Obstruction Of Justice Prosecutions
Legal Context: Obstruction of Justice in Finland
Criminal Code Reference:
Obstruction of justice is primarily covered under Chapter 40–41 of the Finnish Criminal Code (Rikoslaki), which includes:
Bribery or influencing officials
Hindering official investigations
False testimony or document falsification
Related acts like witness intimidation, tampering with evidence, or misleading authorities are also punishable.
Penalties:
Simple obstruction: fines or up to 2 years imprisonment.
Aggravated obstruction (e.g., large-scale evidence tampering or organized effort): 1–6 years imprisonment.
Additional sanctions: restitution, probation, or restrictions on professional licenses.
Key Principles:
Finnish law treats obstruction seriously because it undermines the integrity of the justice system.
Courts weigh intent, severity, and outcome of obstruction when determining sentences.
Case 1 — Helsinki Witness Intimidation (2013)
Facts:
A suspect in a burglary case attempted to intimidate a key witness by threatening them via phone messages to prevent them from testifying.
Charges:
Obstruction of justice (witness intimidation), criminal threats.
Court Reasoning:
Court emphasized that threats against a witness directly undermine legal process.
Messages were clear, intentional, and likely to influence testimony.
Outcome:
18 months imprisonment.
Suspended sentence partially due to first-time offense.
Mandatory counseling on legal responsibilities.
Significance:
Demonstrates that targeting witnesses is a significant form of obstruction in Finland.
Case 2 — Turku Evidence Tampering (2014)
Facts:
A defendant in a fraud case deleted critical accounting records and attempted to alter digital logs to mislead investigators.
Charges:
Obstruction of justice (tampering with evidence), aggravated fraud.
Court Reasoning:
Deliberate destruction of evidence during an ongoing investigation constituted aggravated obstruction.
Court noted intent to prevent prosecution.
Outcome:
3 years imprisonment.
Confiscation of digital devices used in the crime.
Significance:
Shows that tampering with documents or digital records is treated severely in Finland.
Case 3 — Oulu False Testimony by Employee (2015)
Facts:
A company manager encouraged an employee to provide false testimony in a workplace negligence investigation.
Charges:
Obstruction of justice (inducing false testimony), abuse of authority.
Court Reasoning:
Court found deliberate manipulation of an official investigation.
Abuse of managerial position aggravated culpability.
Outcome:
Manager sentenced to 2 years imprisonment (suspended for 1 year).
Employee received a warning.
Significance:
Highlights that influencing witnesses or participants in an investigation is punishable.
Case 4 — Helsinki Concealment of Assets (2016)
Facts:
A debtor under investigation for embezzlement hid substantial assets and provided misleading financial statements.
Charges:
Obstruction of justice (concealment), aggravated fraud.
Court Reasoning:
Court stressed that hiding assets impedes enforcement of justice.
Misrepresentation of financial records demonstrated intent to deceive authorities.
Outcome:
2.5 years imprisonment.
Restitution of €120,000 to victims.
Significance:
Concealing financial information in investigations constitutes obstruction and aggravates primary offenses.
Case 5 — Espoo Law Enforcement Bribery Attempt (2017)
Facts:
A business owner attempted to bribe a police officer to avoid charges related to environmental violations.
Charges:
Obstruction of justice (bribery of officials), attempted fraud.
Court Reasoning:
Attempting to influence an official via bribery is considered a severe form of obstruction.
Court highlighted the potential undermining of public trust.
Outcome:
3 years imprisonment.
Fines and permanent restriction from holding public office.
Significance:
Bribery to avoid legal consequences is treated as aggravated obstruction.
Case 6 — Northern Finland Witness Intimidation via Social Media (2018)
Facts:
A suspect posted threatening messages online to discourage witnesses from participating in a traffic accident case.
Charges:
Obstruction of justice (witness intimidation), cybercrime elements.
Court Reasoning:
Online threats carry the same legal weight as direct threats.
Intent and reach of social media amplified the potential impact.
Outcome:
1.5 years imprisonment (partially suspended).
Prohibition on contacting witnesses.
Significance:
Confirms that digital interference in judicial processes is criminalized.
Case 7 — Helsinki False Reporting to Police (2019)
Facts:
A person falsely reported a robbery, intending to redirect suspicion away from themselves in a related theft case.
Charges:
Obstruction of justice (false report), aggravated theft.
Court Reasoning:
False reports divert police resources and impede ongoing investigations.
Court considered intent and scale of deception.
Outcome:
18 months imprisonment.
Restitution of law enforcement costs.
Significance:
Filing false reports with authorities is a form of obstruction of justice.
Key Observations
Forms of Obstruction:
Witness intimidation (direct or digital)
Tampering with evidence (physical or digital)
False reporting or misleading authorities
Concealment of assets
Bribery or attempts to influence officials
Aggravating Factors:
Organized or repeated attempts
Use of managerial or professional authority
Vulnerable or multiple victims
Threats or digital amplification
Sentences:
Simple obstruction: fines or short imprisonment (up to 1.5 years).
Aggravated obstruction: 2–6 years imprisonment.
Additional sanctions: restitution, fines, bans from office, and training programs.
Evidence Considerations:
Witness testimony
Digital communications and deleted records
Financial and business documents
Video or photographic documentation
RELATED Blog
comments