MinFin Corruption

8/9/2019 MinFin Corruption

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/minfin-corruption 1/28

and T H E P R E V E N T I O N of CO R R U P T I O N in F I N L A N D

M I N I S T R Y O F J U S T I C E

F i n l a n d



C o n t e n t s :

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1THE REALITY OF CORRUPTION IN FINLAND .................................................................................... 3

SEEKING EXPLANATIONS FOR TH E SEEMINGLY LOW INCIDENCE OF CORRUPTION IN FINLAND ............... 7

A NT I-CORRUPTION POLICY , AUT HOR IT IES AN D LEGISLATION IN FINLAND .................................... 14

FINLAND’S ACT IV E INTERNATIONAL COMMITMENT TO AN TI -CORRUPTION .................................... 19

CORRUPTION AN D TH E PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION IN FINLAND ............................................ 22

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................. 24

M I N I S T R Y O F J U S T I C E

F i n l a n d

M at t i Jo u t s e n • Ju h a K e r ä n e n

and T H E P R E V E N T I O N of CO R R U P T I O N in F I N L A N D and T H E P R E V E N T I O N of CO R R U P T I O N in F I N L A N D



FINLAND – A COUNTRY WITH LITTLE CORRUPTION?

Finland has the perhaps enviable reputation

of being one of the least corrupt countries in

the world (see, for example, Zook 2009)1. As

a result, the Finnish authorities have received

many requests for information on “what Fin-

land has done right.”Despite the reputation, cases of corruption

do occur in Finland. As is the case with most

forms of crime, the potential for corruption de-

pends on incentive (what benefit the offender

thinks that he or she can obtain through the

corruption), opportunity (a situation in which

the offender can influence a decision) and the

lack of supervision (the offender thinks that

there is a low risk of the corruption being de-

tected). Every now and then, cases come to

court where a public official in Finland is ac-

cused of having misused his or her authority in

order to unlawfully favour a friend, or a busi-

nessperson is accused of having paid a bribe

in order to secure a contract. And every now

and then, there are claims that for example de-

cisions on zoning and construction have been

influenced by an “old boys’ network”, where

favours are exchanged among insiders in gov-

ernment and business, on the basis of informal

relationships. Although such cases do occur in Finland,

the reality is that ordinary Finns do not come

across corruption in their daily lives. There

Introduction

seem to be factors in Finnish society which

have served to minimize the incentive and op-

portunity for corruption, as well as to increase

the effectiveness of supervision. This publica-

tion seeks to provide some background to the

situation in Finland, and explores some of thefactors which have contributed to the appar-

ently low level of corruption. The publication

also provides information on the actual extent

of corruption in Finland, in the light of statis-

tics and empirical research.

Corruption is understood in this publica-

tion in the wide sense, as the misuse of a pub-

lic office or other position of trust for personal

gain. It includes bribery, but also such offences

as embezzlement and nepotism. It can involve

any of the branches of government (the execu-

tive, the legislative and the judiciary), or the

private sector.

Corruption is a typical hidden crime. It

tends to be committed in situations where

there are no witnesses, and the offender gener-

ally has the opportunity to conceal the traces of

his or her crime. If another person is involved

(as is the case in bribery), this other person is

often a willing participant, or has other rea-

sons to want to avoid public scrutiny. A distinction has been drawn in studies of

corruption between “petty corruption” (also

referred to as “street corruption”) and “grand

SEE AL SO TH E TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL CORRUPTION PERCEPTIONS INDEX FOR 2008. TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL HA S

PUBLISHED SUCH INDICES SINCE 1995. THROUGHOUT THIS PERIOD, FINLAND HA S FARED QUITE WE LL , BETTER THAN AN Y OTHER

COUNTRY . SINCE TH E YE AR 2000, WI TH TW O EXCEPTIONS, FINLAND HA S BEEN RANKED AS TH E LEAST CORRUPT IN TH E WOR LD. THE

TW O EXCEPTIONS WE RE 2005, WH EN FINLAND WAS SECOND, AN D TH E MOST RECENT INDEX , FOR 2008, WH EN FINLAND WAS FIFTH.

1

1



official grants a company the contract for the

construction of a hospital, on condition that

the company pays the official a secret commis-

sion.

Petty corruption is more likely than grand

corruption to be detected, to be perceived as cor-

ruption, and also to be reported to the authori-

ties. Grand corruption, since it tends to involvesignificant financial benefit and highly trained

and experienced persons, and since the individ-

uals involved all tend to benefit, is less likely to

come to the attention of the authorities.

corruption” (“corruption in the suites”). Petty

corruption refers primarily to cases involving

lower level government officials or other per-

sons in a position of trust, and minor econom-

ic benefit. An example would be a government

official who demands a bribe for the processing

of an application or who unfairly favours a rela-

tive or close friend in awarding a governmentalcontract. Grand corruption usually refers to

cases involving higher levels of government of-

ficials, and considerable economic benefit. An

example would be where a senior government

in Finland?

2



3

The reality of corruption in Finland

2 L AI TI NEN A HT I 1989, PP. 49–50. 3 ISAKSSON P AAVO 1997, P. 143

STATISTICS ON CORRUPTION IN FINLAND

Because corruption is a hidden crime, the sta-

tistics on corruption can be understood as a

reflection only of the cases that come to the

attention of the authorities, and do not reflect

the scope of corruption in a country.Finnish

criminal law recognizes a number of offences

that can be classified as corruption: active brib-ery (chapter 16, sections 13, 14 and 14(a) of the

Criminal Code), passive bribery (chapter 40,

sections 1 - 4), and active bribery in business

(chapter 30, section 7), passive bribery in busi-

ness (chapter 30, section 8) as well as various

offences committed in office. The offences

committed in office, however, tend to involve

various forms of conduct, many of which would

not be regarded as corruption.

In his study 2 Laitinen has reviewed the sta-

tistics on persons convicted for bribery from

1925 to 1986. Isaksson has updated the data to

19923. In the table below, the data from 1993

are taken directly from the court statistics. The

figures refer to the number of persons convict-

ed. The number of persons convicted is not thesame as the number of cases; an individual case

may involve more than one offender.

