International Corporate Crime Regulation And Finland
1. Introduction: What Is International Corporate Crime?
International corporate crime refers to illegal or unethical activities committed by companies or their executives that violate domestic or international laws. Examples include:
Bribery and corruption
Money laundering
Tax evasion
Environmental crimes
Sanctions violations
Fraud in cross-border trade
Human rights abuses in supply chains
Because multinational corporations operate across jurisdictions, their misconduct often triggers international regulatory frameworks, transnational investigations, and cooperation between states.
2. International Frameworks Affecting Corporate Crime Regulation in Finland
Finland is deeply integrated into international and European legal systems. Key frameworks include:
a. EU Law
EU Anti-Money Laundering Directives
EU Competition Law (cartels, abuse of dominance)
EU Environmental Regulation
EU Sanctions Regimes
GDPR (corporate data misuse)
b. Council of Europe
Criminal Law Convention on Corruption
European Convention on Human Rights (procedural fairness, victims’ rights)
c. UN Instruments
UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC)
UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime
d. OECD
OECD Anti-Bribery Convention (very important for corporate corruption involving Finnish companies)
e. Domestic Finnish Criminal Code (Rikoslaki)
Finland criminalizes corporate misconduct through:
Chapter 9 – Corporate Criminal Liability
Chapter 30 – Economic Crimes
Chapter 32 – Money Laundering
Chapter 48 – Environmental Crimes
Competition Act (Kilpailulaki)
Accounting Act (Kirjanpitolaki)
Finland can hold companies liable for crimes committed by:
Management
Employees (when linked to organizational failure)
Foreign subsidiaries (in certain conditions)
3. Finland’s Corporate Criminal Liability Model
Finland uses a vicarious and organizational negligence model, meaning:
A corporation is liable if:
A person acting for the company commits a crime, AND
The company failed to prevent it (e.g., compliance failure, supervisory failure).
Penalties include:
Corporate fines (up to €850,000)
Confiscation of profits
Business restrictions
Debarment from public contracts
4. Major Finnish and International Cases Involving Corporate Crime
Below are six+ detailed cases involving Finnish corporations or Finland-based investigations.
CASE 1: The Telia–Uzbekistan Bribery Scandal (Finland/Sweden/US – 2017)
Overview
Telia Company AB (formerly TeliaSonera), partly state-owned by Finland and Sweden, was investigated for paying bribes to enter the Uzbek telecom market.
Key Facts
Telia paid over $330 million in bribes to a company linked to the daughter of the Uzbek president.
The misconduct involved executives in Sweden and operations touching Finnish governance due to state ownership.
Legal Outcomes
Telia admitted to violating the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).
Paid $965 million in global settlements.
Finnish officials investigated whether Finnish government representatives failed in oversight of a state-owned entity.
Importance
Demonstrated OECD Anti-Bribery Convention enforcement.
Showed Finland’s responsibility in preventing corruption in state-invested companies.
CASE 2: Yara International Bribery Case (Finland/Norway – 2015)
Although Yara is Norwegian, the case involved operations and executives in Finland.
Key Facts
Yara executives bribed officials in India, Russia, and Libya to secure fertilizer deals.
A Finnish senior executive (former subsidiary head) was implicated.
Outcome
Fines exceeding €30 million.
Several executives convicted.
Finland cooperated through mutual legal assistance and evidence sharing.
Importance
Highlighted Finland’s role in cross-border corruption investigations.
Improved Finnish corporate compliance expectations, especially in commodities and energy sectors.
CASE 3: Wärtsilä Marine Emissions and Fraud Investigations (Finland/Global – 2010s)
Overview
Wärtsilä, the Finnish technology and marine power giant, faced scrutiny regarding:
Manipulated fuel efficiency tests
Potential environmental violations
Misleading information provided to shipping customers
Key Facts
Employees in Italy (Wärtsilä subsidiary) inflated fuel consumption figures.
Impacted ship engine performance data internationally.
Investigated under Finnish corporate liability rules, EU environmental law, and consumer fraud legislation.
Legal Outcome
Wärtsilä compensated affected customers.
Finnish authorities emphasized improved internal compliance but did not impose major domestic penalties.
Importance
Showed Finland’s enforcement of corporate governance and environmental compliance in multinational operations.
CASE 4: Outokumpu Stainless Steel Cartel Case (EU and Finland – 2006/2012)
Overview
Outokumpu, a major Finnish metals producer, participated in an EU-wide stainless steel cartel.
Key Facts
Companies coordinated prices and market shares.
Violated EU Competition Law (Article 101 TFEU).
Outokumpu’s former subsidiary (ThyssenKrupp Stainless) was the main offender but Outokumpu became liable after acquiring it.
Outcome
EU fines exceeded €172 million.
Outokumpu’s liability stemmed partly from corporate succession rules.
Importance
Showed the reach of EU competition enforcement.
Demonstrated how mergers can transfer liability for previous misconduct.
CASE 5: Finnwatch / Human Rights Supply-Chain Investigations (Finland – 2013–2020)
Although not a single case, several corporate misconduct investigations led to legal reactions.
Key Facts
Finnish firms such as:
S Group
Kone
Kesko
Stora Enso
were scrutinized for:
Child labor in Asian supply chains
Forced labor in Thai fishing industry
Illegal deforestation
Poor labor conditions
Outcomes
Finnish prosecutors examined potential breaches of corporate duty.
Stora Enso admitted severe supply chain compliance gaps related to child labor in Pakistan.
While criminal convictions were limited, it triggered major reforms:
Mandatory human rights due diligence discussions
Enhanced global reporting under OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises
Importance
Strengthened Finland’s direction toward mandatory corporate human rights legislation.
Signaled rising legal expectations for Finnish multinationals abroad.
CASE 6: Danske Bank Money-Laundering Scandal (2018–2022) – Finnish Branch Impact
Overview
While the main scandal centered in Estonia, Danske Bank’s operations in Finland were examined for deficiencies.
Key Facts
Over €200 billion in suspicious transactions flowed through the Baltic branches.
Finnish authorities investigated:
AML compliance failures
Oversight responsibilities
Potential reporting failures under Finnish AML Act
Outcome
Fines imposed in multiple jurisdictions.
Finland required enhanced internal AML controls.
Importance
Illustrated Finland’s involvement in cross-border money-laundering supervision.
Showed how Finnish financial institutions face liability for foreign branches’ failures.
CASE 7: Air Cargo Price-Fixing (Finnair and Others – EU, 2010s)
Overview
Finnair and several global airlines participated in air-freight price coordination.
Key Facts
Fuel surcharges were coordinated across the industry.
Violated EU cartel rules.
Outcome
EU imposed multi-million-euro penalties.
Finnair’s involvement was part of a broader international cartel investigation.
Importance
Reinforced Finland’s liability exposure under EU antitrust law.
Demonstrated multinational price-fixing scrutiny.
5. Key Themes from Finnish Corporate Crime Enforcement
1. Strong Emphasis on Compliance Systems
Finnish prosecutors often evaluate:
Internal controls
Risk management
Staff training
Supply-chain oversight
2. International Cooperation
Finland frequently works with:
EU authorities (OLAF, Europol, EC)
Nordic countries
US DOJ and SEC in corruption cases
3. State Ownership Heightens Scrutiny
Companies like Telia highlight the need for:
Greater oversight
Anti-corruption safeguards
Ethical governance standards
4. Growing Human Rights Expectations
Finland is moving toward mandatory due diligence laws, influenced by:
EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive
National debates on human rights in supply chains
5. Limited But Increasing Use of Corporate Criminal Liability
Courts increasingly impose:
Corporate fines
Confiscation of illegal profits
though fines remain lower than many Western countries.
6. Conclusion
Finland’s regulation of international corporate crime is shaped by:
EU law
OECD standards
UN conventions
Finnish criminal and regulatory statutes
Case law—from Telia’s multinational bribery to Outokumpu’s cartel conduct—shows Finland’s integration into global enforcement networks. While Finland historically imposed modest corporate penalties, its compliance expectations, international cooperation, and supply-chain accountability have significantly strengthened in the past decade.
RELATED Blog
comments