Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties In Criminal Matters

03 Nov 2025 --
0 Comments

1. Overview of Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters

Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) allows countries to cooperate in criminal investigations and prosecutions, enabling the collection and exchange of evidence, service of documents, extradition support, and enforcement of foreign judicial orders. Finland uses MLA treaties and domestic law to facilitate international criminal cooperation.

Legal Basis in Finland

Act on International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (503/2003)

Implements MLA treaties and EU regulations.

Governs requests from foreign states for evidence, witness testimony, searches, and seizures.

Criminal Procedure Act (Rikoslaki 39/1889)

Ensures that domestic proceedings can accommodate foreign requests for assistance without violating Finnish legal safeguards.

International Treaties and Conventions

UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime (2000)

European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (1959)

Bilateral MLA treaties with individual countries

Scope of MLA

Evidence collection abroad (documents, records, expert reports).

Witness and expert testimony abroad or in Finland.

Execution of searches and seizures requested by foreign authorities.

Extradition requests (often integrated with MLA).

Transfer of proceedings in certain cross-border cases.

2. Principles of MLA in Finland

Dual Criminality – The act must be a crime in both Finland and the requesting state.

Respect for Fundamental Rights – Assistance cannot violate Finnish constitutional guarantees or ECHR rights.

Proportionality and Necessity – Requests should be limited to what is necessary for the investigation or prosecution.

Confidentiality – Information obtained through MLA is protected and used only for authorized purposes.

Reciprocity – Finland generally grants assistance if similar cooperation is available for Finnish authorities abroad.

3. Finnish Supreme Court Case Law on MLA

Case 1: KKO 2005:18 – Assistance in Evidence Collection

Facts: Finnish authorities received an MLA request from Germany to obtain bank records of a suspect in a fraud case.
Outcome: Supreme Court approved the request, highlighting that evidence collection under MLA must comply with Finnish procedural safeguards.
Significance: Confirmed that MLA requests are honored, provided domestic legal standards are met.

Case 2: KKO 2007:33 – Witness Testimony Abroad

Facts: Finland received a request to facilitate witness testimony in a narcotics case.
Outcome: Supreme Court allowed the witness to testify via video link or in Finland under Finnish supervision.
Significance: Demonstrated flexibility in fulfilling MLA requests while protecting witnesses’ rights.

Case 3: KKO 2010:12 – Refusal Due to Fundamental Rights

Facts: A foreign state requested surveillance of a Finnish citizen suspected of terrorism.
Outcome: Supreme Court denied the request because it risked violating ECHR rights and Finnish constitutional guarantees.
Significance: Clarified that MLA cannot override fundamental rights, even in serious crimes.

Case 4: KKO 2012:18 – Dual Criminality Requirement

Facts: Italy requested evidence in a case of tax fraud; Finland reviewed whether the act qualified as a crime domestically.
Outcome: Supreme Court ruled that dual criminality is mandatory; only crimes recognized under Finnish law can trigger assistance.
Significance: Reinforced the dual criminality principle in MLA cooperation.

Case 5: KKO 2015:33 – Execution of Search Warrants

Facts: A US authority requested Finnish police to conduct a search in Finland for evidence related to cybercrime.
Outcome: Supreme Court approved the execution, emphasizing proportionality, necessity, and procedural safeguards.
Significance: Demonstrated procedural alignment between domestic law and international obligations.

Case 6: KKO 2018:50 – Confidentiality in MLA

Facts: Finnish authorities requested to share seized documents with a foreign state; concern arose over misuse of information.
Outcome: Supreme Court emphasized that information obtained under MLA must remain confidential and can only be used for authorized purposes.
Significance: Reinforced the confidentiality principle and limitations on foreign use of Finnish evidence.

Case 7: KKO 2020:27 – Coordination with EU Regulations

Facts: Finland received an MLA request from an EU member state for evidence in a money laundering investigation.
Outcome: Supreme Court ruled that EU MLA regulations can streamline assistance but domestic safeguards must still apply.
Significance: Showed integration of EU law with domestic MLA procedures.

4. Key Takeaways from Finnish MLA Case Law

Principle	Case Example	Key Lesson
Evidence collection	KKO 2005:18	MLA requests honored if procedural safeguards are met.
Witness testimony abroad	KKO 2007:33	Video testimony or domestic facilitation is acceptable.
Protection of fundamental rights	KKO 2010:12	MLA requests cannot violate ECHR or constitutional rights.
Dual criminality	KKO 2012:18	Assistance requires the act to be a crime in both states.
Execution of foreign requests	KKO 2015:33	Searches and seizures must respect proportionality and domestic law.
Confidentiality	KKO 2018:50	Evidence shared internationally must remain protected.
EU integration	KKO 2020:27	EU regulations streamline MLA, but safeguards remain.

5. Summary

MLA treaties are central to Finland’s cooperation in international criminal matters.

Finnish law balances international cooperation with domestic legal safeguards, including fundamental rights, dual criminality, and proportionality.

Supreme Court cases consistently emphasize: procedural compliance, witness protection, confidentiality, and alignment with EU and international obligations.

MLA covers evidence collection, witness facilitation, searches, seizures, and coordination with EU regulations, providing a structured framework for transnational justice.

Finland’s approach ensures efficient cooperation without compromising legal protections or human rights.