According to the statistics, there was a peak

in the number of court cases during the Second

World War and in the years immediately after

the war. One probable reason for this was the

stringent rationing in Finland. A lower peak in

the number of bribery cases in court occurred

during the 1980s, when there were a number

1925- 1930- 1935- 1940- 1945- 1950- 1955- 1960- 1965- 1970- 1975- 1980- 1985- 1990- 1995- 2000- 2005-1929 1934 1939 1944 1949 1954 1959- 1964 - 1969 1974 1975 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2007

P E R S O N S C O N V I C T E D I

N C

O U R T

Y EARS

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

PERSONS CONVICTED IN COURT IN FINLAND FOR BRIBERY OFFENCES,

FIVE- YEAR TOTALS, 1925 - 2004, AND FOR 2005 - 2007



4 L AI TI NEN , P. 53. 5 K ORRUPTIOTILANNEKUVA 2008 (RTP 9408/213/07) AN D 20 09 (RTP 9122/213/08)

of cases involving construction. All of the

court cases up to the beginning of the new cen-

tury were domestic. However, at the momentthere are a few major cases under investigation

that concern international business and large

amounts of money. These have brought new

challenges to the law enforcement authorities.

Parallel with this, the need has emerged for

international agreements, effective implemen-

tation and the development of international

cooperation among the authorities of different

countries.

In the court cases during recent years, the

illegal benefits that public officials have been

accused of accepting have generally been sums

of money, travel, entertainment, reductions in

price, or the performance of work. Legal prac-

tice has had to constantly consider the border-

line between illegal and acceptable benefits. In

Finnish administrative practice, a very restric-

tive attitude is taken towards the acceptance of

any types of gifts or benefits. However, public

officials have not been absolutely prohibited

from receiving gifts, as has been done in somecountries. In legal practice, it is not the mone-

tary value of the benefit that is the most impor-

tant consideration, but whether or not the ben-

efit improves the position of the public official

in some way, and whether or not the benefit is

connected with the work of the public official.

Emphasis is also given to public confidence in

the conduct of the authorities. It is enough, indetermining whether or not a case of bribery

has occurred, that the actions of the public

official in accepting the benefit is conducive

towards weakening this pubic confidence; it

does not matter whether such weakening has

actually occurred. The court thus has to make

an over-all assessment of the case.

Laitinen notes in his study that although

there was a clear increase in the number of con-

victions for bribery during the 1980s, over thelonger term and when compared to the growth

in the size of the public sector there has been

an absolute decrease in the number of bribery

cases considered by the courts in Finland4. The

number of bribery cases annually is very low.

In 2008, the National Bureau of Inves-

tigation has begun to issue an annual report

entitled ”Korruptiotilannekuva” (Corruption

Status Report), which provides more detailed

information on reports that have come to the

police about suspected cases5.

In Finland, when speaking about corrup-

tion, the reference is usually to bribery offenc-

es. Only these types of offences are entered

into the statistics as corruption cases. In prac-

tice, however, also for example the offence of

“misuse of a public position” may involve cor-

rupt elements, and thus could be considered

a case of corruption Each year, an average of

about 50 such cases go to the prosecutor for

the consideration of charges.

4

of corruption in Finland



5

CORRUPTION IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

In the light of police and court statistics, cor-

ruption would seem to be almost non-existent

in the public sector. Cases of bribery involv-

ing State or municipal civil servants do come

to court every now and then, but they seem

to be rare. Results of the various sweeps of

the International Crime Victim Survey pointin the same direction: when representative

samples of Finnish respondents are asked

whether, during the preceding year, a public

official had asked them for or demanded a

bribe; the results are generally close to zero.

(It is also possible that the few who do report

such cases may be referring to incidents that

have occurred abroad.)

Such payments of bribes to public officials,

however, tend to fulfil the criteria of what isreferred to above as “petty corruption”. There

appears to be a shared conception in Finland

that such manifest corruption is indeed very

rare in the public sector. It is more difficult

to say to what extent decisions and actions by

public officials are influenced by another phe-

nomenon referred to above, the possible exist-

ence of an “old boys’ network”, where favours

are exchanged on the basis of informal rela-

tionships. This is a perennial topic of debate

in Finland. When a case of blatant corruption

(usually bribery) is reported in the media, these

reports are often followed up by letters to the

editor or other comments to the effect that

such clear-cut cases of bribery are only the “tip

of the iceberg”. According to such allegations,

many decisions in particular in municipal gov-

ernment are informally agreed upon between

friends and acquaintances. Examples include

some decisions to allow the establishment of

factories, mines or shopping centres on landrezoned for this purpose.

The allegations of “old boys’ networks” are

closely tied to suspicions that decisions may be

unjustly made on political grounds. Accord-

ing to these suspicions, appointments to office

and allocation of contracts are not necessarily

made on the basis of the substantive merits of

the applicant, but on the basis of his or hermembership in a political party.

The background to these allegations in-

cludes the fact that many municipalities are

small (with perhaps only 20,000 or 30,000

residents), and the decisions in the municipal-

ity are made by a small, active group who have

lived and worked in the municipality for many

years. It is thus not unusual that both the mu-

nicipal decision-makers and the persons in the

private sector who want certain decisions knowone another, and meet one another also social-

ly. It is also not unusual for them to belong to

the same political party.

Characterizing such decisions as corruption,

however, is difficult. The fact that the munici-

pal decision-makers and the private individuals

involved in, for example, decisions on zoning

belong to the same political party, hunting club

or other association, does not itself automati-

cally mean that the decision should be suspect.

It is also difficult to identify how, precisely, the

decision-makers involved had acted improperly

(if indeed this is the case), since generally there

is no discernable financial or other benefit to

them personally.

Such allegations cannot of course be ig-

nored, and should be taken seriously in order

to show that corruption in any form is unac-

ceptable. The best response is to ensure that de-

cisions by State and municipal bodies are made

in as transparent manner as possible, and thatthe decisions can be subjected to review.



CORRUPTION IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR

There is scarcely any empirical information

available on the extent of corruption in the pri-

vate sector in Finland. Only rarely have cases ofsuspected bribery in the private sector come to

court. According to the crime statistics, most

of the cases of bribery coming to the attention

of the authorities have involved the public sec-

tor, and public officials. Although considerable

attention has been paid in the public sector to

the control of public procurements, the struc-

ture of decision-making in the private sector is

more opaque.

Some studies provide a key-hole view of the

extent of corruption, at least in internationaltrade. A series of studies was conducted during

the 1990s regarding the experience of Finn-

ish companies trying to get a foothold in the

emerging economies in the Baltic republics

and in Russia (see for example Aromaa and

Lehti, esp. pp. 172-177). The focus of the stud-

ies was on the experiences of these companies

with crime. The methodology was based on

interviews with company representatives. The

studies indicated that the majority of Finnishcompanies involved had experience in paying

bribes in this region. (Subsequent reports sug-

gest a clear diminishment of the prevalence of

corruption.) A striking feature of the studies

was that many of the company representatives,

although regretting the need to pay bribes, re-

garded it nonetheless as a cost of business in

those particular circumstances.

