015:77 — Perjury in Testimony About Family Matters

Facts: A witness in a family law dispute falsely denied financial contributions to a jointly owned property, affecting child support and property division.

Issue: Whether lying in family law proceedings counts as perjury.

Decision: Conviction upheld. The false statement was under oath and had legal consequences for financial and custody matters.

Principle: Perjury applies in all proceedings where testimony under oath can influence legal outcomes. Courts assess intention and material effect.

Case 6: KKO 2017:61 — False Testimony in Commercial Litigation

Facts: A corporate executive provided false sworn testimony to conceal fraudulent financial statements in a company dispute.

Issue: Whether corporate executives giving false statements in commercial litigation can be liable for perjury.

Decision: The Supreme Court convicted the executive. The deliberate attempt to mislead the court on key facts constituted perjury.

Principle: Perjury extends to business or corporate proceedings, emphasizing that anyone providing sworn testimony must tell the truth regardless of professional position.

Case 7: KKO 2019:29 — Perjury and Evidence Fabrication

Facts: During criminal proceedings, a witness not only lied under oath but also attempted to introduce falsified documents to support their false testimony.

Issue: Whether combining perjury with document falsification aggravates the offence.

Decision: The Supreme Court found the defendant guilty of aggravated perjury, noting the combination of false statements and falsified evidence.

Principle: Courts treat perjury more severely when combined with additional fraudulent actions, emphasizing seriousness and intent to mislead.

3. Key Legal Principles from Finnish Case Law

From the cases above, we can extract several important principles:

Knowledge and Intent: Perjury requires that the false statement is knowingly and intentionally false. Mistakes or misunderstandings are not punishable.

Scope: Perjury applies not only to court testimony but also to official sworn statements to authorities or in administrative proceedings.

Aggravating Factors: Serious consequences for others, repeated offences, or combining false testimony with document falsification increases liability.

Material Effect: Courts consider whether the false statement actually influenced legal outcomes. Even if the lie does not succeed, intent matters.

Universal Application: Perjury can occur in civil, criminal, family, commercial, and administrative proceedings; all sworn testimony is treated seriously.