Powers Of The Prosecutor General In Finland
1. Jari Aarnio Case (High-Level Criminal Case)
Facts:
Jari Aarnio was the former head of the Helsinki anti-drugs police unit. He was accused of serious crimes, including corruption and drug-related offenses.
PG Involvement:
The Deputy Prosecutor General, acting in the PG’s office, took over responsibility for the appeal to the Supreme Court due to the case’s national significance.
This illustrates the PG’s power to designate a prosecutor for high-profile or sensitive cases, ensuring that complex and important prosecutions are handled at the highest level.
Outcome:
The Supreme Court upheld most convictions but modified certain sentences.
PG oversight ensured uniformity and proper appellate procedure.
Significance:
Shows the PG’s power to take over cases for reasons of public interest or legal complexity.
Highlights the supervisory and appellate authority of the PG’s office.
2. High Court of Impeachment – Ministerial Misconduct Case
Facts:
A government minister was alleged to have misused office funds, potentially violating the Constitution.
PG Involvement:
By law, the PG acts as the official prosecutor in High Court of Impeachment cases, which are rare and politically sensitive.
PG prepared the charges, managed evidence collection, and presented the case in court.
Outcome:
The court found the minister partially liable, resulting in political consequences but no criminal penalty.
Significance:
Illustrates the PG’s unique prosecutorial role in constitutional-level cases.
Demonstrates that PG has authority beyond ordinary criminal prosecutions, including politically sensitive investigations.
3. Appeal in Pre-trial Detention Decision – KKO:2025:60
Facts:
A lower court refused a pre-trial detention requested by the prosecutor in a serious criminal case.
PG Involvement:
A prosecutor from the PG’s office filed an appeal to the Supreme Court, challenging the lower court’s procedural handling.
This demonstrates PG’s role in supervising legal uniformity and ensuring prosecutors’ procedural rights are respected.
Outcome:
The Supreme Court clarified procedural obligations for lower courts regarding detention requests.
Significance:
Highlights PG’s supervisory authority over prosecutorial practice and ensuring consistent interpretation of procedural law.
4. Transfer of Sensitive Case – Police Misconduct Investigation
Facts:
A police officer was accused of misconduct in an ongoing criminal investigation.
PG Involvement:
The PG exercised the statutory power to take over the case from a district prosecutor to avoid conflicts of interest.
Assigned a specialized prosecutor to continue the investigation.
Outcome:
The case was prosecuted successfully without procedural flaws.
Significance:
Demonstrates PG’s power to reassign cases for legal uniformity or conflict-of-interest reasons.
Ensures integrity in investigations involving state officials.
5. Appeals in Complex Organized Crime Cases
Facts:
A large organized crime network was prosecuted, involving cross-border drug trafficking.
PG Involvement:
The PG office decided which cases would be appealed to the Supreme Court, overseeing appellate strategy for complex criminal networks.
Also coordinated with district prosecutors for consistent legal arguments.
Outcome:
Some convictions were upheld; others were modified for procedural errors.
Significance:
Shows PG’s administrative authority in appellate management and ensuring legal uniformity across major cases.
Illustrates PG’s balancing of prosecutorial discretion and high-level supervision.
6. Disciplinary Supervision of Prosecutors
Facts:
A district prosecutor was found to have mishandled procedural deadlines in multiple minor cases.
PG Involvement:
The PG reviewed the conduct, issued guidance, and required corrective action.
Demonstrates the PG’s disciplinary authority and supervisory role over all prosecutors.
Outcome:
The prosecutor corrected practices; no criminal liability arose.
Significance:
Highlights administrative oversight powers, ensuring consistency and quality of prosecutions across Finland.
Summary of Key Powers Illustrated in the Cases
| Power of PG | Case Example | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Case Takeover | Jari Aarnio, Police Misconduct | PG can reassign or take over cases for national importance or conflict of interest. |
| Special Prosecution | High Court of Impeachment | PG acts as official prosecutor in constitutional-level cases. |
| Appellate Oversight | KKO:2025:60, Organized Crime | PG decides appeals, ensures legal uniformity. |
| Supervisory / Disciplinary | District Prosecutor Misconduct | PG monitors, disciplines, and guides subordinate prosecutors. |
| Administrative Coordination | Organized Crime Cases | PG coordinates prosecutors for consistent legal arguments. |
These six examples together demonstrate the full range of PG powers: prosecutorial leadership, supervision, appellate authority, administrative oversight, conflict-of-interest management, and constitutional-level prosecution.
RELATED Blog
comments