PriceWaterhouseCoopers has recently con-

ducted a small-scale international study on

how often companies have been the victim

of economic crime. According to the results,

about one half of the Finnish company repre-

sentatives stated that their company had beenthe victim of an economic crime when doing

business abroad. About 5 % of the Finnish

companies in question had been the victim of

corruption-related offences; this figure is lower

than for other countries included in the study.

A study commissioned by the Ministry of

Justice regarding corruption on the Finnish -

Russian border suggested that an appreciable

number of Finnish companies doing business

across the border to have experiences with cor-

ruption (Aromaa et al 2009). As noted earlier, corruption is harmful to

the fundamental principles of market economy

and free trade. It could be added that, although

paying a bribe may be a business strategy for

companies struggling in a difficult market, it

brings various risks, ranging from the “costs”

associated with possible law enforcement and

punishment, to the negative impact that public

knowledge of the payment of bribes may have

on the reputation of the company.Mention has also been made earlier of

the guidelines prepared by the International

Chamber of Commerce on principles of ethi-

cal business activity, and of anti-bribery, and

the work of the Finnish Central Chamber

of Commerce to promote implementation.

In addition, many large Finnish companies

have specific anti-corruption policies and pro-

grammes, often based on a “zero-tolerance”

approach both domestically and when doing

business abroad.

6



7

How has Finland received its reputation for a

low level of corruption? Are people in Finland

on the average more honest than elsewhere?Is the standard of living so much higher that

people do not consider taking bribes? Is there

a lack of opportunity? Or are there perhaps

some other simple explanation? In the follow-

ing, some of the more commonly suggested

factors are presented in brief, along with an

assessment of their importance in preventing

corruption.

There is no individual factor explaining the

level of corruption. Instead, one would have to

consider a whole range of social and societalfactors. Various studies suggest that there is a

general correlation between the general stand-

ard of living on one hand, and the level of cor-

ruption on the other. The higher the standard

of living, the lower the level of corruption.

F ACTOR S RELATED TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE

SYSTEM

The general administrative culture in Finland. The

legal and administrative structure and culture

in Finland are the result of a long, stable and

gradual development, beginning with the pe-

riod of Swedish rule (ca. 1150 – 1809), continu-

ing through the period when Finland was an

autonomous Grand Duchy under Russian rule

(1809 – 1917), and finally through the period

of independence.

Since the law evolved on the basis of localcustom, it was by and large accepted by the

population. This acceptance was strengthened

by the gradually increasing role of the different

estates (the nobility, the priests, the burghers

and the peasants) in the drafting and adoption

of legislation. The underlying feeling was that

the law, as was the case with rules in general,

is old, brief, clear and strict, and is to be taken

seriously. The importance of the principle of

legality was particularly strengthened as a bul-

wark against attempts towards the end of the

period of Russian rule to weaken the autono-

my of Finland and bring it more firmly under

the Tsar.

The structure of the Finnish administrative

system is relatively “low” (i.e., with few levels of

bureaucracy), with a considerable degree of au-

tonomy on the local, municipal level. Already

at an early stage during Swedish rule, the civil

service secured a relatively strong position in

Seeking explanations

for the seemingly low incidence

of corruption in Finland



society, and public officials were widely regard-

ed with respect. The educational system made

it possible at least in theory for anyone to as-

pire to a good career, with promotion based onmeritocracy. Salaries may not have been high

but were nonetheless adequate. According to

an old Finnish saying, “a public official’s bread

may be thin, but at least it is long”, meaning

that there is good job security for public offi-

cials to counterbalance the not-so-high earn-

ings.

The qualifications for office, the procedure

for appointment, and the rights and duties of

public officials are defined by statute. The basic

such statutes are the State Public Official Act

(750/1994) and the Municipal Office Holder

Act (304/2003). Separate legislation applies to

a huge variety of special fields (the judiciary,

physicians, teachers and so on).

Up until recently, there was no general

induction training for new officials. It was

assumed that the qualifications laid down in

law (for example on what type of education

and experience is needed for certain office)

and the on-the-job training that each authorityprovided on its own, was sufficient. Currently,

however, new office holders in state and mu-

nicipal administration generally receive such

induction training. If there is a great risk of

corruption in the field in question, matters

related to corruption shall naturally be empha-

sized during the introductory training. Before

appointing officials to certain key posts, a sepa-

rate security check can be conducted regarding

the candidates.New officeholders are also provided infor-

mation on typical situations where the risk of

bribery may arise. Management training, as

well as other kinds of staff training in public

administration, is designed to include units on

values and ethics. (In earlier times, accordingto a widely spread joke, the only ethical train-

ing that young public officials would receive

was that a senior official would take them aside

to explain the difference between acceptable

hospitality and unacceptable bribery: “a pub-

lic official may accept a warm beer and a cold

sandwich, but not a cold beer and a warm sand-

wich”).

In Finland, persons are appointed on po-

litical grounds only to certain top positions.

Examples are the members of the Council of

State and the state secretaries in certain Min-

istries.

Among the administrative principles that

have contributed to the rule of law in Finland

are the principle of equality, the principle of

objectivity, the principle of proportionality

and the principle that any action must be ap-

propriate in view of its purpose. Finns are used

to handling most legal problems very pragmati-

cally. The reality and practicalities of life aretaken into consideration.

One aspect of the principle of objectivity is

that an official may not participate in the tak-

ing of a decision which may benefit or, alterna-

tively, harm his or her interests, or the interests

of a close relative or other person with whom

he or she has a dependent relationship. In such

cases, the public official must withdraw from

consideration of the matter.

Collective and collegiate decision-making struc-

ture. Corruption occurs most easily when the

decision is made by one person alone, since the

8



briber can focus all efforts on this single per-

son. Corruption becomes more difficult when

more individuals are involved, since all the

people concerned must then be convinced ofthe advisability of deciding in favour of the in-

terest group, and there is always the possibility

of someone blowing the whistle on any shady

transaction.

The referendary system is an old pillar of

Finnish administration. In this referendary

system, a junior official prepares the matter in

question for a decision by his or her superior.

The referendary prepares a summary of the

matter and the applicable law, identifies the

different ways in which it can be decided and

suggests what decision is to be taken. If the su-

perior decides differently, the referendary can

note in writing his or her disagreement. Oth-

erwise, also the junior official (in addition to

the actual decision-maker) is legally responsible

for the decision. It may be noted that a minis-

ter (i.e., a member of the Council of State) can

make a political decision that differs from the

proposal of the referendary, but the decision is

not legally binding if the referendary does notsign it. From the viewpoint of corruption, the

referendary system demands double work from

the potential briber, since he or she must win

over both the decision maker and the referen-

dary.

