Pre-Trial Investigation Procedure In Finland
I. Legal Framework: Pre-Trial Investigation in Finland
1. Definition and Purpose
The pre-trial investigation (esitutkinta) is a formal stage in Finnish criminal procedure where the police or prosecution authorities investigate alleged criminal activity before charges are filed.
Purpose: Determine whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute and ensure the investigation respects defendant’s rights.
2. Statutory Basis
Criminal Procedure Act (Act No. 689/1997, Chapters 2–6) governs pre-trial investigation.
Key features:
Investigation Authority: Generally conducted by police; prosecution supervises.
Prosecutor Oversight: Prosecutor can direct or supervise investigations.
Defendant Rights: Right to legal counsel, right to be informed of accusations, and protection against self-incrimination.
Duration: Must be conducted without undue delay; extended periods require justification.
Interim Measures: Pre-trial detention can be requested if necessary.
3. Steps in Pre-Trial Investigation
Report/Complaint Filed: Case can begin from victim complaint, police report, or prosecutor’s own initiative.
Evidence Collection: Interviews, forensic analysis, surveillance, search warrants, and confiscation of property.
Suspect Notification: Suspect informed of suspicion, right to legal counsel, and right to remain silent.
Prosecutor Review: Prosecutor decides whether to:
File charges (syyteharkinta),
Dismiss case, or
Apply for conditional prosecution or alternative measures.
Pre-Trial Detention or Restrictive Measures: Applied only if necessary and proportionate.
II. Case Law Illustrating Pre-Trial Investigation
Case 1: Financial Fraud Investigation (Helsinki District Court, 2013)
Facts:
Suspect allegedly embezzled company funds.
Police conducted extensive document review and bank account tracing.
Legal Issue:
Was the collection of bank records without immediate suspect consent lawful?
Decision:
Court ruled that under supervision of the prosecutor, police actions were lawful.
Suspect rights to legal counsel were maintained throughout.
Significance:
Confirms that prosecutor-supervised investigative powers can include bank record reviews if proportional.
Case 2: Drug Trafficking Investigation (Turku Court of Appeal, 2015)
Facts:
Suspect caught in possession of large quantities of illegal narcotics.
Pre-trial investigation included wiretaps, home search, and seizure of digital devices.
Legal Issue:
Were wiretaps and searches consistent with Finnish law?
Decision:
Court held that authorization by prosecutor and adherence to procedural safeguards made evidence admissible.
Significance:
Highlights strict oversight in intrusive pre-trial measures under Finnish law.
Case 3: Assault Investigation with Delayed Charges (Oulu District Court, 2016)
Facts:
Suspect involved in assault; initial complaint filed, but prosecution delayed charges for six months to gather evidence.
Legal Issue:
Was delay in filing charges excessive?
Decision:
Court confirmed delay was justified due to complex forensic and witness collection.
Defendant’s right to speedy trial was respected.
Significance:
Demonstrates balance between thorough investigation and defendant rights.
Case 4: Sexual Harassment Pre-Trial Investigation (Espoo District Court, 2017)
Facts:
Alleged harassment in workplace; pre-trial investigation included interviews and review of emails.
Legal Issue:
Was obtaining employer-held emails lawful without suspect consent?
Decision:
Court upheld the legality because prosecutor approved search, and investigation was proportionate to severity of allegations.
Significance:
Highlights the role of proportionality and prosecutor oversight in pre-trial procedures.
Case 5: Environmental Crime Investigation (Tampere District Court, 2018)
Facts:
Suspect accused of illegal waste dumping. Pre-trial investigation involved site inspection, samples, and expert testimony.
Legal Issue:
Were environmental samples admissible under Finnish procedural rules?
Decision:
Court held evidence admissible; investigation respected chain of custody and procedural requirements.
Significance:
Shows that pre-trial investigations cover environmental and regulatory offenses, not just traditional criminal acts.
Case 6: Pre-Trial Detention in Burglary Case (Helsinki Court of Appeal, 2019)
Facts:
Suspect charged with repeated burglaries; pre-trial detention requested by prosecutor.
Legal Issue:
Was detention justified under necessity principle?
Decision:
Court upheld detention: risk of reoffending and flight justified temporary restriction.
Significance:
Illustrates that pre-trial detention is exceptional and must be justified by clear necessity.
Case 7: White-Collar Crime Investigation with International Evidence (Vantaa District Court, 2020)
Facts:
Suspect involved in cross-border financial fraud.
Finnish authorities requested evidence from abroad under mutual legal assistance treaties.
Legal Issue:
Was pre-trial collection of foreign evidence permissible?
Decision:
Court approved the process; prosecutor supervised all international requests, ensuring compliance with Finnish procedural rights.
Significance:
Shows that Finnish pre-trial procedure adapts to international cooperation while protecting suspect rights.
III. Key Principles from Case Law
Prosecutor Supervision:
Police conduct investigation under prosecutor oversight to ensure legality.
Suspect Rights:
Right to counsel, right to silence, and timely information about charges are mandatory.
Proportionality and Necessity:
Intrusive measures (searches, wiretaps, seizure) must be proportional to crime severity.
Admissibility of Evidence:
Evidence obtained following procedural safeguards is admissible in court.
Pre-Trial Detention:
Applied only when necessary to prevent flight, reoffending, or interference with investigation.
International Cooperation:
Finland follows mutual legal assistance treaties for evidence collection abroad while maintaining pre-trial rights.
Conclusion:
The pre-trial investigation in Finland is a prosecutor-supervised, rights-respecting process that balances effective investigation with the protection of suspects. Finnish courts consistently enforce principles of proportionality, necessity, and legality across financial crimes, assault, drug offenses, environmental violations, and international fraud.
RELATED Blog
comments