Lex Mundi Global Anti-Corruption Compliance Guide |
|
Finland |
|
| (Europe) Firm Roschier, Attorneys Ltd. Updated 01 Feb 2022 | |
| What is the key anti-bribery and corruption legislation in your jurisdiction? | The main source of anti-bribery and anti-corruption legislation is the Criminal Code of Finland (39/1889, the Criminal Code), which contains provisions on e.g. offenses against public authorities (Chapter 16), business offenses (Chapter 30), receiving and money laundering offenses (Chapter 32), and offenses in office (Chapter 40). |
| Has there been a specific anti-bribery and corruption law enacted in your jurisdiction in the last ten years? | Based on certain recommendations by Group of States against Corruption ("GRECO"), Finland has sharpened certain parts of the legislation within the past ten years. In 2009 the laws on political campaign financing were tightened. In 2011 stricter criminalization in relation to bribery of members of the Parliament, as well as stricter criminalization of bribery in business (trading in influence) entered into force. On a related topic, the EU's Fourth and Fifth Anti-Money Laundering directives are implemented in the Act on Detecting and Preventing Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, the so-called new Anti-Money Laundering Act. This legislation applies to most entities active in the financial sector and contains broad reporting obligations regarding transactions that potentially constitute money laundering, including an obligation to maintain up-to-date information on ultimate beneficiaries. |
| Is a bribe payment to domestic government officials prohibited by the legislation? | Yes. Chapter 16 of the Criminal Code contains provisions related to offenses against the public authorities, including the giving of bribes to a public official (Sections 13 and 14, normal and aggravated form, respectively). Giving of bribes to a member of Parliament is prohibited under a separate provision (Sections 14(a) and (b)). In addition to the actual payment of a bribe, also offering and promising a bribe is prohibited. |
| Is a bribe payment to foreign government officials prohibited by the legislation? | Yes. The Criminal Code provides that the above-described provisions of Chapter 16 on criminalizing the giving of bribes to public officials and members of the Parliament also apply to foreign public officials and members of a foreign Parliament (Chapter 16 Section 20). Also in respect of foreign officials, not only the actual payment but also offering and promising of a bribe is prohibited. In addition, the Criminal Code provides that Chapter 40 on criminalizing the acceptance of a bribe as a public official or member of the Parliament also apply to foreign government officials (with the exception that sanction of dismissal from the office is not applicable) |
| Is requesting or accepting a bribe prohibited by the legislation? | Yes. Both requesting and accepting a bribe are prohibited in the Criminal Code. The formulation specifically covers "asking", "otherwise taking an initiative for receiving", "accepting" and "agreeing to" a gift or other unlawful benefit. This applies not only in relation to public officials and members of the Parliament, but also in relation to business parties. |
| Who is subject to the legislation? | For the legislation to apply, there must be a sufficient link to Finland. The offense must take place in Finland (or on a Finnish vessel, etc.; either the location of the act or the consequence suffices as a link); or the offense must be targeted at the Finnish state, public official, legal entity or permanent resident; or the offense must be committed by a Finnish public official abroad. Finnish law would also apply to criminal acts of Finnish permanent residents, where a foreign state has asked for prosecution in Finland or has requested extradition and Finland has refused to extradite the suspect. In relation to subjects taking bribes, the legislation covers public officials with a broad definition. In practice, anyone who serves in office or in a comparable position of service in respect of any public entity or authority is subject to the legislation. Members of Parliament are specifically covered. Also, foreign public officials and members of foreign Parliament may be subjects covered by the legislation. Further, in relation to bribery in business, the employees, directors, auditors, administrators and other persons acting for corporate entities may be subjects taking bribes, as well as arbitrators when resolving a dispute between a business and/or other parties. The offering, promising or actual payment of bribe may be committed by anyone. Criminal liability applies to persons of at least 15 years of age. |
| Is there criminal liability for corporate entities who have either paid or accepted a bribe payment? | Corporate criminal liability applies where the giving of a bribe to a public official or member of Parliament has taken place in the operations of a corporate entity (Chapter 16, Section 18). Also, corporate criminal liability applies to where in the operations of a corporate entity, either giving or accepting of a bribe in business has taken place (Chapter 30, Section 13). The offense is considered to have been committed in the operations of a corporate entity, if the offender has acted for or on behalf of the corporate entity and he/or she is part of the management, or is employed by the corporate entity, or when the offender has acted based on an assignment given by the corporate entity. |
| What is the penalty for individuals violating the law? | The penalty varies from a fine to up to two years of imprisonment or from four months to up to four years of imprisonment, depending on whether the act falls within the definition of the normal or aggravated form of the bribery offense in question. A public official may also be sentenced to dismissal if the offense demonstrates that he or she is manifestly unfit for his or her duties (Chapter 40, Section 1). |