The publicity and transparency of the work of

public officials. The broad openness of public

administration has always been a fundamental

principle in Finland. Decisions must be public,

and they are open for criticism by other publicofficials, by the public and the media. In Fin-

land, everyone has the constitutional right to

have his or her administrative and legal case

dealt with appropriately by an authority, backed

up by the constitutional provisions on the pub-

licity of proceedings, the right to be heard, theright to receive a reasoned decision, the right

to an appeal, as well as the other guarantees of

a fair trial and good governance.

This transparency of public decision-mak-

ing is a key factor in preventing corruption.

Open access to public records makes it possi-

ble to apply transparency and good informa-

tion practices in public activities. It also makes

it possible for individuals and associations to

control the exercise of official authority and

the use of public finances, freely to form their

opinion, to influence the exercise of official au-

thority, and to assert their rights and safeguard

their interests.

One key sector is public procurements. Fin-

land, in particular as a Member State of the Eu-

ropean Union, has worked to ensure the adop-

tion of structures and procedures that control

who can bid for government contracts and on

what conditions, and how transparently the de-

cision is made.Finland is one of the innovators in e-democ-

racy. (According to the Economist Intelligence

Unit e-readiness rankings for 2009, Finland is

in tenth place globally in respect of its ability to

use information and communication technolo-

gies in the development of its economy and the

welfare system.) To an increasing degree, appli-

cations and requests addressed to the authori-

ties can be made by computer.

Transparency in public administration isenhanced by the obligation of the highest of-

ficials to declare their commitments, and by re-

9

for the seemingly low incidence of corruption in Finland



12

strictions on secondary occupations. Training,

leadership and publications increase awareness

among public officials of values and ethically

sound proceedings in public administration.

Informing partners in the private sector of the

requirements of civil service ethics is a factor

for promoting transparency.

While holding a post of a minister in the

Finnish Government, a member of the Coun-cil of State is not allowed to hold any public

office or other post that may impede his or her

duties as minister, or endanger the confidence

in his or her work as a member of the Council

of State.

As noted earlier, Finland was one of the

first countries to allocate state funds for po-

litical parties. The elimination of conflicting

interests and liabilities and thus corruption

is also pursued through the publicity of cam-paign financing.

Also in general, the publicity of public au-

thorities is an established principle. The few ex-

ceptions to this principle are clearly identified

in law. As a rule, any person has the right to

ask for information regarding any documents

held by public authorities. No reason need be

given for the request. For example, informa-

tion on the tax records of private individuals

are public. If you want to know how much your

neighbour paid taxes, or anyone else in Finlandfor that matter, all you have to do is ask.

Supervision of decisions. The Finnish system

has several methods of supervising decisions

taken by administrative authorities. In addi-

tion to the possibility of subjecting decisions to

appeal and review by a higher level, the legality

of decisions is supervised by the Chancellor of

Justice and the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

The roots of the institution of Chancellor

of Justice stem from the 1700s, when Finland was a part of Sweden. The position of Par-

liamentary Ombudsman was established in

1922.

Their respective competence is set out in

the Constitution. Both the Chancellor of Jus-

tice and the Parliamentary Ombudsman en-

sure that the courts of law, other authorities,

public officials, public employees, and other

persons performing public tasks observe the

law and fulfil their obligations. In perform-ing their duties, the Chancellor of Justice and

the Parliamentary Ombudsman also supervise

the implementation of basic rights and human

rights.

The Chancellor of Justice and the Par-

liamentary Ombudsman conduct periodic

reviews of the work of administrative and

judicial authorities. They also conduct their

own special investigations in response to a

complaint from the public, or for example in

response to allegations of abuse reported inthe media. They have the power to reprimand

10

Seeking explanations for the seemingly



13

an authority found to have acted improperly,

and in particularly serious cases, to order that

charges be brought.

In Finland, the work of the Parliamentary

Ombudsman is supplemented by special om-

budsmen for certain fields of activity, separate-

ly prescribed by the law. Examples are the Om-

budsman for Bankruptcy Cases and the Con-

sumer Ombudsman. The former monitors howbankruptcy legislation is observed, particularly

in terms of the administration of estates in

bankruptcy and equitable sales of estate prop-

erty. The Consumer Ombudsman monitors

how the interests of consumers are respected

in the market. Supervision here refers both to

product safety and to the clear and fair pricing

of products. All the above-mentioned authori-

ties can also intervene in actual and potential

situations of corruption.In addition to the supervision referred to

above, also the State Audit Office oversees the

work of State authorities. The State Audit Of-

fice is a national supervisory body that works

in connection with the Parliament. It examines

State finances and the management of State

property. In its audits, it focuses on ensuring

that State finances are used for the purposes

specified by Parliament, and in a sensible man-

ner. The State Audit Office works together

with State government to develop good princi-ples in the management of the State economy

and to promote confidence in the lawful and

proper use of public funds. As an independent

expert, the State Audit Office provides sup-

port for the decision-making of Parliament, the

Council of State and State administration.

Finally, each individual State and munici-

pal office has an important role in supervising

its operations and the work of its staff. This

supervision and the conducting of internalaudits is part and parcel of the operation and

management of the office.

F ACTORS RELATED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT

AND THE COURT SYSTEM

Finland has a national police force, with the

country divided into 24 police districts. Inves-

tigation of offences is primarily the responsibil-

ity of the local police. The larger police districts

are well capable on their own of investigating

most large and complex criminal cases. How-

ever, the most serious and complex crimes,

including cases of bribery and other forms of

corruption, would generally be transferred to

the National Bureau of Investigation, where in-

vestigators specialize in, for example, financial

and economic offences.

The prosecutorial service is independent,

under the national Office of the Prosecutor-General. As with investigation, most prosecu-

11



14

tion is conducted on the local level, but cases

of bribery and other forms of corruption can

be transferred to be the responsibility of State

Prosecutors working in the Office of the Pros-

ecutor-General. One of the State Prosecutors

specializes, among others, in corruption cases.

Finland does not have a separate unit spe-

cializing specifically in the investigation or

prosecution of corruption-related offences.

Finland follows the Germanic model of

having a bipartite court system, one for “ordi-

nary” cases and one for administrative cases.

Both systems are relatively simple. The “ordi-

nary” court system consists of district courts,

six courts of appeal, and the Supreme Court.

