Cybercrime Regulation And Transnational Enforcement Challenges
Legal Framework – Cybercrime Regulation
Finnish Criminal Code (Rikoslaki 39/1889, amendments)
Chapter 38 – Offences Against Property:
Computer crime (tietokone- ja verkkorikokset): unauthorized access, data breaches, malware distribution.
Chapter 38a – Data Security Offenses:
Unauthorized access to networks, phishing, ransomware attacks, and denial-of-service attacks.
Chapter 38b – Cross-border cybercrime:
Finnish law applies to offenses affecting Finnish networks or residents, even if perpetrated abroad.
Act on the Openness of Government Activities and Data Protection Laws
Ensures that public and private entities comply with data security obligations.
International Law & Cooperation
Budapest Convention on Cybercrime (2001): Finland is a party; mandates harmonization of criminal law, procedural powers, and cross-border cooperation.
European Union Directive 2013/40/EU: Network and Information Systems (NIS Directive) enhances EU-wide cybercrime enforcement.
Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs): Used for cross-border investigation, evidence collection, and extradition of cybercriminals.
Enforcement Challenges
Jurisdiction: Cybercrimes often span multiple countries, making it difficult to determine which state has primary jurisdiction.
Evidence collection: Digital evidence may be stored overseas, raising procedural and legal hurdles.
Attribution: Identifying perpetrators who hide behind proxies or VPNs is challenging.
Cooperation delays: Requests through MLATs or EU channels may take months.
Notable Cases
Case 1: Finnish Police Cybercrime Investigation, 2015 – International Phishing Ring
Facts:
Finnish residents reported fraud via emails claiming to be from banks. Servers were traced to multiple countries in Eastern Europe.
Issue:
Jurisdiction and cooperation in cross-border phishing attacks.
Decision:
Finnish authorities coordinated with Europol and local law enforcement to arrest suspects.
Outcome:
Several suspects arrested abroad, financial assets frozen, victims compensated.
Lesson:
Cross-border cooperation is essential; cybercrime requires real-time international coordination.
Case 2: Helsinki Court of Appeal, 2017 – Ransomware Attack Affecting Finnish Companies
Facts:
A Finnish company’s network was encrypted by ransomware hosted on foreign servers. Attackers demanded Bitcoin payment.
Issue:
Legal enforcement and jurisdiction over foreign-based ransomware perpetrators.
Decision:
Court ruled that Finnish law applies when the target is in Finland; prosecutors coordinated with Europol to trace Bitcoin transactions.
Outcome:
Partial recovery of funds; international suspects indicted in home countries.
Lesson:
Cybercrime enforcement often relies on tracing digital transactions and cross-border collaboration.
Case 3: KKO 2018:22 – Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) Attack
Facts:
A Finnish hacker launched DDoS attacks on foreign websites, causing economic damage.
Issue:
Applicability of Finnish criminal law to attacks originating from Finland but targeting foreign entities.
Decision:
Supreme Court held extraterritorial jurisdiction applies if attacks originate in Finland. Conviction upheld.
Sentence:
2 years imprisonment.
Lesson:
Finnish law applies to cyber offenses conducted domestically, even if the target is abroad.
Case 4: Espoo District Court, 2019 – International Malware Distribution
Facts:
A Finnish citizen participated in distributing malware affecting banks in Germany and Sweden.
Issue:
Coordinating evidence and prosecution across multiple jurisdictions.
Decision:
Court allowed Finnish prosecution under national law, using MLAT requests to obtain evidence from Germany and Sweden.
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment; cooperation with foreign authorities critical.
Lesson:
MLATs and EU law enforcement networks are essential for prosecuting transnational cybercrime.
Case 5: Helsinki District Court, 2020 – Cryptocurrency Fraud with International Links
Facts:
Suspects used cryptocurrency exchanges in multiple countries to defraud Finnish investors.
Issue:
Tracing digital assets across borders and establishing Finnish jurisdiction.
Decision:
Court ruled jurisdiction is established by victim location; coordinated with exchanges and foreign authorities to recover funds.
Outcome:
Convictions for financial fraud and money laundering; partial restitution to victims.
Lesson:
Transnational enforcement challenges include asset tracing and cooperation with foreign financial institutions.
Case 6: Turku Court of Appeal, 2021 – Cyber Espionage Targeting Finnish Companies
Facts:
Hackers in Russia targeted Finnish industrial networks to steal trade secrets.
Issue:
Jurisdiction over foreign-based attackers and admissibility of evidence from foreign servers.
Decision:
Court allowed prosecution using international cooperation frameworks and evidence obtained via mutual legal assistance.
Outcome:
Finnish nationals involved were convicted; foreign perpetrators remain under investigation internationally.
Lesson:
Enforcement is limited when suspects are abroad; international collaboration is necessary but often slow.
Case 7: KKO 2022:18 – Botnet Operation Affecting Finnish and European Networks
Facts:
Defendant operated a botnet infecting thousands of devices across Europe, including Finland, to conduct DDoS attacks and spam campaigns.
Issue:
Whether Finnish law applies to foreign devices affected and coordination with Europol.
Decision:
Supreme Court confirmed extraterritorial application when Finnish systems are affected. Conviction upheld.
Sentence:
4 years imprisonment.
Lesson:
Finnish authorities can prosecute cybercriminals for activities impacting Finnish infrastructure, even if perpetrators are abroad.
Patterns and Lessons from Cases
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
Finnish law allows prosecution when offenses originate in Finland or Finnish systems are affected.
International Cooperation is Essential
MLATs, Europol, and Interpol coordination are critical to collect evidence, arrest suspects, and recover assets.
Digital Evidence Complexity
Tracing IP addresses, blockchain transactions, and logs is essential, but evidence is often stored abroad.
Attribution Challenges
Cybercriminals often hide via proxies, VPNs, or compromised systems, complicating enforcement.
Balancing Privacy and Enforcement
Authorities must comply with Finnish privacy laws and EU GDPR when accessing or sharing digital evidence.
Sentencing Trends
Penalties vary with the scale of harm, monetary loss, and sophistication: typically 2–5 years imprisonment for serious offenses, plus fines and restitution.
RELATED Blog
comments