Prosecution Of Crimes Committed Abroad By Finns
Legal Framework: When Finnish Law Applies to Crimes Committed Abroad
To understand how Finland prosecutes crimes committed abroad (by Finns or otherwise), we need to look at key provisions of the Finnish Penal Code (Criminal Code), and relevant prosecutorial procedures.
Jurisdiction under Finnish Criminal Law
Nationality Principle: Under Chapter 1, Section 6 of the Penal Code, Finnish law applies to offences committed outside Finland by a Finnish citizen.
There is a “double criminality” requirement if the crime was committed in another state: the act must also be punishable under the law of the place where it occurred, and a sentence must have been possible there.
Offences Directed at a Finn: Under Section 5 of Chapter 1, Finnish law applies to offences committed abroad that are directed against a Finnish citizen (or certain Finnish legal entities), if under Finnish law the act is punishable by more than six months of imprisonment.
Offences Directed at Finland (State Interest): Section 3 provides jurisdiction when the crime abroad seriously violates the national, military, or economic interests of Finland.
International Crimes / Universal Jurisdiction: Under Section 7, Chapter 1 of the Penal Code, Finnish law applies to certain “international offences” committed abroad, regardless of the law of the place where the act occurred.
These include crimes like war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and also certain severe trafficking offences.
Other Offences: Under Section 8, Finnish law may apply if the state where the crime occurred requests prosecution in Finland (for example, if extradition is denied).
Prosecution Order Requirement
Under Section 12, Chapter 1 of the Penal Code, a prosecution order by the Prosecutor-General is required for cases where the offence was committed abroad.
This acts as a filter: not all alleged foreign crimes by Finns (or otherwise) will automatically be processed in Finland without this formal decision.
Foreign Judgment Rule
Under Section 13, if there is already a final (i.e., non-appealable) conviction abroad, normally Finnish courts will not prosecute the same act again (to avoid double jeopardy), subject to some exceptions.
But there is a carve-out: the Prosecutor-General may order a prosecution in Finland even if there's already a foreign judgment, if certain conditions apply (e.g., the foreign sentence was not based on a Finnish request, or the crime is an international crime)
Limits on Punishment in Finland
Because of the dual-criminality rule, when a crime abroad is prosecuted in Finland under nationality jurisdiction (or passive personality), the sentence imposed in Finland cannot be more severe than what was possible under the law of the place where the crime was committed.
For universal jurisdiction crimes (international offences), this limitation may not apply in the same way, depending on the statute.
Case Law / Practical Examples
There are not very many well-known Finnish cases of ordinary crimes committed abroad by Finns that ended up in Finnish courts (at least from publicly available sources). However, there are several important cases, especially concerning international crimes, and some illustrative procedural cases. Below are five such examples, explained in detail as far as publicly reported.
Yan Petrovsky / Voislav Torden — War Crimes in Ukraine (2024–2025)
Facts: Yan Petrovsky (also known as Voislav Torden) is accused of having taken part in a neo-Nazi paramilitary unit (“Rusich”) that fought in eastern Ukraine in 2014, during the Donbas conflict. euronews+1
Charges: He faces several war crimes in Finnish court — including execution of wounded soldiers, use of deceptive practices (e.g., raising a Ukrainian flag to ambush), and other violations of the laws of war.
Procedural Path:
Finnish National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) carried out a preliminary investigation.
Finland’s Supreme Court blocked his extradition to Ukraine, citing concerns over potential inhumane treatment in Ukrainian custody.
Because extradition was denied, Finnish authorities decided to prosecute him in Finland under its universal jurisdiction / international crimes legislation.
Verdict: On 14 March 2025, the Helsinki District Court convicted him on four out of five counts related to war crimes and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Significance: This is a landmark case: it demonstrates that Finland exercises universal jurisdiction for war crimes (international offences), even when the accused is not Finnish (Petrovsky is Russian). It also shows the procedural role of the Prosecutor-General in permitting prosecution for crimes abroad.
Legal Basis: The court applied Chapter 11 of the Finnish Criminal Code (which deals with war crimes / crimes against humanity).
Terrorism Case — Iraqi Nationals (2016–2017)
According to data from the ICCT Interlinkages database, Finland has prosecuted alleged terrorists for core international crimes.
In 2016, two Iraqi nationals were indicted in Finland for alleged terrorism and related international crimes.
The first verdict in that line was an acquittal in May 2017.
Legal Mechanism: These prosecutions likely used Finland’s jurisdiction under Chapter 34a (terrorism) combined with its universal / extraterritorial jurisdiction provisions. Indeed, procedural rules require that for terrorist offences committed abroad, the Prosecutor-General must approve charges.
Significance: This shows that Finland is willing to prosecute non-Finns for serious terrorism-related crimes committed abroad, under its criminal law, using its international-offence jurisdiction.
Universal Jurisdiction / Torture
According to human rights reporting, Finland treats torture as an “international offence” under its Penal Code, making it subject to universal jurisdiction.
While I didn’t find a detailed Finnish court judgment for a torture case committed abroad (publicly accessible in open sources), the legal basis is clear: because torture is an international crime and Finland is party to the relevant treaties, Finnish law applies regardless of where it was committed.
Significance: This provision underscores Finland’s commitment to prosecuting grave international crimes, even when they occur abroad, showing its alignment with universal jurisdiction principles.
Illegal Entry / Human Smuggling (Mikael Storsjö Case)
Person: Mikael Storsjö was tried in Finland for allegedly arranging illegal entry of Chechen refugees from Turkey into Finland.
Facts: Between 2007 and 2010, he allegedly organized transport of Chechens (some minors) from Turkey into Finland, despite lack of travel documents.
Charges: The prosecution charged him with gross illegal entry.
Outcome: He was acquitted (Vantaa Local Court, May 2011). The court accepted his defense that his actions were motivated by humanitarian grounds, and that his legal theory of “acceptable grounds” under immigration law justified his acts.
Relevance to Prosecution of Crimes Abroad:
While this is not exactly a crime committed abroad, it is closely related: the scheme involved persons abroad, and it touched on cross-border migration.
It illustrates how Finnish courts deal with cross-border legal issues, particularly when the defendant's conduct relates to foreign nationals and foreign territory.
Human Trafficking / Trafficking in Persons
There are not many publicly documented landmark criminal trials in Finland of Finnish citizens prosecuted for trafficking others abroad. However:
Finnish evaluation reports (e.g., from GRETA, the Council of Europe’s expert group) indicate that Finland prosecutes trafficking offenders and considers cross-border aspects.
Under Finnish law, trafficking in persons (including aggravated trafficking) is considered an “international offence” in certain contexts, especially where it has a cross-border dimension.
The Council of Europe / GRETA evaluation also shows that Finnish authorities are responsible for investigating and prosecuting trafficking cases effectively, including where victims or crime elements are international.
Significance: Even if specific Finnish-citizen prosecutions for trafficking abroad are not well-publicized, the statutory framework supports them, and authorities do engage with cross-border trafficking cases.
Analysis & Key Take-Aways
Strong Legal Basis in Finnish Law
Finland’s Penal Code clearly provides for extraterritorial jurisdiction in a variety of situations: nationality-based, passive personality, and universal jurisdiction for international crimes.
The dual-criminality rule ensures that Finland does not prosecute foreign crimes more harshly than the foreign jurisdiction would permit (in many cases).
The Prosecutor-General’s review (via the prosecution order) provides a control mechanism before starting investigations for crimes abroad.
Use of Universal Jurisdiction
Finland has actively used universal jurisdiction for serious international crimes. The Petrovsky case is a strong recent example: war crimes committed abroad, by a non-Finn, tried in Finnish court.
This demonstrates Finland’s willingness to enforce international criminal law at the national level, not just rely on international tribunals.
Challenges in Practice
Extradition vs Prosecution: The Petrovsky case shows that when extradition to the state where the crime occurred is denied (for example, due to human rights concerns), Finland may step in to prosecute domestically.
Evidence Gathering: For crimes abroad, collecting evidence (witnesses, crime-scene data) is inherently difficult; Finland’s law requires coordination, and investigative work (e.g., via NBI) must be robust.
Political / Diplomatic Risks: Prosecution of war crimes or terrorist acts from foreign conflict zones may have diplomatic implications.
Limits / Gaps
While universal jurisdiction exists, it seems most used for very serious crimes (war crimes, torture, terrorism) rather than “ordinary” crimes (like property offences) committed abroad by Finns.
Public case law for non-international, non-terror crimes (e.g., drug crimes abroad committed by Finns) is not widely documented in open sources — possibly due to fewer such prosecutions, or lower public profile.
RELATED Blog
comments