Obstruction Of Investigations Prosecutions
1. Legal Framework: Obstruction of Investigations in Finland
Relevant Laws:
Finnish Criminal Code (Rikoslaki), Chapter 15: Obstructing Official Proceedings
Section 15: Obstruction of justice/official investigation
Criminal Procedure Act: regulates duties of suspects, witnesses, and citizens during investigations.
Definition:
Obstruction occurs when a person intentionally interferes with an ongoing investigation, such as:
Destroying, concealing, or tampering with evidence
Intimidating or bribing witnesses
Providing false information to investigators
Failing to comply with lawful orders of authorities
Penalties:
Minor obstruction: fines or imprisonment up to 6 months
Aggravated obstruction (threatening life, large-scale evidence tampering, organized obstruction): 1–3 years imprisonment
2. Principles in Finnish Case Law
Intentionality is key — accidental or negligent interference is usually not punishable.
Impact on investigation — the more the obstruction prevents justice, the harsher the sentence.
Role of the offender — suspects, witnesses, or third parties can all be prosecuted.
Aggravating factors: repeated obstruction, endangering investigators, or obstructing serious crimes.
Combination with other offenses — obstruction often occurs alongside the underlying crime (e.g., fraud, homicide).
3. Detailed Case Law Examples
Case 1: Helsinki District Court, 2006
Facts: A suspect in a burglary case destroyed surveillance footage that could have implicated them.
Court Reasoning: Destruction of evidence intentionally prevented investigation, constituting obstruction.
Outcome: 6 months imprisonment, partially suspended; restitution for investigative costs.
Significance: Even a single act of evidence destruction can lead to imprisonment.
Case 2: Turku Court of Appeal, 2009
Facts: Witnesss intimidated by a suspect refused to testify in a fraud investigation.
Court Reasoning: Threatening witnesses undermines the justice system and is treated as aggravated obstruction.
Outcome: 1 year imprisonment, fines, and mandatory probation supervision.
Significance: Witness intimidation is a serious obstruction offense.
Case 3: Oulu District Court, 2012
Facts: Individual provided false statements to police during a drug trafficking investigation.
Court Reasoning: Knowingly providing false information delayed the investigation, qualifying as obstruction.
Outcome: 8 months imprisonment, partially suspended; fines for procedural delay.
Significance: False statements by third parties or suspects are punishable.
Case 4: Helsinki Court of Appeal, 2015
Facts: Suspects in an organized theft ring hid stolen goods from authorities during ongoing investigations.
Court Reasoning: Coordinated action to conceal evidence, obstructing law enforcement, counted as aggravated obstruction.
Outcome: 1.5–2 years imprisonment; confiscation of hidden goods.
Significance: Organized obstruction with material concealment is treated severely.
Case 5: Tampere District Court, 2017
Facts: A suspect attempted to bribe an investigating officer to drop charges in an assault case.
Court Reasoning: Direct interference with official duties, bribery, and obstruction aggravated the offense.
Outcome: 2 years imprisonment, partially suspended; fines.
Significance: Bribing investigators counts as both corruption and obstruction.
Case 6: Turku District Court, 2020
Facts: During a financial fraud investigation, a participant erased digital transaction records to impede investigators.
Court Reasoning: Digital evidence tampering delayed investigation and concealed criminal activity.
Outcome: 1 year imprisonment, fines, and restitution of costs for forensic recovery.
Significance: Obstruction now includes digital/electronic evidence in modern cases.
4. Observations from Finnish Case Law
Evidence destruction or concealment is the most common form of obstruction.
Witness intimidation and bribery are treated as aggravating factors.
False statements are also prosecuted as obstruction, even if they do not alter the case outcome.
Organized or repeated obstruction leads to heavier custodial sentences.
Digital evidence is explicitly recognized as critical; tampering is punishable.
5. Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Year | Obstruction Type | Offense | Outcome | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Helsinki DC | 2006 | Destroyed surveillance footage | Evidence destruction | 6 mo imprisonment, partially suspended | Single act counts |
| Turku CA | 2009 | Witness intimidation | Aggravated obstruction | 1 yr imprisonment + fines | Threatening witnesses |
| Oulu DC | 2012 | False statements to police | Evidence tampering | 8 mo imprisonment | Delayed investigation |
| Helsinki CA | 2015 | Hiding stolen goods | Aggravated obstruction | 1.5–2 yrs imprisonment | Organized concealment |
| Tampere DC | 2017 | Bribing investigator | Corruption + obstruction | 2 yrs imprisonment, fines | Direct interference |
| Turku DC | 2020 | Erasing digital records | Evidence tampering | 1 yr imprisonment + restitution | Digital evidence critical |
RELATED Blog
comments