Cybercrime Task Forces In Finland
I. Overview of Cybercrime Task Forces in Finland
Cybercrime in Finland is addressed by specialized law enforcement units under the National Bureau of Investigation (Keskusrikospoliisi, KRP) and local police departments. Key features:
1. Structure and Mandate
National Cybercrime Centre (Kyberturvallisuuskeskus, within KRP):
Investigates serious cybercrime, including hacking, fraud, and online threats.
Coordinates with international authorities, e.g., Europol and Interpol.
Local Cybercrime Units:
Handle less severe or localized offenses, such as phishing or online harassment.
Collaboration:
Finnish Financial Supervisory Authority, CERT-FI (Computer Emergency Response Team Finland), and prosecutors collaborate for evidence collection, prevention, and investigation.
2. Legal Framework for Cybercrime
Key Finnish laws governing cybercrime include:
| Law | Scope |
|---|---|
| Criminal Code (Rikoslaki 39/1889, Ch. 38, 25) | Unauthorized access to data, computer sabotage, fraud |
| Data Protection Act (Tietosuojalaki 1050/2018) | Handling of personal data breaches |
| Act on Electronic Communication Services (917/2014) | Cybersecurity obligations for service providers |
| Act on Investigative Powers (Laki poliisin ja muiden viranomaisten toimivallasta tietoverkkorikoksissa / 1999/450) | Search and seizure of digital evidence |
3. Common Cybercrime Investigations
Unauthorized access / hacking (tietomurto)
Malware and ransomware attacks
Online fraud, phishing, and identity theft
Distribution of illegal content
Cyber harassment and threats
II. Case Law on Cybercrime in Finland (KKO)
Here are six notable KKO cases demonstrating how Finnish courts interpret and enforce cybercrime laws:
1. KKO 2002:94 — Unauthorized Access to a Computer System
Facts:
Defendant accessed a company’s internal database without authorization to obtain confidential information.
Holding:
KKO held that unauthorized access constitutes a criminal offense under the Criminal Code.
Intent to gain benefit or cause harm was considered aggravating.
Significance:
Established strict liability for hacking and data breaches.
Even access without damage can be prosecuted if unauthorized.
2. KKO 2005:38 — Computer Sabotage
Facts:
Defendant introduced malware that disrupted a company’s online operations.
Holding:
KKO confirmed liability for computer sabotage, emphasizing potential financial and operational harm.
Sentence included imprisonment due to severity of disruption.
Significance:
Highlights that operational disruption alone constitutes a serious offense, not just theft of data.
3. KKO 2010:22 — Online Fraud and Phishing
Facts:
Defendant used phishing emails to collect banking credentials and withdraw funds.
Holding:
KKO ruled this as fraud under Chapter 36, noting digital methods do not reduce culpability.
Aggravating factors included the number of victims and monetary amount.
Significance:
Confirms that cyber techniques are treated equivalently to traditional fraud.
Financial harm and scale are considered in sentencing.
4. KKO 2013:51 — Unauthorized Data Disclosure
Facts:
Employee leaked personal data of customers without consent.
Holding:
KKO emphasized data protection obligations, holding the defendant criminally liable for unauthorized disclosure.
Fines and potential imprisonment applied.
Significance:
Data privacy violations have criminal consequences.
Highlights integration of data protection principles into cybercrime prosecution.
5. KKO 2016:33 — Cyber Harassment / Threats
Facts:
Defendant sent repeated threatening emails and harassing messages to an individual.
Holding:
KKO held that threats and harassment via electronic communications are punishable, similar to physical threats.
Severity, repetition, and psychological impact influenced sentencing.
Significance:
Cyber harassment is treated as seriously as traditional harassment.
Courts consider impact on victim’s mental health.
6. KKO 2019:18 — Ransomware Attack and Extortion
Facts:
Defendant deployed ransomware to encrypt company files and demanded payment.
Holding:
KKO classified the act as extortion combined with computer sabotage, justifying substantial imprisonment.
Court emphasized intent to extort and actual damage caused.
Significance:
Modern cybercrime methods like ransomware are fully recognized under existing criminal statutes.
Combined offenses (extortion + cyber sabotage) are treated more severely.
III. Key Principles from Finnish Cybercrime Case Law
| Principle | Case Example | Takeaways |
|---|---|---|
| Unauthorized access = crime | KKO 2002:94 | Hacking is criminal even if no damage occurs |
| Malware and disruption = sabotage | KKO 2005:38 | Operational harm is sufficient for liability |
| Online fraud = traditional fraud | KKO 2010:22 | Phishing and digital scams treated equivalently |
| Data disclosure = criminal offense | KKO 2013:51 | Breach of data protection law can trigger fines or imprisonment |
| Cyber harassment = punishable | KKO 2016:33 | Electronic threats treated like physical harassment |
| Ransomware + extortion = severe crime | KKO 2019:18 | Multiple cybercrime offenses can be aggregated |
IV. Additional Notes on Cybercrime Task Forces
Evidence gathering: Use of digital forensics and logs.
International cooperation: Many cases involve cross-border elements, requiring coordination with Europol, Interpol, and other agencies.
Prevention focus: CERT-FI and KRP provide guidelines for businesses and individuals to prevent attacks.
Sentencing and rehabilitation: Courts balance severity of digital harm, offender intent, and potential for rehabilitation.
RELATED Blog
0 comments