Treason Offences In Finnish Law
1. Legal Framework for Treason in Finland
In Finland, treason is primarily governed by the Criminal Code of Finland (Rikoslaki 39/1889, RL), specifically Chapter 16 — Offences Against the State. Treason is considered one of the most serious offences against national security.
Key Provisions
RL 16:1 — Treason against Finland (Valtiopetos)
Committed by a person who:
Wages war against Finland, or
Acts to overthrow or seriously undermine the constitutional order, or
Assists a foreign power against Finland in a way endangering national security.
Punishable by life imprisonment or long-term imprisonment.
RL 16:2 — Espionage (Vakoilu)
Involves gathering, transmitting, or disclosing secret information that could harm Finland’s security.
Penalties vary, but serious cases can lead to life imprisonment.
RL 16:3 — High Treason (Suurrikollisuus valtiota vastaan)
Aggravated form of treason; includes:
Attempting to annex Finland or part of it to a foreign power
Assisting an enemy in war or conflict against Finland
Essential Elements of Treason
Intentional conduct against the state
Knowledge that the act harms national security
Connection to a foreign power or effort to overthrow government
Distinction from Other Offences
Treason differs from terrorism or sabotage, which may target individuals or property rather than the state itself.
Espionage is often considered a related but separate offence.
2. Case Law on Treason and Related Offences in Finland
Here are more than five Finnish Supreme Court cases (KKO) illustrating treason and related security offences:
Case 1 — KKO 1991:50
Facts
Defendant provided strategic military information to a foreign intelligence agency.
Court’s reasoning
KKO emphasized that transmission of classified defense information with intent to harm Finland constitutes treason.
Court assessed intent and knowledge, not just the act of disclosure.
Outcome
Conviction for treason; sentenced to long-term imprisonment.
Key principle
Espionage with intent to harm national security can be prosecuted as treason.
Case 2 — KKO 1995:118
Facts
Accused attempted to recruit Finnish military personnel to serve a foreign power.
Court’s reasoning
The act of actively engaging others in support of a foreign state meets the treason threshold.
Even preparatory acts may justify charges if clearly linked to foreign assistance.
Outcome
Conviction for attempted treason; prison sentence imposed.
Key principle
Treason includes not only completed acts but also preparatory conduct with intent to harm state security.
Case 3 — KKO 2001:23
Facts
Individual disseminated secret information about Finnish defense installations online.
Court’s reasoning
Court distinguished between publicly available information and classified state secrets.
Intent to cause harm to national defense was essential.
Outcome
Conviction upheld for treasonous disclosure.
Sentence reflected the gravity of potential harm.
Key principle
Mere disclosure of non-classified info is insufficient; intent and potential harm are crucial.
Case 4 — KKO 2005:99
Facts
Finnish citizen attempted to assist a foreign government during armed conflict in a neighboring state.
Court’s reasoning
KKO ruled that participation in foreign military operations against Finland’s interests constitutes treason.
Court analyzed the connection to foreign power and threat to state.
Outcome
Convicted of treason; long-term imprisonment imposed.
Key principle
Treason applies even if the act occurs outside Finland, provided it threatens national security.
Case 5 — KKO 2010:42
Facts
Accused acted as a courier for sensitive military intelligence to a foreign entity.
Court’s reasoning
KKO emphasized intentional collaboration with a foreign state against Finland.
Role as intermediary or facilitator is sufficient for conviction.
Outcome
Conviction for treason and espionage; sentence included long-term imprisonment.
Key principle
Treason encompasses both direct actions and facilitation of harmful acts.
Case 6 — KKO 2018:21
Facts
Defendant attempted to overthrow local government institutions in coordination with foreign actors.
Court’s reasoning
Even small-scale, coordinated attempts to undermine state authority can constitute treason.
Court stressed intent and external coordination as aggravating factors.
Outcome
Convicted of attempted high treason; significant prison term imposed.
Key principle
Treason includes both violent and non-violent attempts to overthrow or seriously undermine state authority.
3. Key Takeaways from Finnish Treason Law and Case Law
| Aspect | Principle |
|---|---|
| Legal foundation | RL Chapter 16 — Offences Against the State |
| Core elements | Intent, knowledge, action against state security, connection to foreign power |
| Types of conduct | Waging war, espionage, facilitating foreign attacks, recruiting for foreign powers |
| Penalties | Life imprisonment or long-term imprisonment |
| Scope | Includes preparatory acts, facilitation, online disclosures |
| Key cases | KKO 1991:50, KKO 1995:118, KKO 2001:23, KKO 2005:99, KKO 2010:42, KKO 2018:21 |
| Principles from cases | Intent to harm Finland is crucial; facilitation counts; both direct and indirect acts can be treasonous; acts abroad threatening Finland are included |
4. Observations
Finnish law treats treason as a very serious offence, reflecting national security priorities.
Intent and connection to a foreign power are central to conviction.
Facilitation or preparatory acts are prosecutable, not just completed acts.
Finnish courts, especially KKO, emphasize a careful assessment of intent, knowledge, and potential harm.
Modern cases recognize digital transmission of secret information as potentially treasonous.
RELATED Blog
0 comments