| Assuming corporate entities are liable for violating the legislation, what is the penalty for corporate entities violating the law? | A corporate entity may be ordered to pay a corporate fine. The sum is at least EUR 850 and at most EUR 850,000 (Chapter 9, Section 5).In determining the amount, the court will take into account the size and financial status of the company, as well as the seriousness of the offense and the level of intent the offense demonstrates in the company (whether it is committed through negligence or intentional acts, etc.). The benefit received by the offense can be taken into account but it is not the main factor as confiscation of proceeds of crime can be claimed as a separate item. In practice, most fines are in the range of some tens of thousands of euros. The largest known fine ordered payable so far has been EUR 500,000, on a company with a turnover of EUR 7 billion, and excellent financial status, but in a case where the offense demonstrated more negligence than intent. For a significantly smaller company (EUR 4 million turnovers, poor financial state) a fine of EUR 100,000 was ordered on a serious insider and stock market offense, where the management was directly involved and the company benefitted from the offense. Bribery offenses are also a mandatory ground for excluding companies from public tendering processes if the company itself or its director or other representative has been convicted for such offense within the past five years. |
| Assuming corporate entities are liable for violating the legislation, does having a compliance program designed to prevent bribery constitute a defense? | The requirement for imposing a corporate fine is that the company or its legal organ or other director or representative has participated in the commission of the offense or has allowed a criminal offense to be committed, or that sufficient diligence and care has not been applied in the operations of the company to prevent crimes (Chapter 9 Section 2). Thus, while compliance programs are not specifically regulated, they may be very important in demonstrating that the commission of offenses has not been accepted or that sufficient diligence and care has been applied in the operations of the company to prevent crimes. Regarding the consequence of exclusion from public tendering processes, national legislation today includes the concept of “self-cleaning” in line with the EU directives. Under the EU Public Contracts Directive, a company that has been found guilty of corruption can undertake a self-cleaning program in order to avoid mandatory exclusion from participating in public tenders. The self-cleaning program allows the company to demonstrate that it has sufficiently remediated and changed its behavior and that it has executed concrete actions which are able to prevent new punishable actions. If such evidence and the entity’s reliability are considered sufficient by the procuring entity, the bidder concerned will not be excluded from the procurement procedure. |
| Assuming corporate entities are liable for violating the anticorruption law, is it possible for a corporate entity to reach a deferred prosecution agreement or leniency agreement with the enforcement authorities? | No. The plea bargaining system in Finland is quite narrow and applies only to natural persons. The prosecutor may decide to not prosecute the company if the act in question demonstrates only a low level of negligence in the company or the management, or if the criminal offense itself is minor. Also, the actions for preventing future crimes may be grounds for not pressing charges. If the company is prosecuted, the court may decide to not impose the fine on similar grounds, but it may additionally take into account e.g. other consequences of the offense and efforts of removing the effects of the offense by the company. |
Lex Mundi Global Anti-Corruption Compliance Guide
The main source of anti-bribery and anti-corruption legislation is the Criminal Code of Finland (39/1889, the Criminal Code), which contains provisions on e.g. offenses against public authorities (Chapter 16), business offenses (Chapter 30), receiving and money laundering offenses (Chapter 32), and offenses in office (Chapter 40).
Based on certain recommendations by Group of States against Corruption ("GRECO"), Finland has sharpened certain parts of the legislation within the past ten years. In 2009 the laws on political campaign financing were tightened. In 2011 stricter criminalization in relation to bribery of members of the Parliament, as well as stricter criminalization of bribery in business (trading in influence) entered into force.
On a related topic, the EU's Fourth and Fifth Anti-Money Laundering directives are implemented in the Act on Detecting and Preventing Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, the so-called new Anti-Money Laundering Act. This legislation applies to most entities active in the financial sector and contains broad reporting obligations regarding transactions that potentially constitute money laundering, including an obligation to maintain up-to-date information on ultimate beneficiaries.
Yes. Chapter 16 of the Criminal Code contains provisions related to offenses against the public authorities, including the giving of bribes to a public official (Sections 13 and 14, normal and aggravated form, respectively). Giving of bribes to a member of Parliament is prohibited under a separate provision (Sections 14(a) and (b)). In addition to the actual payment of a bribe, also offering and promising a bribe is prohibited.
Yes. The Criminal Code provides that the above-described provisions of Chapter 16 on criminalizing the giving of bribes to public officials and members of the Parliament also apply to foreign public officials and members of a foreign Parliament (Chapter 16 Section 20). Also in respect of foreign officials, not only the actual payment but also offering and promising of a bribe is prohibited.