In administrative cases, decisions made by ad-ministrative bodies can be appealed to an ad-

ministrative court (Finland is divided for this

purpose into eight regions, each with its own

administrative court), and the decision of the

administrative court can be appealed to the

Supreme Administrative Court. In addition,

there are courts that specialize in certain types

of cases: the Market Court, the Labour Court

and the Insurance Court.

Both court systems have their role in the

prevention of corruption. The “ordinary” court

system deals with civil and criminal cases, and

would thus deal with allegations of corruption.

The role of the administrative court system is

to review whether an administrative decision

had been made in the proper order and on the

proper grounds.

Access to both court systems is kept as sim-

ple as possible. The Code of Judicial Procedure

and the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act

(586/1996) have been drafted to ensure that

persons who believe that their rights have been

violated can take the matter to court. In gener-

al, persons with legal concerns can themselves

take the matter to court without the need toretain a lawyer. However, legal aid is relatively

easily obtainable. In particular, it should be

noted that cost-free legal aid is provided on

what, internationally speaking, is a relatively

generous basis. As a result, persons who believe

that corruption has influenced a decision that

affects their rights have a good possibility of

taking the matter to court to have the basis for

the decision reviewed.

12



15

SOCIAL FACTORS

The educational system in Finland has been

identified as one of the most effective in the

world, and the level of adult literacy is almost

100 %. Such factors suggest that the members

of the Finnish public tend to have a relatively

good capacity to understand, exercise and pro-tect their rights. Thus, most members of the

public at least in theory should be able to iden-

tify incidents of corruption when they encoun-

ter these, understand that these are not accept-

able, and be able to bring the matter to court

or otherwise have the matter reviewed.

Finland’s society can be described briefly

as democratic and egalitarian. Finland was one

of the first countries in the world to grant all

men and women the right to vote and stand foroffice, and in 2008 Finland was ranked second

(after Norway) in the gender equality index

prepared by the World Economic Forum. The

standard of living is high; Finland is in eleventh

place on the UNDP’s Human Development In-

dex for 2008. The level of wages in both the

public and the private sectors can be termed

reasonable, and there are relatively small differ-

ences in income. From the point of view of the

prevention of corruption, this relative equality

in income, combined with the high standard

of living, can be seen to be a disincentive to ac-

cepting bribes: few people live in poverty, and

even the level of “relative deprivation” is low.

Part of the democratic tradition concerns

the importance of local government. Tradition-

ally, many decisions affecting the day-to-day life

of citizens, including regarding taxes, roads,

utilities and social services, have been made

locally. This has given people a clear incentive

to become involved in local government, or at

least to keep a watchful eye on local decision-

makers.

The welfare services have expanded in par-

ticular since the 1950s. The main elements of

Finland’s welfare society are a free comprehen-

sive school education, higher education, andbasic health care for everyone. The state takes

care of the unemployed and other disadvan-

taged groups.

In general, the media has a key role in the

prevention of corruption. They can raise ques-

tions and start discussions on transparency

and justness, dealing with different solutions.

The role of the media is perhaps particularly

strong in Finland, where newspaper readership

and the use of the internet are among the high-

est in the world.

13



Anti-corruption policy, authorities and

legislation in Finland

A NTI-CORRUPTION POLICY

The guiding principle for anti-corruption work

in Finland is that corruption is not seen as an

isolated phenomenon. It is not seen to require

separate laws or separate supervisory bodies,

nor a separate strategy or action plan. Instead,

anti-corruption has been integrated into gen-

eral policy. This is because corruption is seen

as part of criminality and as part of bad gov-

ernance and/or politics. The prevention of cor-

ruption also involves creating and observing

ethical norms of behaviour, increasing trans-parency, minimizing opportunity and increas-

ing the effectiveness of supervision.

Finland has established a formal anti-cor-

ruption network. The network was set up in

response to recommendations given in con-nection with a GRECO first round evaluation.

The network was established under the Minis-

try of Justice, and it brings together not only

State and local governmental authorities, but

also the private sector, the research commu-

nity and non-governmental organizations. The

mandate of the anti-corruption network is to

• promote anti-corruption activity and

propose initiatives regarding this;

• increase awareness of corruption in society

and promote awareness of anti-corruption

guidelines in the State, municipal and pri-

vate sectors,

• follow and promote the implementation

of obligations under international anti-

corruption agreements (the United

Nations Convention on Corruption, the

OECD Convention and the Council of

Europe criminal law and civil law

conventions against corruption) as well as

obligations by international bodies (OECDand GRECO), and

• follow and promote research on corruption.

14



A UTHORITIES

Finland does not have an authority specifically

charged with the prevention of corruption.

Co-ordination of horizontal and international

co-operation anti-corruption matters is the re-

sponsibility of the Ministry of Justice. Howev-er, Finland’s anti-corruption contact point for

EU purposes is in the Ministry of the Interior,

and the National Bureau of Investigation has

an officer whose full-time duty is to follow mat-

ters related to corruption in Finland.

As is the case with other offences, the in-

vestigation of corruption-related offences is the

responsibility of the police. The investigation

will normally be conducted by the local police.

In more serious or complex cases, for examplethose involving organized crime, senior public

officials or international connections, the of-

fence would usually be investigated by the Na-

tional Bureau of Investigation.

The powers of the pre-trial investigation

authorities to use various coercive measures

in the investigation of bribery offences have

been expanded in recent years. For example,

technical surveillance and telecommunica-

tions interception have been made possible.

In addition, the legislation has been amended

to allow greater efficiency in international co-

operation. An example of the latter is the ex-

pansion of the scope of application of Finnish

criminal law. Previously, Finnish criminal law

could not be applied if the bribery offence was

not punishable also in the country in which

it was committed (the so-called requirement

of dual criminality). This requirement has

since been eliminated for nearly all bribery

offences. Furthermore, bribery offences havebeen included among those offences for which

a European arrest warrant can be issued. In

practice, this means that the requirement of

dual criminality has been eliminated also in

this respect.

Once the investigation has been complet-

ed, the case is turned over to the prosecutorialservice, which will decide on whether or not to

bring charges and, if so, for what offences.

FINNISH LEGISLATION RELATED TO

CORRUPTION6

In Finnish legislation, there is no definition of

corruption as such, nor is there separate legisla-

tion on the prevention of corruption. The basic

provisions on corruption in Finnish criminallaw are the provisions on bribery in the public

and in the private sector. These provisions were

amended in 1989 in connection with the total

reform of Finnish criminal law. Subsequently,

some minor amendments have been made to

these provisions in order to bring them in line

with EU instruments and international agree-

ments on bribery and corruption. For example,

the scope of foreign public officials covered by

Finnish criminal law has been expanded, and

bribery offences in the private sector have been

brought within the scope of public prosecution

(i.e. prosecution does not require that the vic-

tim requests prosecution).

Other key criminal law provisions in re-

sponding to corruption deal for example with

money laundering and accounting offences.

Also these have been amended during recent

years, often to ensure that Finnish legislation

is in line with European Union anti-corrup-

tion policy. Money laundering has been madea separate offence, and the scope of predicate

offences (the offences producing the proceeds

6 FURTHER INFORMATION IS PROVIDED IN H AN NULA 2007.15



which are then laundered) has been expandedto include any offence whatsoever, and thus for

example also bribery.

Also the criminal law provisions on partici-

pation in an organized criminal group may be

applicable, for example if an organized crimi-

nal group is involved in the laundering of the

proceeds of corruption, or in various forms of

bribery itself.

Bribery in the public sector is dealt with in

chapter 16, sections 13, 14 and 14(a) (active

bribery) and chapter 40, sections 1 through 4(passive bribery) of the Criminal Code. The

provisions in chapter 16 on active bribery, and

the provisions in chapter 40 on passive bribery,

are more or less mirror images of one another.

Both those who give a bribe and those who

accept a bribe are subject to punishment. The

one major difference is that the standard of

conduct required of public officials is higher.

Although someone may be punished for giv-

ing a bribe only if this is intended to influ-ence the public official, a public official may

be sentenced for receiving a bribe even if there

is no specific link to a decision or other act in

office of the public official. It is enough that

receiving the bribe is “conducive to weakening

confidence in the impartiality of the actions of

authorities.”

Acceptance of a bribe in public functions

is prohibited in the Public Officials Act. Ac-

cording to this Act, a public official may not

demand, accept or receive a financial or other

benefit if its receipt may undermine confidence

in the public official. The liability of a public

official under criminal law is almost as wide as

this. It does not make any difference whether

or not the receipt of the benefit had any actual

impact on the performance of a public duty.

It is enough that the receipt (or promise) of a

bribe was conducive towards influencing the

performance of a public duty. A bribery viola-

tion is committed already if the conduct is con-ducive towards weakening confidence in the

impartiality of the actions of the authorities.

Separate provisions (chapter 16, section14(a), and chapter 40, section 4) apply to the

active and passive bribery of Members of Par-

liament. Here, the standard used is that the

giving or receiving of a bribe is intended to

influence in a certain way the consideration

of a matter in Parliament. A tightening of this

standard is currently under consideration.

The assumption is that a civil servant

should ensure his or her impartiality in the

performance of public duties, and thus should

not accept any benefits at all. There is no sim-ple definition of when a financial or other ben-

efit is unlawful, nor does the law or various

regulations specify a specific monetary value of

what is an “unlawful benefit”. The concept of

a financial benefit includes payments of money

or the giving of gifts, but also for example the

unusually generous offering of various forms

of hospitality (travel, accommodations, meals,

entertainment and so on), or the provision of

these at an unusually steep discount.Depending on the circumstances, even the

receipt of a small benefit may lead to criminal

liability. The value of the benefit may serve as

an indication of its exceptionality and thus of

an intent to influence the actions of the recipi-

ent in service. On the other hand, benefits that

fall within the scope of ordinary hospitality

would generally not be considered bribes.

In the more serious cases, the punishment

for bribery can be imprisonment for up to four

years. In cases of this level of seriousness, the

public official would also be removed from of-

fice. Also disciplinary measures might be im-

posed. In practice, the usual punishment for

bribery offences has been a fine or a short con-

ditional sentence of imprisonment.

The provisions in chapter 40 on passive

bribery apply not only to public officials, but

also to persons elected to office, persons exer-

cising public authority, and employees of pub-

lic corporations. The provisions apply equallyto foreign public officials and members of a

foreign Parliament (chapter 40, section 12).

16



Broadly speaking, chapter 40, section 11 de-fines these various categories as follows:

(1) a public official refers to a person who

serves in an office or in a comparable position

of service in respect of the state, a municipal-

ity, Parliament, a state-owned company or the

Evangelical Lutheran Church or the Ortho-

dox Church,

(2) a person elected to a public office refers

to a member of a municipal council and any

other member of a popularly elected repre-

sentative body of a public body,(3) an employee of a public corporation

refers to a person under a contract of employ-

ment with a public body or institution referred

to in paragraph (1),

(4) a foreign public official refers to a per-

son who has been appointed or elected to an

administrative or judicial office or position in

a body or court of a foreign state or public in-

ternational organisation, or who otherwise at-

tends to a public function on behalf of a bodyor court of a foreign state or public interna-

tional organisation,

(5) a person exercising public authority re-

fers to a person who, by law, has the right to

issue orders or decide on the interest, rights or

duties of another, or participates in the prepa-

ration of such a decision, and

(6) a member of a foreign Parliament refers

to a person who is a member of the Parliament

of a foreign state or the International Parlia-

mentary Assembly.

Bribery in the private sector is dealt with inchapter 30, sections 7 and 8 of the Criminal

Code. These provisions prohibit giving or re-

ceiving bribes that are intended to have the re-

cipient favour the briber or another person, or

to reward the bribed person for such favouring.

In Finland, also a corporate body can be found

guilty of such an offence, in which case it can

be sentenced to a corporate fine of up to 850

000 euros (chapter 9 of the Criminal Code).

Subject to certain conditions, also a ban on

business operations may be imposed on a per-son found guilty of bribery in business (Act

on Bans of Business Operations 1059/1985).

In addition, under the Public Procurement

Act (348/2007), a candidate or bidder shall

be excluded from competitive tendering if the

candidate or bidder, its executive or other com-

parable person has been convicted of a serious

offence such as bribery in the private or public

sector. Exclusion from competitive tendering

can also result from more minor reasons, suchas grave professional misconduct.

Due to the low number of bribery cases, no

legal practice has as of yet developed in respect

of corporate fines for bribery offences.

Other criminal law provisions apply to pub-

lic sector corruption. Chapter 40 of the Crimi-

nal Code criminalizes for example abuse of

public office, and violation of an official duty.

At present, amendments of the provisions on

bribery are being considered by a special work-

ing group in the Ministry of Justice.

17



7 A CT ON TH E R EPORTING OF TH E C AM PAI GN FUNDS OF C AN DIDATE S (273/2009).

FINNISH LEGISLATION ON POLITICAL FUNDING

In Finland, political parties receive various pub-

lic subsidies, the most important of which isState financial aid to political parties under the

Parties Act (10/1969). Political parties collect fi-

nancial support from a wide variety of donors.

