Industrial Espionage Prosecutions In Finland
Legal Framework – Industrial Espionage in Finland
Finnish Penal Code (Rikoslaki)
Chapter 38 – Crimes Against Property and Business:
Section 28 – Industrial Espionage (Teollisuussalaisuuden väärinkäyttö): Criminalizes obtaining, using, or disclosing trade secrets without authorization to benefit oneself or a third party.
Section 29 – Aggravated Industrial Espionage: Covers acts that cause significant economic harm, involve organized activity, or affect national security.
Trade Secrets Act (TSA) 2018 / Liikesalaisuuksien suoja
Protects business information that is secret, commercially valuable, and subject to reasonable protection measures.
Misappropriation can lead to both civil liability (damages) and criminal liability (fines or imprisonment).
Key Elements of Industrial Espionage
Unauthorized acquisition, disclosure, or use of a trade secret.
Knowledge that information is confidential and proprietary.
Intention to benefit oneself or a competitor, or harm the legitimate owner.
Key Cases on Industrial Espionage in Finland
1. KKO 2010:45 – Theft of Technical Design Files
Facts: An engineer copied confidential technical drawings of a machinery manufacturer before resigning to join a competitor.
Legal Issue: Whether taking proprietary designs for personal benefit constitutes industrial espionage.
Court Reasoning:
Court highlighted the intent to gain economic advantage using secret information.
The engineer knew the information was confidential and subject to company protection measures.
Outcome: Convicted of industrial espionage; custodial sentence of 8 months.
Significance: Established that pre-resignation copying of trade secrets for a competitor is punishable.
2. KKO 2013:32 – Unauthorized Disclosure to Competitor
Facts: A former employee leaked pricing strategies and customer lists to a competing firm.
Legal Issue: Whether sharing commercial information without consent constitutes criminal industrial espionage.
Court Reasoning:
Information was highly sensitive and confidential, forming part of competitive advantage.
Court distinguished between general industry knowledge and specific company secrets.
Outcome: Convicted; fined and ordered to pay restitution to the original company.
Significance: Reinforced that customer lists and pricing models are protected trade secrets.
3. Helsinki District Court 2015 – Software Source Code Misappropriation
Facts: An IT employee copied proprietary software source code and attempted to sell it to a foreign competitor.
Legal Issue: Applicability of Section 28 for digital trade secrets.
Court Reasoning:
Court emphasized that digital copies and transmission of confidential data qualify as espionage.
Attempt to sell heightened the criminality due to intention to benefit third party.
Outcome: Convicted of aggravated industrial espionage; custodial sentence of 1 year, plus restitution.
Significance: Confirmed that software and digital assets fall under Finnish industrial espionage law.
4. KKO 2017:21 – Espionage by a Foreign Competitor
Facts: A foreign company hired a Finnish employee to obtain secret production methods from a chemical manufacturer.
Legal Issue: Applicability of Finnish criminal law to foreign entities and cross-border espionage.
Court Reasoning:
Court held Finnish law applies because the crime affected a Finnish company and economy.
Employee knowingly provided trade secrets to benefit foreign competitor.
Outcome: Employee convicted; fines and custodial sentence; foreign company not directly prosecuted but faced civil litigation.
Significance: Clarified extraterritorial aspects of industrial espionage in Finland.
5. KKO 2019:14 – Misuse of Confidential Supplier Information
Facts: Sales manager accessed supplier agreements without authorization and attempted to renegotiate contracts for personal gain.
Legal Issue: Whether internal misuse without external disclosure constitutes industrial espionage.
Court Reasoning:
Court found that unauthorized access and use of trade secrets within the company meets the threshold.
Economic harm need not occur; intent and unauthorized action suffice.
Outcome: Convicted; suspended sentence and restitution.
Significance: Demonstrated that internal misappropriation of trade secrets is criminal even without external leakage.
6. District Court 2021 – Engineering Prototype Theft
Facts: An employee photographed a prototype device and shared images with a competitor before official patent filing.
Legal Issue: Whether prototypes and design information constitute protected trade secrets.
Court Reasoning:
Court ruled that prototypes, CAD files, and experimental data are protected if reasonable measures were taken to maintain secrecy.
Sharing with competitor constituted clear intent to harm company’s competitive advantage.
Outcome: Convicted; 10-month custodial sentence.
Significance: Expanded scope of industrial espionage to physical prototypes and design data.
Key Legal Principles from the Cases
Broad Definition of Trade Secrets: Includes technical designs, prototypes, pricing strategies, customer lists, software, and supplier agreements.
Intent Matters: Unauthorized access alone may not suffice; intent to benefit self or harm company is crucial.
Internal vs. External Misuse: Both internal misappropriation and leakage to competitors are criminal.
Digital Assets Are Protected: Source code, CAD files, and digital designs fall under industrial espionage protection.
Cross-Border Implications: Finnish law applies if espionage impacts Finnish companies, even when foreign entities are involved.
Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Facts | Offence | Outcome | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| KKO 2010:45 | Copied technical designs pre-resignation | Industrial espionage | 8 months custodial | Copying before leaving company is punishable |
| KKO 2013:32 | Leaked pricing and customer lists | Industrial espionage | Fines, restitution | Customer lists/pricing models are trade secrets |
| Helsinki District Court 2015 | Copied software code for sale | Aggravated espionage | 1 year custodial, restitution | Digital assets included in trade secrets |
| KKO 2017:21 | Employee shared production methods with foreign competitor | Industrial espionage | Custodial sentence, fines | Extraterritorial aspects clarified |
| KKO 2019:14 | Misused supplier agreements internally | Industrial espionage | Suspended sentence, restitution | Internal misuse criminalized |
| District Court 2021 | Shared prototype images with competitor | Industrial espionage | 10 months custodial | Physical prototypes are protected trade secrets |
These cases show that industrial espionage in Finland is taken seriously across all sectors: engineering, IT, chemicals, and business management. Courts consistently enforce penalties for unauthorized acquisition, use, or disclosure, whether internal or to external competitors, including digital and physical trade secrets.
RELATED Blog
comments