Property And Economic Crimes
Property and economic crimes involve offenses that target financial interests, personal property, or commercial assets. In Finland, these crimes are primarily governed by the Finnish Criminal Code under chapters covering theft, fraud, embezzlement, bribery, money laundering, and other economic offenses. These offenses are considered serious because they undermine trust in commerce, financial systems, and social order.
This explanation covers the substantive law and illustrates it with five detailed Finnish case examples.
1. Theft and Aggravated Theft (Rikoslaki 28:1-28:3)
Definition:
Theft involves the unlawful appropriation of another person’s property with the intent to permanently deprive them of it. Theft becomes aggravated if:
The property taken is of high value,
The theft involves breaking and entering,
It is carried out by a group, or
Violence or threats are used.
Penalties:
Simple theft: fines or imprisonment up to 2 years.
Aggravated theft: imprisonment 1–6 years.
Case 1: Helsinki Jewelry Store Robbery, 2016
Facts:
Two men planned and executed a robbery at a high-end jewelry store. They overpowered the store owner, used weapons, and stole goods worth over €150,000.
Legal Analysis:
Court determined the offense was aggravated theft due to the high value of stolen goods and use of force.
Prior criminal records of both defendants were considered aggravating factors.
Outcome:
Both were sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Highlights the Finnish courts’ approach of scaling punishment based on value, use of force, and offender history.
2. Fraud and Aggravated Fraud (Rikoslaki 36:1-36:2)
Definition:
Fraud is deceptive conduct to unlawfully obtain property or financial benefit. Aggravated fraud occurs when:
The fraud is large-scale,
Targets vulnerable victims, or
Involves professional planning.
Penalties:
Simple fraud: up to 2 years in prison.
Aggravated fraud: 1–6 years.
Case 2: Helsinki Investment Scam, 2018
Facts:
A financial advisor defrauded elderly investors by promoting a fake investment scheme, promising high returns and providing falsified documents.
Legal Analysis:
The victims’ age and vulnerability increased the severity of the offense.
The amount involved was significant, classifying it as aggravated fraud.
Outcome:
Defendant sentenced to 4 years imprisonment and ordered to reimburse victims.
Significance:
Demonstrates the courts’ consideration of victim vulnerability and scale of economic damage in determining proportionality.
3. Embezzlement (Rikoslaki 36:4)
Definition:
Embezzlement occurs when someone misappropriates funds or property entrusted to them in a professional or fiduciary capacity.
Penalties:
Up to 3 years for simple embezzlement.
Longer terms for aggravated cases involving high value or breach of trust.
Case 3: Corporate Embezzlement in Tampere, 2017
Facts:
An accountant at a mid-sized company siphoned company funds into personal accounts over two years, totaling €500,000.
Legal Analysis:
Abuse of position as a trusted professional was an aggravating factor.
The long-term, deliberate nature of the embezzlement indicated planning and intentionality.
Outcome:
Accountant sentenced to 6 years imprisonment and ordered to repay the misappropriated funds.
Significance:
Highlights how position of trust and scale of theft impact sentencing in economic crimes.
4. Bribery and Corruption (Rikoslaki 38:1-38:4)
Definition:
Bribery involves offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting benefits to influence the actions of a public official or corporate officer. Aggravated bribery involves high-value benefits, systematic misconduct, or public sector officials.
Penalties:
Simple bribery: fines or up to 2 years imprisonment.
Aggravated bribery: up to 6 years imprisonment.
Case 4: Municipal Bribery Case, 2019
Facts:
A municipal official accepted bribes from a construction company in exchange for preferential awarding of contracts.
Legal Analysis:
The systematic nature and public harm elevated the offense to aggravated bribery.
Defendant argued the bribes were minor gifts, but court rejected this.
Outcome:
Sentenced to 5 years imprisonment and prohibited from holding public office for 5 years.
Significance:
Illustrates that Finnish law penalizes corruption seriously to maintain public trust.
5. Money Laundering (Rikoslaki 36a:1-36a:3)
Definition:
Money laundering is the conversion, transfer, or concealment of proceeds from criminal activity to disguise their illegal origin.
Penalties:
Up to 3 years for simple laundering.
Up to 8 years for aggravated laundering (involving large sums or organized crime).
Case 5: Helsinki Money Laundering Ring, 2020
Facts:
A group facilitated laundering proceeds from drug trafficking and fraud through multiple shell companies and bank accounts.
Legal Analysis:
Use of multiple companies and international transactions demonstrated sophistication and organized nature.
The criminal enterprise involved several participants, making it aggravated.
Outcome:
Leaders received 8 years imprisonment, while minor participants received 2–4 years.
Significance:
Demonstrates Finnish courts’ focus on organized structure, scope of crime, and financial harm in economic offenses.
Key Observations
Severity and Scope Matter:
Value of property or financial harm directly influences whether offenses are simple or aggravated.
Position of Trust:
Violations by fiduciaries or public officials carry harsher sentences.
Victim Vulnerability:
Elderly or marginalized victims increase culpability in fraud and theft.
Organized and Systematic Crimes:
Large-scale, premeditated schemes (e.g., money laundering rings, corporate fraud) attract longer prison terms.
Restitution and Deterrence:
Finnish courts often order restitution to victims alongside imprisonment to balance punishment and remedy.
Conclusion:
Property and economic crimes in Finland are treated seriously, with courts applying the principle of proportionality in sentencing. The analysis of aggravating and mitigating factors, offender intent, and financial impact ensures fair punishment. Cases of theft, fraud, embezzlement, bribery, and money laundering highlight the Finnish legal system’s effort to safeguard both public trust and economic integrity.
RELATED Blog
0 comments