Persons elected in public elections are required

to report the source of the funding for their cam-

paigns7. Finland does not have a system of mu-

nicipal funding for political parties. However,

according to the Municipality Act (578/2006),

a municipality may support actions by groups in

its municipal council that promote the possibili-

ties available to municipal citizens to participate

in and influence political matters.

At the time of the preparation of this pub-

lication there has been considerable debate

in Finland on funding that various political

parties have received from corporate bodies

and individuals. The debate suggests that for

the private sector and the public at large, and

perhaps even for the political parties, there is

appreciable ambiguity about what is legal and

what is not. In 2009, a working group appoint-ed by the Minister of Justice recommended the

amendment of the provisions on political fund-

ing. The main thrust of the recommendations

is to ensure the transparency of political fund-

ing: the work of political parties is essential for

democracy, but the public has a right to know

from whom the parties receive their funding.

The working group’s proposals are intend-

ed to provide information to the public on who

has provided support to candidates for publicoffice, and also to limit the increase of spend-

ing on electoral campaigns. The proposals take

into consideration the recommendations that

the Council of Europe has given to Finland onthe funding of electoral campaigns. According

to the proposals, all persons elected to public of-

fice and their substitutes would be required to

report on their sources of funding. In presiden-

tial campaigns, political parties and electoral

associations that have nominated a candidate

would have the same obligation. The scope of

the obligation would be clearly expanded from

what it is at present.

The working group proposes a cap on cam-

paign spending. If needed, a candidate would

have to produce an account of the sources of

funding, as well as expenditures. The State Au-

dit Office would be responsible for supervision

of reports of funding and expenditure notices.

The State Audit Office would maintain a pub-

lic register of these notices and would ensure

that the reports are filed. The filing of reports

could be enforced with the threat of a fine.

ETHICAL GUIDELINES RELATED TO CORRUPTION

18

In addition to legislation, various sets of ethi-

cal guidelines have an important role to play

in various administrative sectors in Finland.

Such guidelines have been issued in particular

on the values, ethics and internal supervision

of State and municipal offices and public in-

stitutions. In addition, the Central Chamber

of Commerce has issued several recommenda-tions on the prevention of corruption in the

private sector.



19

Finland’s active international commitment

to anti-corruption

Around the world, corruption has been recog-

nized as a serious social, economic and politi-

cal problem. However, it was long regarded as

a problem that each country must deal with on

its own.

Recently, there has been a clear changein attitude. The importance of international

cooperation has been recognized. This coop-

eration includes operational matters involving

individual cases, but also the exchange of in-

formation on best practices, and the provision

of technical assistance.

The most visible sign of this change in at-

titude has been the fact that, since the mid-

1990s, a number of international conventions

have been drawn up against corruption. Fin-

land has acceded to the following:

• the 1997 OECD Convention on Combat-

ing Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in

International Business Transactions

(ratified by Finland in 1998);

• the 1998 Convention on the Fight against

Corruption Involving Officials of the

European Communities or Officials of

Member States of the European Union;

• the 1999 Council of Europe Civil LawConvention on Corruption and the Crimi -

nal Law Convention on Corruption

(ratified by Finland in 2001 and 2002,

respectively); and

• the 2003 United Nations Convention

against Corruption (ratified by Finland in

2006).

Finland has participated very actively in the

review of the implementation of these conven-tions, both as a reviewing country and as the

country under review. The recommendations

that Finland has received in the reviews have

been taken seriously, and have for the most

part led to the suggested changes in law and

practice.

Other examples of the growth of interna-

tional cooperation include the establishmentby the European Union, in 2008, of a contact

point network against corruption, the under-

taking of bilateral and multilateral anti-corrup-

tion projects, and the mainstreaming of anti-

corruption elements into technical assistance

projects.

For Finland, this range of international

cooperation has required the involvement of

many governmental authorities. Examples in-

clude the role of the Ministry of the Interior in

the case of the contact point network, the Min-

istry of Justice in the case of the bilateral anti-

corruption projects (currently with the Russian

Federation and China), both the Ministry of

the Interior and the Ministry of Justice in the

international review of implementation of con-

ventions, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

in the planning, funding, implementation and

review of technical assistance projects.

Socially sustainable development is at the

core of Finnish development policy. It includes work to support the rule of law, democratic gov-

ernance, democracy and human rights in the

Partner Countries of Finland. Anti-corruption

forms a part of democratic governance work in

Finnish development policy. Development is

only possible in socially sustainable societies.

For this reason, the Ministry of Foreign Af-

fairs, together with the Ministry of the Interior

and the Ministry of Justice, has actively pro-

moted anti-corruption in Finland’s develop-ment policy. The major part of work is carried

out in multilateral fora and on the EU level,



20

as in bilateral relations with its eight long-term

Partner Countries. Finland has participated

actively in many international projects in dif-

ferent countries funded through the European

Union, including so-called Twinning projects.

In multilateral fora, Finland has worked for

strengthened governance and anti-corruption

agendas in the framework both of the United

Nations system, and of international and re-

gional financial institutions such as the World

Bank. Finnish development policy stresses that

the international norms to which the target

countries have committed themselves, are the

normative foundation of democratic govern-

ance work. This applies in particular to theUnited Nations Convention against Corrup-

tion which, together with international human

rights conventions, lies at the core of this nor-

mative foundation.

Finland is actively involved in the govern-

ance work of the EU. During the Finnish Presi-

dency in the autumn 2006 the Council adopt-

ed Conclusions on “Governance in the Euro-

pean Consensus on Development. Towards a

harmonised approach within the EuropeanUnion”. The Conclusions recognized an incen-

tive tranche to the African, Caribbean and Pa-

cific countries as a tool to support democratic

governance on the basis of their governance

performance and their future vision on govern-

ance. A similar philosophy of recognizing good

governance performance has been applied to

other regions by the EU.

Finland uses several types of instruments

in its operational activities in the field of anti-

corruption. The recent trend is to pay atten-

tion to natural resources management. World-

wide, 3.5 billion people live in countries that

are rich in oil, gas and minerals. With good

governance, the exploitation of these resources

can generate large revenues to foster growth

and reduce poverty. Finland has recently

joined the Extractive Industries Transparency

Initiative (EITI). The EITI supports improved

governance in resource-rich countries throughthe verification and full publication of com-

pany payments and government revenues from

oil, gas and mining. Similar types of initiatives

are supported in the field of forestry. Currently

Finland gives more attention to sectoral gov-

ernance, and in this way tries to increase the

efficiency of anti-corruption work in politically

difficult environments.

Finland is also a member of the European

Partners against Corruption (EPAC), which co-operates with national police oversight bodies

and anti-corruption authorities of the Euro-

pean Union.

