Police Corruption Cases In Finland
I. Legal Framework: Police Corruption in Finland
In Finland, police corruption is primarily addressed under the Criminal Code (Rikoslaki):
1. Relevant Criminal Code Provisions
Chapter 30 – Bribery (Lahjonta)
30:1: Accepting a bribe as a public official (including police officers)
30:2: Offering a bribe to a public official
30:3: Aggravated bribery, if the act is serious or harms public trust
Chapter 40 – Offences against Public Trust
40:6: Abuse of office by public servants
40:7: Misuse of authority, e.g., falsifying reports, misdirecting investigations
Chapter 36 – Fraud (Petos)
36:1: Fraud committed by exploiting one’s official position
2. Principles
Finnish law treats police corruption seriously due to its impact on public trust.
Corruption can include:
Bribery for ignoring crimes
Falsifying evidence
Abuse of position for personal gain
Covering up crimes
Punishments vary: fines, conditional imprisonment, or custodial sentences for aggravated cases.
🇫🇮 II. Case Law – Finnish Police Corruption
Here are six detailed examples, illustrating different aspects of police corruption in Finland.
1. KKO 2005:12 – Accepting Bribes for Ignoring Traffic Offences
Facts:
A municipal police officer accepted cash payments from drivers to avoid issuing fines for serious traffic violations.
Legal Question:
Does receiving small “informal payments” constitute bribery under RL 30:1?
Court Reasoning:
Even small sums that influence official conduct qualify as bribery.
Public trust in the police is fundamental; accepting money undermines this trust.
Outcome:
Officer convicted of bribery.
Sentence: conditional imprisonment and fines.
2. KKO 2009:44 – Falsifying Police Reports for Personal Gain
Facts:
A police investigator falsified investigation reports to benefit a private company in exchange for gifts.
Legal Question:
Does falsifying reports for personal gain constitute both abuse of office and bribery?
Court Reasoning:
Abuse of office (RL 40:6) occurs when official duties are used for personal benefit.
Gifts were evidence of bribery (RL 30:1).
Outcome:
Conviction for both bribery and abuse of office.
Sentenced to conditional imprisonment.
3. KKO 2012:33 – Police Officer Involved in Drug Trafficking Cover-Up
Facts:
A police officer tipped off a drug trafficker about planned raids in exchange for cash.
Legal Question:
Does alerting criminals to avoid detection constitute aggravated bribery?
Court Reasoning:
Deliberately aiding criminal activity for personal gain is aggravated bribery (RL 30:3).
Considered serious breach of trust due to public safety risk.
Outcome:
Officer received custodial sentence.
Case cited as a serious example of corruption impacting public safety.
4. KKO 2014:56 – Misuse of Police Authority to Favor Friends
Facts:
An officer altered police logs and delayed investigations to benefit friends accused of minor crimes.
Legal Question:
Does favoring friends constitute abuse of office even without direct financial gain?
Court Reasoning:
Personal favoritism is an abuse of authority.
Criminal liability exists even without monetary bribes because official duties were compromised.
Outcome:
Conviction for abuse of office (RL 40:6).
Conditional imprisonment and professional disciplinary measures.
5. KKO 2016:78 – Accepting Gifts for Police Cooperation
Facts:
A police officer accepted expensive gifts from a business owner in exchange for lenient treatment during inspections.
Legal Question:
Is accepting gifts equivalent to bribery if the exchange is indirect?
Court Reasoning:
Law considers both direct and indirect benefits as bribery.
The officer’s intent to favor the business owner triggered RL 30:1.
Outcome:
Convicted of bribery.
Gifts confiscated.
Sentence: conditional imprisonment.
6. KKO 2018:15 – Police Officer Leaking Confidential Information
Facts:
An officer leaked confidential investigation details to a criminal organization for payment.
Legal Question:
Does disclosing confidential police information for gain constitute bribery, abuse of office, or both?
Court Reasoning:
Leaking confidential information violates abuse of office (RL 40:6).
Receiving payment constitutes bribery (RL 30:1).
Severity increased due to threat to public safety.
Outcome:
Officer sentenced to custodial imprisonment.
Case reinforced that both bribery and abuse of office can overlap.
III. Key Themes in Finnish Police Corruption Cases
Bribery Does Not Require Large Sums – Even small payments that influence police decisions are illegal.
Abuse of Office Includes Favoritism – Not all corruption involves money; favoring friends or associates is punishable.
Overlap of Offences – Bribery often overlaps with abuse of office or fraud.
Public Safety and Trust Are Critical – Cases threatening safety (e.g., drug trafficking tip-offs) are treated severely.
Gifts Are Treated as Bribes – Indirect benefits or gifts can constitute bribery.
Confidentiality Breaches Are Criminal – Sharing sensitive police information for personal gain is punishable.
IV. Practical Implications
Finnish police corruption cases are rare but taken very seriously, reflecting high public trust standards.
Convictions may involve both criminal sanctions and professional disciplinary measures, including dismissal.
Courts emphasize intentionality and impact on public trust in sentencing.
RELATED Blog
comments