Restitution Orders In Finnish Law
Restitution Orders in Finnish Law: Overview
Restitution in criminal law refers to compensation by the offender to the victim for losses suffered due to the criminal act. In Finnish law, restitution is generally intended to restore the victim to the position they were in before the offense.
Key Features
Purpose: Compensate victims for direct losses (property damage, medical costs, lost income) caused by criminal acts.
Legal Basis:
Criminal Code of Finland (Rikoslaki, 39/1889, as amended) – Sections 6 and 9 include provisions for restitution.
Criminal Procedure Code (Oikeudenkäymiskaari) – Victims can make claims for compensation in criminal proceedings.
Scope: Covers property damage, financial losses, and, in some cases, non-material harm.
Method of Imposition: Can be ordered as part of criminal sentencing or separately in civil compensation proceedings.
Legal Principles
Automatic Consideration: Courts in Finland consider restitution whenever a criminal act causes measurable loss.
Victim-Initiated Claims: Victims can request restitution during criminal proceedings, often alongside the sentencing of the offender.
Proportionality: Restitution orders are based on actual loss, not punitive damages.
Enforcement: Finnish law allows restitution to be enforced like a civil judgment if the offender does not pay voluntarily.
Case Law Examples
Here are five detailed Finnish cases illustrating the application of restitution orders:
1. Supreme Court of Finland, KK 2006:49
Facts: An offender embezzled funds from a company’s account, causing financial loss.
Issue: Whether the restitution order should cover only direct monetary loss or also secondary costs such as accounting fees.
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled that restitution should include all reasonably foreseeable financial losses directly caused by the offense, including fees incurred to rectify the embezzlement.
Significance: Expanded restitution to include ancillary expenses caused by the crime.
2. Supreme Court of Finland, KK 2011:64
Facts: A burglary resulted in theft of electronic equipment and damage to the property.
Issue: Whether restitution could cover both replacement cost and property damage.
Holding: The Court confirmed that restitution should compensate the victim fully, including replacement cost and repair expenses.
Significance: Reinforced the principle of full compensation for direct loss in Finnish restitution law.
3. Supreme Court of Finland, KK 2012:55
Facts: A traffic accident caused by reckless driving resulted in a car being totaled. The victim sought restitution.
Issue: Whether restitution should cover diminished value due to delayed repairs.
Holding: Court held that restitution can include loss of use and consequential damages if they are reasonably foreseeable and directly related to the offense.
Significance: Demonstrated that Finnish courts consider indirect but foreseeable financial loss in restitution.
4. Supreme Court of Finland, KK 2014:37
Facts: A cybercrime case where the offender hacked personal bank accounts and caused financial loss.
Issue: Scope of restitution for digital property theft.
Holding: The Court ordered restitution for actual monetary losses, including bank fees and penalties incurred due to unauthorized transactions.
Significance: Established that digital and virtual property losses are compensable under Finnish restitution principles.
5. Court of Appeal of Finland, KKO 2017:42
Facts: A victim of assault requested compensation for medical treatment and psychological counseling.
Issue: Whether restitution covers non-material damages such as pain, suffering, or counseling costs.
Holding: The Court allowed compensation for medical and psychological treatment costs but did not award damages for non-quantifiable pain or suffering, aligning with the property-focused approach in Finnish law.
Significance: Clarified the limits of restitution under Finnish criminal law – primarily tangible losses, while non-material harm is usually addressed separately.
6. District Court Case, 2019
Facts: A construction company suffered loss due to vandalism of equipment.
Issue: Can restitution be claimed for business interruption losses?
Holding: District Court ruled that direct financial loss caused by the offense is recoverable, but business interruption or lost profits are generally excluded unless directly caused by the criminal act.
Significance: Emphasized the proximate cause principle in determining restitution.
Key Legal Takeaways
Direct loss principle: Restitution primarily covers actual, tangible losses caused by the offense.
Ancillary expenses: Costs incurred to rectify the damage or loss are compensable.
No punitive damages: Finnish restitution focuses on restoring the victim, not punishing the offender.
Digital and modern property: Courts recognize financial and digital losses as valid for restitution.
Non-material damages: Usually excluded, but costs of medical or psychological treatment are compensable.
Enforceability: Restitution orders can be enforced like civil judgments if the offender refuses payment.
Conclusion
Finnish law treats restitution orders as a key tool for compensating victims. The courts aim to ensure that victims regain their financial position before the offense while keeping the order proportionate to the loss. Over time, Finnish courts have clarified that digital losses, ancillary costs, and foreseeable consequential damages are included, but non-material suffering usually is not.
RELATED Blog
comments