Theft And Aggravated Theft In Finnish Law
I. Overview of Theft in Finnish Law
Theft is primarily governed by Chapter 28 of the Finnish Criminal Code (Rikoslaki). Finnish law distinguishes between ordinary theft (varkaus) and aggravated theft (törkeä varkaus), based on factors such as value, method, and circumstances.
1. Ordinary Theft (Varkaus) – Section 1, Chapter 28
Definition:
Taking someone else’s property without consent, intending to permanently deprive the owner of it.
Elements:
Unauthorized taking of property
Intention to permanently deprive
Typical Penalties:
Fine or imprisonment up to 2 years
Examples:
Shoplifting minor items
Stealing a bicycle or small electronics
2. Aggravated Theft (Törkeä varkaus) – Section 2, Chapter 28
Definition:
Theft is aggravated if it has serious circumstances, such as:
Large monetary value
Theft from a vulnerable person
Use of violence or breaking and entering
Professional or organized crime context
Penalties:
Typically 4 months to 6 years imprisonment, depending on severity
Factors Considered:
Value of stolen property
Circumstances of commission (e.g., night-time break-in, violence)
Prior criminal record
3. Distinction Between Ordinary and Aggravated Theft
| Factor | Ordinary Theft | Aggravated Theft |
|---|---|---|
| Value of property | Low to moderate | High (often > €10,000) |
| Method | Simple, opportunistic | Violent, organized, or sophisticated |
| Vulnerability of victim | None | Targeting vulnerable persons |
| Criminal intent | Simple intent to steal | Professional/organized intent |
| Typical punishment | Fine or up to 2 years | 4 months – 6 years imprisonment |
II. Case Law Illustrations
Case 1 — Shoplifting of Electronics (Helsinki District Court, 2004)
Facts:
A man was caught stealing multiple small electronic items from a retail store. The total value was approximately €500.
Legal Issue:
Whether this theft warranted more than a fine or imprisonment.
Decision:
Court classified it as ordinary theft.
Sentence: 6 months suspended imprisonment.
Significance:
Shows that low-value thefts without aggravating circumstances are usually considered ordinary theft.
Case 2 — Aggravated Theft in Jewelry Store (Turku District Court, 2007)
Facts:
A group of men planned and executed a night-time burglary of a jewelry store, stealing items worth €150,000.
Legal Issue:
Whether theft should be classified as aggravated due to high value and organized nature.
Decision:
Court classified as aggravated theft.
Sentences: 3–5 years imprisonment for main perpetrators.
Significance:
Illustrates how preparation, organization, and high value elevate theft to aggravated theft.
Case 3 — Theft from Elderly Person (Oulu District Court, 2010)
Facts:
A caregiver stole €5,000 from an elderly person under their care.
Legal Issue:
Does the vulnerability of the victim aggravate the theft?
Decision:
Court ruled it as aggravated theft due to targeting a vulnerable person.
Sentence: 2 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Finnish law protects vulnerable groups, making theft from elderly or disabled individuals aggravated.
Case 4 — Theft with Violence (Espoo District Court, 2012)
Facts:
A man stole a bicycle from a public park and threatened a passerby with a knife when confronted.
Legal Issue:
Does the use of threat or violence elevate theft to aggravated theft?
Decision:
Court classified as aggravated theft because of threatening behavior.
Sentence: 2 years and 6 months imprisonment.
Significance:
Use of violence or intimidation in theft significantly increases severity.
Case 5 — Repeat Shoplifting (Helsinki Court of Appeal, 2015)
Facts:
A woman repeatedly stole items from various stores over several months, totaling €3,000.
Legal Issue:
Does repeated offending warrant aggravated classification?
Decision:
Court considered it ordinary theft, but imposed a prison sentence due to repeated offenses.
Sentence: 1 year imprisonment.
Significance:
Repeated theft can increase punishment but does not automatically classify as aggravated theft unless other factors (value, violence) are present.
Case 6 — Theft During Robbery (Tampere District Court, 2016)
Facts:
A man broke into a convenience store at night, stole cash, and injured a clerk in the process.
Legal Issue:
Classification under Finnish law.
Decision:
Theft classified as aggravated theft because of breaking and entering, high value, and injury caused.
Sentence: 4 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Aggravated theft considers multiple aggravating circumstances, including violence and breaking and entering.
Case 7 — Organized Cargo Theft (Helsinki District Court, 2018)
Facts:
A criminal group stole cargo worth €200,000 from a shipping yard using specialized equipment and coordination.
Legal Issue:
Does professional and organized planning warrant aggravated theft?
Decision:
Court classified as aggravated theft due to value, organization, and premeditation.
Sentences: 3–6 years imprisonment for leaders, lesser terms for accomplices.
Significance:
Finnish courts consider professional and systematic execution an aggravating factor.
III. Key Legal Principles Derived from Cases
Value Matters:
Theft of low-value items typically remains ordinary theft.
High-value thefts are usually aggravated.
Method of Commission:
Use of violence, threat, or breaking and entering increases severity.
Victim Vulnerability:
Theft targeting the elderly, disabled, or minors is aggravated.
Organization and Premeditation:
Coordinated theft or professional crime networks elevate theft classification.
Repeat Offenses:
Repeated minor thefts increase sentences but do not automatically become aggravated theft.
RELATED Blog
comments