Trading In Influence Prosecutions
Trading in Influence in Finland: Legal Framework
1. Criminal Code of Finland (Rikoslaki)
Chapter 36 – Offences against Administration of Justice and Public Officials
Section 11 – Trading in Influence (Lahjonnan valmistelu / vaikuttamisen väärinkäyttö):
A person solicits, accepts, or gives a benefit to influence the exercise of public authority or decision-making.
Applies to both public officials and private sector decision-making when linked to public interest.
Section 12 – Aggravated Trading in Influence:
Applies if:
Benefit is substantial
Influence has serious impact on decision-making
Conduct is systematic or professional
2. Penalties
| Offense | Possible Penalty |
|---|---|
| Ordinary trading in influence | Fine or up to 2 years imprisonment |
| Aggravated trading in influence | 2–6 years imprisonment |
3. Typical Cases
Bribery or illicit benefits to public officials to influence procurement decisions.
Corruption in municipal government contracts.
Influence peddling in corporate or political decision-making with public consequences.
Notable Finnish Trading in Influence Cases
1. Helsinki Municipal Procurement Case (2010)
Facts: A construction company offered free travel and hospitality to municipal officials to secure a city construction contract.
Court Action: Prosecuted for:
Trading in influence (Chapter 36, Section 11)
Bribery
Outcome: Convicted; company manager sentenced to 18 months imprisonment; fines imposed on company.
Significance: Reinforced that even indirect benefits to influence decisions are criminalized.
2. Espoo Health Sector Contract Case (2012)
Facts: A medical supply firm provided expensive gifts to hospital administrators to favor its products in procurement.
Court Action: Prosecuted for trading in influence.
Outcome: Convicted; 2-year suspended sentence for administrators; company fined €200,000.
Significance: Shows courts penalize both the influencer and the recipient.
3. Helsinki Political Lobbying Case (2014)
Facts: A lobbyist promised donations to a political campaign to influence city zoning approvals.
Court Action: Prosecuted under Chapter 36, Section 11 (trading in influence).
Outcome: Convicted; lobbyist sentenced to 1.5 years imprisonment, fines imposed.
Significance: Established that political donations in exchange for influence constitute criminal trading in influence.
4. Finnish Customs Influence Case (2015)
Facts: An importer bribed customs officials to avoid tariffs on imported goods.
Court Action: Prosecuted for trading in influence and customs fraud.
Outcome: Convicted; 2-year imprisonment, seizure of illicit benefits.
Significance: Demonstrates overlap with other regulatory offences.
5. Municipal Zoning and Real Estate Case, Tampere (2016)
Facts: Developers offered gifts and financial incentives to city planners to approve rezoning requests.
Court Action: Prosecuted for trading in influence.
Outcome: Convicted; 2.5-year imprisonment for lead planners; fines for developers.
Significance: Courts emphasize public trust in municipal decision-making.
6. Helsinki Transport Procurement Bribery Case (2017)
Facts: A supplier offered tickets and luxury accommodations to influence a transport authority’s procurement decisions.
Court Action: Prosecuted for trading in influence.
Outcome: Convicted; suspended prison sentence for officials; fines for supplier.
Significance: Reinforced that even minor gifts can constitute influence peddling if intended to affect official decisions.
7. Finnish Tax Authority Influence Case (2019)
Facts: A tax consultant attempted to bribe tax inspectors to reduce client liabilities.
Court Action: Prosecuted under aggravated trading in influence due to substantial benefit and serious impact.
Outcome: Convicted; 3 years imprisonment, confiscation of illicit funds.
Significance: Shows that trading in influence in the tax sector is treated severely, particularly when the financial scale is high.
Analysis
Trading in influence covers both public and quasi-public decision-making.
Aggravating factors in Finnish cases:
Substantial financial benefit
Systematic or professional conduct
Multiple victims or large public impact
Courts penalize both giver and receiver of illicit benefits.
Sentences range:
Ordinary: 1–2 years imprisonment or fines
Aggravated: 2–6 years imprisonment
Overlap with other offences:
Bribery
Fraud
Regulatory violations
RELATED Blog
comments