In addition, the Criminal Code provides that Chapter 40 on criminalizing the acceptance of a bribe as a public official or member of the Parliament also apply to foreign government officials (with the exception that sanction of dismissal from the office is not applicable)
Yes. Both requesting and accepting a bribe are prohibited in the Criminal Code. The formulation specifically covers "asking", "otherwise taking an initiative for receiving", "accepting" and "agreeing to" a gift or other unlawful benefit. This applies not only in relation to public officials and members of the Parliament, but also in relation to business parties.
For the legislation to apply, there must be a sufficient link to Finland. The offense must take place in Finland (or on a Finnish vessel, etc.; either the location of the act or the consequence suffices as a link); or the offense must be targeted at the Finnish state, public official, legal entity or permanent resident; or the offense must be committed by a Finnish public official abroad. Finnish law would also apply to criminal acts of Finnish permanent residents, where a foreign state has asked for prosecution in Finland or has requested extradition and Finland has refused to extradite the suspect.
In relation to subjects taking bribes, the legislation covers public officials with a broad definition. In practice, anyone who serves in office or in a comparable position of service in respect of any public entity or authority is subject to the legislation. Members of Parliament are specifically covered. Also, foreign public officials and members of foreign Parliament may be subjects covered by the legislation.
Further, in relation to bribery in business, the employees, directors, auditors, administrators and other persons acting for corporate entities may be subjects taking bribes, as well as arbitrators when resolving a dispute between a business and/or other parties.
The offering, promising or actual payment of bribe may be committed by anyone.
Criminal liability applies to persons of at least 15 years of age.
Corporate criminal liability applies where the giving of a bribe to a public official or member of Parliament has taken place in the operations of a corporate entity (Chapter 16, Section 18).
Also, corporate criminal liability applies to where in the operations of a corporate entity, either giving or accepting of a bribe in business has taken place (Chapter 30, Section 13).
The offense is considered to have been committed in the operations of a corporate entity, if the offender has acted for or on behalf of the corporate entity and he/or she is part of the management, or is employed by the corporate entity, or when the offender has acted based on an assignment given by the corporate entity.
The penalty varies from a fine to up to two years of imprisonment or from four months to up to four years of imprisonment, depending on whether the act falls within the definition of the normal or aggravated form of the bribery offense in question. A public official may also be sentenced to dismissal if the offense demonstrates that he or she is manifestly unfit for his or her duties (Chapter 40, Section 1).
A corporate entity may be ordered to pay a corporate fine. The sum is at least EUR 850 and at most EUR 850,000 (Chapter 9, Section 5).In determining the amount, the court will take into account the size and financial status of the company, as well as the seriousness of the offense and the level of intent the offense demonstrates in the company (whether it is committed through negligence or intentional acts, etc.). The benefit received by the offense can be taken into account but it is not the main factor as confiscation of proceeds of crime can be claimed as a separate item. In practice, most fines are in the range of some tens of thousands of euros. The largest known fine ordered payable so far has been EUR 500,000, on a company with a turnover of EUR 7 billion, and excellent financial status, but in a case where the offense demonstrated more negligence than intent. For a significantly smaller company (EUR 4 million turnovers, poor financial state) a fine of EUR 100,000 was ordered on a serious insider and stock market offense, where the management was directly involved and the company benefitted from the offense.
Bribery offenses are also a mandatory ground for excluding companies from public tendering processes if the company itself or its director or other representative has been convicted for such offense within the past five years.
The requirement for imposing a corporate fine is that the company or its legal organ or other director or representative has participated in the commission of the offense or has allowed a criminal offense to be committed, or that sufficient diligence and care has not been applied in the operations of the company to prevent crimes (Chapter 9 Section 2). Thus, while compliance programs are not specifically regulated, they may be very important in demonstrating that the commission of offenses has not been accepted or that sufficient diligence and care has been applied in the operations of the company to prevent crimes.
Regarding the consequence of exclusion from public tendering processes, national legislation today includes the concept of “self-cleaning” in line with the EU directives. Under the EU Public Contracts Directive, a company that has been found guilty of corruption can undertake a self-cleaning program in order to avoid mandatory exclusion from participating in public tenders. The self-cleaning program allows the company to demonstrate that it has sufficiently remediated and changed its behavior and that it has executed concrete actions which are able to prevent new punishable actions. If such evidence and the entity’s reliability are considered sufficient by the procuring entity, the bidder concerned will not be excluded from the procurement procedure.
No. The plea bargaining system in Finland is quite narrow and applies only to natural persons.
The prosecutor may decide to not prosecute the company if the act in question demonstrates only a low level of negligence in the company or the management, or if the criminal offense itself is minor. Also, the actions for preventing future crimes may be grounds for not pressing charges. If the company is prosecuted, the court may decide to not impose the fine on similar grounds, but it may additionally take into account e.g. other consequences of the offense and efforts of removing the effects of the offense by the company.