At the core of Finnish anti-corruption

work is support to civil society. Finland uses



21

several aid instruments (direct support to local,

national and international non-governmental

organisations, local co-operation funds etc) in

order to support civil society in different parts

of the world. In multi- and bilateral co-opera-

tion Finland directly supports anti-corruption

programmes in the prevention of corruption.

These programmes include, for example, sup-

port to anti-corruption commissions, justice

sector reforms, the strengthening of the role of

parliaments, and better access to information.

Within the United Nations, issues related

to corruption are dealt with by both the Unit-

ed Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UN-

ODC) and the United Nations DevelopmentProgramme (UNDP). UNODC and UNDP

have signed a memorandum of understand-

ing which will bring anti-corruption elements

more widely into UNDP projects worldwide.

Finland participates in many good governance

projects spearheaded by the UNDP.

Finland has also been active in work relat-

ed to the negotiations of the United Nations

Convention against Corruption and, following

its adoption, in work related to its implementa-tion. Finland has, for example, been a major

funder of efforts to develop a mechanism for

the review of implementation, and for strength-

ening work on the prevention of corruption.

Finland has been an active supporter of the

work of the World Bank on the development of

good governance agendas, of OECD’s Network

on Governance Anti-Corruption Task Team,

of Transparency International, the World Eco-

nomic Forum’s Partnering against Corruption,

and of the recently established International

Association of Anti-Corruption Authorities,

IAACA.

Corruption has commonly been seen as a

problem in the public sector, but it can be a

serious problem also in the private sector. Cor-

ruption may be seen as “greasing the wheels”,

as a way of making the bureaucracy more re-

sponsive and more flexible to the needs of en-trepreneurs. Corruption may also be seen as

the only way to beat the competition in land-

ing lucrative contracts.

However, corruption is harmful to the fun-

damental principles of market economy and

free trade. It weakens consumer and investor

confidence in the markets, and constitutes

an invisible tax on corporations. For these

reasons, the International Chamber of Com-

merce has prepared guidelines on principlesof ethical business activity, and of anti-bribery.

The Finnish Central Chamber of Commerce

has sought to promote implementation of

these guidelines.



Bibliography

24

Aromaa, Kauko and Martti Lehti (1999), Foreign

Companies and Crime in Eastern Europe, in Kauko

Aromaa (ed.), Eastern Crime. A Selection of Reports

on Crime in the St. Petersburg Region and the Bal-

tic Countries, 1993 – 1999, pp. 125-201

Aromaa, Kauko, Minna Viuhko, Martti Lehti,

Aleksey Taybakov, Petr Klemetshov, Pavel Demin and

Roman Tumanov (2009), Corruption on the Finnish– Russian Border. Experiences and observations of

Finnish and Russian civil servants and businessper-

sons on corruption on the border between Finland

and Russia, European Institute for Crime Preven-

tion and Control, affiliated with the United Na-

tions, publication series no. 61, Helsinki

Arvio Suomen turvallisuuden tilasta, turvalli-

suusuhkista ja arvioiduista muutoksista (2006)

(Assessment of the state of Finnish security, securi-

ty risks and estimated changes), annex to the Inter-nal Security Progamme 2004, 18 September 2006,

Police Department. Ministry of the Interior.

11/2006, Helsinki.

Combating Corruption (2005). The Finnish Expe-

rience. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Helsinki

Economist Intelligence Unit (2009). E-readiness

rankings, http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/

index.wss/ibvstudy/gbs/a1031418?cntxt=a1000452

Hannula, Ilari (2007). Criminal legislation relating

to the fight against corruption, Ministry of Justice,

Helsinki, 30 November 2007

Isaksson, Paavo (1997). Korruptio ja julkinen valta

(Corruption and public power). University of Tam-

pere Research Institute of Social Sciences. Publica-

tion 15/1997. Tampere 1997

Keränen, Juha (2009; in print). Suomea sitovat kor-

ruption torjunnan kansainväliset velvoitteet (In-

ternational obligations binding on Finland in theprevention of corruption). Licentiate thesis in law,

University of Helsinki.

Korruptiotilannekuva 2008 (RTP 9408/213/07)

and 2009 (RTP 9122/213/08). (Corruption Status

Report), National Bureau of Investigation, Helsinki

Laitinen Ahti (1989). Vallan rikokset. Oikeussosi-

ologinen tutkimus organisaatiorikollisuudesta ja

sen yhteiskunnallisista edellytyksistä (Crimes of the

Powerful. A study in the sociology of law about or-

ganizational crime and its societal preconditions).Lakimiesliiton kustannus. Helsinki

PriceWaterhouseCoopers. Global Economic Crime

Survey. 2007, http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/econom-

ic-crime-survey/download-economic-crime-people-

culture-controls.jhtml

Rikollisuustilanne 2003. Talousrikokset (Crime

trends 2003. Economic crime. Martti Lehti and Sami

Vuorinen. National Institute of Legal Policy, Helsin-

ki 2003, pp. 104–105.

Transparency International Corruption Perceptions

Index 2008 (2009), http://www.transparency.org/

news_room/in_focus/2008/cpi2008/cpi_2008_

table

United Nations Development Programme (2009).

Human Development Index 2008, http://hdr.

undp.org/en/#

Uusitalo, Paavo. Yleinen etu, erityisintressit ja

suomalainen vallankäyttö (Public interest, spe-

cial interests and the use of power in Finland). in:

Riihinen, Olavi (ed.), Suomi 2017, pp. 289–310.

Jyväskylä. Gummerus.

World Economic Forum (2009). Global Gender

Gap Report 2008, http://www.weforum.org/en/

Communities/Women%20Leaders%20and%20

Gender%20Parity/GenderGapNetwork/index.htm

Zook, Darren C. (2009), The Curious Case of Fin-

land’s Clean Politics, Journal of Democracy, vol. 20,no. 1, pp. 157 – 168

http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/

http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/econom-ic-crime-survey/download-economic-crime-people-culture-controls.jhtml



http://www.transparency.org/

http://hdr/

http://www.weforum.org/en/

http://www.weforum.org/en/

http://hdr/

http://www.transparency.org/






http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/



PUBLISHER : M INISTRY OF JUS TIC E, F INLAND, www.om.f i

texts: M atti Joutsen and Juha K eränen

L AY -OUT: J AR I M ATT I K AR HUL A , M ADHOUSE O Y

PRINTING HOUSE: K EILI O Y , 2009

http://www.om.fi/

http://www.om.fi/

MinFin Corruption

Documents

Transcript of MinFin Corruption