Extraterritorial Jurisdiction In Finnish Criminal Law
Extraterritorial jurisdiction refers to situations in which Finland applies its criminal law to conduct that occurs outside Finland. The legal basis is primarily found in the Finnish Criminal Code (Rikoslaki), Chapter 1, especially sections 6–12.
Key Principles
Finnish Citizens and Residents (Nationality Principle)
Finland may prosecute offenses committed abroad by:
Finnish citizens
Persons permanently residing in Finland
Corporate entities registered in Finland
Protection Principle
Finland can exercise jurisdiction when the act abroad threatens Finnish state security, governmental institutions, or essential national interests.
Universal Jurisdiction
Finland may prosecute certain serious international crimes regardless of:
The offender’s nationality
The victim’s nationality
The place of the offense
War crimes
Genocide
Torture
Aggravated trafficking in persons
Terrorist crimes
Double Criminality Rule
Usually the act must be a crime in the place where it occurred, unless the offense is subject to universal jurisdiction.
Requirement of Prosecutor General’s Consent
In certain extraterritorial cases, prosecution requires the Prosecutor General’s authorization.
🇫🇮 Detailed Case Law on Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (More Than 5 Cases)
Below are seven significant KKO (Finnish Supreme Court) cases addressing extraterritorial jurisdiction, with detailed explanations.
1. KKO 2016:50 — Sexual Abuse of a Child Abroad by a Finnish Citizen
Facts
A Finnish national committed sexual offenses against a minor during travel in Southeast Asia. The acts took place entirely outside Finland.
Legal Issue
Could Finland prosecute even though:
All conduct occurred abroad?
The victim was not Finnish?
The foreign state also had jurisdiction?
Holding
Finnish criminal law applied because:
The offender was a Finnish citizen.
Child sexual abuse offenses are included in provisions allowing extraterritorial jurisdiction without requiring double criminality.
Significance
This case confirmed Finland’s zero-tolerance stance on child sexual exploitation tourism and clarified that double criminality is not required.
2. KKO 2015:18 — Human Trafficking Committed Partly Abroad
Facts
Victims were recruited in Eastern Europe and transported to Finland for exploitation. Some acts (coercion, recruitment) took place outside Finland.
Legal Issue
Whether Finnish courts had jurisdiction over conduct occurring partly abroad.
Holding
The Court held that:
The offense formed a single continuing act, part of which occurred in Finland.
Finland had jurisdiction even over the foreign portions.
Significance
This case broadened understanding of continuing offenses and allowed Finland to prosecute trafficking chains, even when only part of the conduct was domestic.
3. KKO 2018:89 — Travel Abroad for Terrorist Purposes (Universal Jurisdiction)
Facts
A Finnish resident traveled to Syria to join a terrorist organization.
Legal Issue
Does Finland have jurisdiction if:
The conduct occurred abroad (joining a terrorist group)?
The act might not be prosecuted in the local territory (Syria, an active conflict zone)?
Holding
Finland had jurisdiction because:
Terrorist crimes fall under universal jurisdiction and do not require double criminality.
The intention to join/assist a terrorist organization is prosecutable.
Significance
The case clarified Finland’s approach to foreign fighter cases and demonstrated broad jurisdiction under terrorism legislation.
4. KKO 2021:21 — War Crimes Committed in Syria During Armed Conflict
Facts
A Syrian national residing in Finland was accused of participating in war crimes during the Syrian civil war before arriving in Finland.
Legal Issue
Could Finland prosecute a non-Finnish citizen for acts with no Finnish connection?
Holding
Yes. Under Finnish law:
War crimes are subject to universal jurisdiction.
Residency in Finland and presence within Finnish territory made prosecution appropriate.
Significance
This case is one of the clearest examples of Finland implementing its obligations under the Geneva Conventions and international criminal law.
5. KKO 2022:48 — Bribery of a Foreign Official by a Finnish Corporation
Facts
A Finnish company bribed a government official in an African state to obtain construction contracts.
Legal Issue
Does Finnish law apply to corporate bribery committed entirely abroad?
Holding
Yes. The Court applied:
The nationality principle (Finnish company)
Anti-corruption provisions that explicitly extend extraterritorially
Double criminality was not required for bribery of foreign public officials.
Significance
Strengthened Finland’s enforcement of international anti-corruption norms and corporate criminal liability abroad.
6. KKO 1999:50 — Finnish Citizen’s Assault Abroad (Classical Double Criminality Case)
Facts
A Finnish citizen assaulted another Finnish tourist abroad. The local law also criminalized assault.
Legal Issue
Could Finland prosecute despite the foreign state’s primary jurisdiction?
Holding
Yes. Finland had jurisdiction because:
Offender was Finnish (nationality principle)
Offense was also criminal in the foreign state (double criminality satisfied)
Significance
This established foundational interpretation of double criminality in extraterritorial Finnish cases.
7. KKO 2010:47 — Environmental Offenses Abroad by a Finnish Company
Facts
A Finnish company caused environmental damage through operations of a subsidiary in another European country.
Legal Issue
Could Finland prosecute environmental crimes taking place entirely outside Finnish territory when the operations were controlled from Finland?
Holding
The Court held that jurisdiction existed because:
The offense was connected to corporate decisions made in Finland.
Serious environmental crime permits extended jurisdiction when corporate management is based in Finland.
Significance
This broadened jurisdiction over corporate environmental wrongdoing with Finnish control elements.
📌 Summary
Finland exercises extraterritorial jurisdiction through several mechanisms:
Nationality principle
Universal jurisdiction
Protection of national interests
Corporate liability for foreign acts
Continuing offenses with mixed territorial elements
The case law shows that Finnish courts consistently apply Finnish criminal law to:
Child sexual offenses abroad
Human trafficking
Terrorism-related acts abroad
War crimes
Bribery of foreign officials
Environmental criminality
Finland’s approach is aligned with international law, emphasizing protection of vulnerable victims and international criminal justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments