Money Laundering Offences Under Finnish Law
Money Laundering Under Finnish Law
Definition (Finnish Criminal Code, Chapter 32, Sections 6–7):
A person commits money laundering if they:
Receive, possess, use, convert, transfer, or transmit property acquired from a crime (the “predicate offence”), knowing or being aware that it comes from criminal activity, or
Take measures to conceal or disguise the origin, nature, location, ownership, or other rights related to such property.
Aggravated money laundering applies if:
The property is very valuable,
The actions are particularly deliberate or sophisticated,
The laundering causes serious harm or is systematic.
Penalties range from fines and imprisonment up to 2 years for basic offences, and up to 6 years for aggravated offences.
Detailed Case Examples
Case 1: KKO:2019:110 — Aggravated Money Laundering Precedent
Facts:
The defendant received large sums from a criminal fraud scheme.
They transferred the money across multiple bank accounts and foreign entities to disguise its origin.
The total amount involved was considered “very valuable” under Finnish law.
Legal Issues:
Whether the defendant’s multi-step transfers constituted aggravated laundering.
Whether intent to conceal origin was adequately proven.
Court Reasoning:
The Supreme Court emphasized that layering transactions and deliberate concealment constitute aggravation.
The “very valuable” threshold was met due to the total sum and complexity.
Significance:
Sets guidance for courts on evaluating aggravated laundering.
Confirms that multi-step transactions and international transfers increase severity.
Case 2: District Court / Circuit Court — Cross-Border Money Laundering (2017–2018)
Facts:
Individuals transferred over €150,000 from foreign accounts into Finnish accounts under the guise of legitimate business transactions.
The funds were from fraudulent investment schemes abroad.
Legal Issues:
Determining knowledge of criminal origin.
Whether structured transactions across accounts were enough to qualify as aggravated laundering.
Court Reasoning:
Courts concluded the defendants knew or should have known the origin.
Multiple transactions to obscure the origin were deemed sufficient to meet the “concealment” element.
Significance:
Illustrates practical enforcement of money laundering laws in Finland.
Shows the role of financial intelligence in detecting cross-border laundering.
Case 3: Vehicle Asset Transfers — Aggravated Money Laundering
Facts:
A defendant received vehicles from a company involved in fraud.
They transferred the vehicles to other entities to distance them from the original crime.
Legal Issues:
Whether transferring physical assets constitutes aggravated laundering, even if the underlying crime was financial fraud.
Court Reasoning:
Court found that deliberate transfers and layering showed intent to conceal the illicit origin.
The combined value of vehicles and planning met the threshold for aggravated offence.
Significance:
Demonstrates that money laundering is not limited to cash; tangible assets can also be laundered.
Highlights the “deliberate planning” factor in aggravation.
Case 4: Small-Value Property Laundering (Moped Case)
Facts:
A defendant purchased a moped from a source known to be illicit.
They repainted it to obscure its original identity and sold it later.
Legal Issues:
Whether laundering law applies to low-value items.
Does altering an asset’s appearance constitute concealment?
Court Reasoning:
Court ruled that repainting constituted concealment of origin, meeting the legal definition.
Even small-value property can be laundered if steps are taken to disguise origin.
Significance:
Shows that money laundering law is not limited by value.
Emphasizes the concealment aspect rather than the monetary size alone.
Case 5: Self-Laundering and Corporate Transfers
Facts:
A defendant who committed corporate fraud attempted to “clean” the proceeds by moving them through multiple companies they controlled.
Funds were reinvested in other businesses.
Legal Issues:
Can someone be prosecuted for laundering their own criminal proceeds?
How to establish intent and concealment when the defendant controls the entities?
Court Reasoning:
Court held that self-laundering is punishable if the intent to conceal the criminal origin is present.
Multi-step corporate transfers increased complexity, aggravating the offence.
Significance:
Clarifies that self-laundering is criminal under Finnish law.
Multi-layered corporate structures may lead to aggravated sentences.
Summary of Lessons from Finnish Cases
Concealment is key: Both cash and tangible assets can be laundered.
Value and complexity matter: High-value and multi-step transfers lead to aggravation.
Intent is central: Courts focus on whether the defendant knew the property was criminal.
Self-laundering is criminal: Laundering your own criminal proceeds is punishable.
Even low-value property counts: Actions taken to disguise origin, even with small items, can constitute laundering.
These five cases illustrate how Finnish courts interpret Sections 6–7 of Chapter 32 of the Criminal Code in real practice, covering both cash and physical assets, cross-border transfers, and self-laundering.
RELATED Blog
comments