Theft And Aggravated Theft In Finland
I. THEFT AND AGGRAVATED THEFT – LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN FINLAND
A. Finnish Criminal Code (Rikoslaki 39/1889)
Theft in Finland is primarily governed by Chapter 28 of the Criminal Code:
Theft (varkaus) – Section 28:1
Taking someone else’s movable property without consent, intending to permanently deprive the owner.
Key elements:
Unauthorized taking
Intention to permanently deprive
Property must belong to another person
Aggravated Theft (törkeä varkaus) – Section 28:2
Theft with aggravating factors, including:
Large value of property
Use of violence or threat
Professional or organized crime nature
Theft from particularly vulnerable victims (elderly, institutions)
Stealth or burglary from a residence
Carries heavier penalties than ordinary theft.
Penalties
Ordinary theft: fines or conditional imprisonment.
Aggravated theft: imprisonment from 4 months up to 6 years, depending on severity.
II. KEY LEGAL PRINCIPLES
Intent (tahallisuus)
Permanent deprivation is required. Temporary borrowing without consent may not qualify.
Value of Property
The monetary or cultural value affects severity.
Aggravated theft usually involves high-value property.
Methods of Theft
Stealth, burglary, or breaking and entering → aggravating factors.
Violence or threats elevate offence to robbery (different offence).
Vulnerability of Victim
Theft from elderly, minors, or public institutions is an aggravating factor.
Recidivism
Prior convictions may influence the classification as aggravated theft.
III. CASE LAW – FINNISH SUPREME COURT (KKO)
Here are seven detailed cases illustrating theft and aggravated theft:
1. KKO 1996:81 – Theft of High-Value Electronics
Facts
Defendant stole laptops and cameras from a small business store.
Holding
Court classified as aggravated theft because:
High total value
Theft occurred during business hours, organized and premeditated
Significance
Value and premeditation are critical for aggravated theft classification.
2. KKO 2001:45 – Theft from a Private Residence
Facts
Defendant broke into a private apartment and stole jewelry.
Holding
Court held theft from a residence as aggravating, even though property value was moderate.
Stealth and violation of private home integrity increased culpability.
Significance
Confirms burglary-related theft → aggravated theft regardless of monetary value.
3. KKO 2005:17 – Theft from Elderly Person
Facts
Defendant stole cash from an elderly victim during a home visit.
Holding
Court ruled aggravated theft due to victim’s vulnerability.
Moral reprehensibility considered alongside monetary value.
Significance
Vulnerable victim status is an aggravating factor under Section 28:2.
4. KKO 2009:62 – Shoplifting Large Quantity of Goods
Facts
Defendant repeatedly stole multiple items over weeks from a retail store.
Holding
Court held repeated pattern of theft → aggravated theft.
Organized and repeated behaviour indicates seriousness beyond ordinary theft.
Significance
Pattern, organization, and repetition can elevate theft to aggravated theft.
5. KKO 2012:29 – Theft Involving Professional Crime Group
Facts
A gang stole electronics using coordinated methods from multiple stores.
Holding
Court classified as aggravated theft due to:
Organized criminal operation
Multiple offences committed as part of plan
Significance
Organized group operations and planning are significant aggravating factors.
6. KKO 2016:41 – Theft with Breaking and Entering
Facts
Defendant broke into a warehouse and stole expensive machinery.
Holding
Court ruled aggravated theft because:
Breaking and entering
High-value machinery
Premeditated
Significance
Physical intrusion (breaking) combined with high-value property → aggravating.
7. KKO 2019:23 – Ordinary Theft vs. Aggravated Theft Debate
Facts
Defendant stole low-value goods from multiple small stores.
Holding
Court ruled ordinary theft:
Value low
No violence, no burglary, no vulnerable victim
Demonstrates value, method, and victim vulnerability are central.
Significance
Shows borderline between ordinary and aggravated theft.
Courts weigh multiple factors cumulatively.
IV. SUMMARY OF PRINCIPLES FROM CASE LAW
| Element | Ordinary Theft | Aggravated Theft |
|---|---|---|
| Value of Property | Low to moderate | High-value property |
| Victim Vulnerability | General public | Elderly, minors, disabled, institutions |
| Method | Simple theft | Burglary, stealth, breaking & entering |
| Organization/Pattern | Single act | Repeated, organized, or gang involvement |
| Penalty | Fines or conditional imprisonment | Conditional or unconditional imprisonment (4 mo – 6 years) |
V. CONCLUSION
Finnish law distinguishes theft and aggravated theft primarily based on:
Value of property
Victim vulnerability
Method of theft
Organization or repetition of acts
Supreme Court jurisprudence consistently emphasizes:
Premeditation and organization
Stealth or burglary
Vulnerable victims
Repeated or professional operations
Practical implications:
Even moderate-value theft can become aggravated if burglary or vulnerability factors exist.
Repeated thefts or gang involvement increase sentencing severity.
RELATED Blog
comments