Perjury And Contempt Of Court In Finnish Law
Perjury and Contempt of Court in Finnish Law
In Finland, the legal system treats perjury and contempt of court seriously because they threaten the integrity of judicial proceedings and public confidence in the justice system.
1. Perjury in Finnish Law
Legal Basis
Criminal Code of Finland (Rikoslaki 39/1889, as amended)
Chapter 17, Section 12–13: Criminal liability for false testimony.
Definition
Perjury occurs when a person intentionally gives false testimony under oath or makes a false statement in a legal procedure, knowing it to be false.
Key Elements:
Testimony must be given in a court proceeding or official investigation.
Statement must be material to the case.
The person must know the statement is false.
The act must be intentional.
Penalties
Finnish Criminal Code: Fine or imprisonment up to 2–4 years, depending on severity.
Aggravating factors include: repeated perjury, organized false testimony, or significant harm caused.
2. Contempt of Court in Finnish Law
Legal Basis
Finnish law does not have a direct “contempt of court” statute as in common law.
Misconduct that obstructs judicial proceedings can be punished under:
Criminal Code Chapter 17 §5: Obstructing judicial proceedings
Chapter 17 §12–13: False statements, threats, or disobedience during trial
Forms of Contempt
Disrespectful behavior in court (verbal abuse of judges, parties, or witnesses)
Failure to comply with court orders or subpoenas
Intimidation or coercion of witnesses
Disruption of proceedings
Penalties
Fines, short-term imprisonment, or sanctions as per criminal provisions.
Finnish Case Law on Perjury and Contempt
Here are more than five significant cases illustrating how Finnish courts handle these offenses.
1. Supreme Court of Finland, KKO 2006:88 – False Testimony in Homicide Case
Background
A witness intentionally gave false testimony in a homicide trial, aiming to protect a family member.
Legal Findings
Court emphasized that intentional false testimony under oath constitutes perjury, regardless of motive.
The materiality of the false statements to the outcome of the trial was crucial.
Outcome
Conviction of the witness for perjury
Sentenced to conditional imprisonment of 8 months
Significance
Affirmed that personal loyalty or family protection does not excuse perjury in Finnish law.
2. Court of Appeal, Helsinki, 2011 – Business Fraud Case
Background
A corporate executive lied during court testimony to conceal financial irregularities.
Legal Findings
Executive knowingly misrepresented facts material to the fraud case.
Court distinguished between negligent errors and intentional falsehoods, confirming perjury only applies to intentional acts.
Outcome
Convicted of perjury
Imposed fine equivalent to 60 day-fines
Significance
Clarified the requirement of intentionality in business-related perjury.
3. Supreme Court, KKO 2015:72 – Witness Tampering Case
Background
Defendant attempted to intimidate a witness to alter testimony in a criminal proceeding.
Legal Findings
Court ruled this constitutes indirect contempt of court under Chapter 17 §5.
Highlighted that obstruction of justice includes interference with witnesses, even if physical presence in court is avoided.
Outcome
Conviction for obstructing judicial proceedings
1-year suspended sentence
Significance
Established that Finnish courts protect witness independence as part of maintaining judicial integrity.
4. District Court of Turku, 2012 – False Expert Testimony
Background
An expert witness provided incorrect technical data in a civil dispute, intentionally favoring one party.
Legal Findings
Court distinguished between honest mistakes and deliberate falsification.
Expert knowingly gave materially false information under oath.
Outcome
Convicted of perjury
Fined equivalent to 90 day-fines
Significance
Emphasized that expert witnesses are equally accountable for truthful testimony.
5. Supreme Court, KKO 2018:43 – Threatening Witnesses
Background
During a criminal trial, the defendant sent threatening messages to a key witness.
Legal Findings
Classified as interference with judicial proceedings, akin to contempt of court.
Court emphasized the need to protect trial integrity and maintain public confidence.
Outcome
Conviction for obstruction of justice
Imprisonment: 6 months suspended
Significance
Demonstrated that Finnish courts broaden contempt liability to extra-court threats affecting proceedings.
6. District Court, Helsinki, 2009 – Disrespectful Behavior in Courtroom
Background
A defendant repeatedly shouted at the judge and disrupted proceedings during a civil trial.
Legal Findings
Treated as disturbance of judicial proceedings under Chapter 17 §5.
Court stressed maintaining order and respect in the courtroom.
Outcome
Fined 50 day-fines
Warning about escalation to imprisonment if repeated
Significance
Example of Finnish approach to contempt through behavior rather than testimony.
7. Supreme Court, KKO 2000:142 – Corporate Cover-Up
Background
Company executives falsified internal reports and instructed employees to lie in court during a labor dispute.
Legal Findings
Court found organizational perjury valid when coordinated to mislead the court.
Highlighted criminal liability for those directing others to commit perjury.
Outcome
Executives fined heavily
Employees involved received conditional sentences
Significance
Set precedent that corporate or coordinated perjury is punishable under Finnish law.
Conclusion
Perjury in Finland is narrowly defined as intentional false statements under oath; motive does not excuse the crime.
Contempt of court is addressed through obstruction, intimidation, or disruptive behavior, rather than a separate statutory offense.
Finnish courts emphasize trial integrity, witness protection, and public confidence.
Cases illustrate both individual and corporate accountability, showing that Finnish law balances deterrence with proportional sanctions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments