and the P r e v e n t i o n of C o r r u p t i o n in F i n l a n d

Ministry of Justice
Finland
 M at t i Jou t se n Ju h a K er n e n

and the P r e v e n t i o n of C o r r u p t i o n in F i n l a n d

Ministry of Justice
Finland

C on te n t s:
I ntroduction ........................................................................................................................ 1
The realit y of corruption in Finland .................................................................................... 3
Seeking explanations for the seemingly low incidence of corruption in Finland ............... 7
A nti - corruption policy, authorities and legislation in Finland .................................... 14
Finlands active international commitment to anti - corruption .................................... 19
C orruption and the prevention of corruption in Finland ............................................ 22
Bibliogr aphy .................................................................................................................. 24
 Introduction
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
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 the
factors 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

1
See also the Tr ansparency I nternational C orruption P erceptions I ndex for 2008. Tr ansparency I nternational has
published such indices since 1995. Throughout this period , F inland has fared quite well , better than any other
country. S ince the year 2000, with t wo exceptions , F inland has been r anked as the least corrupt in the world. The
t wo exceptions were 2005, when F inland was second , and the most recent index , for 2008, when F inland was fifth . 1

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 governmental
contract. 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
2
in Finland?
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 involve
significant 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.
 The reality of corruption in Finland

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 the
same 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

2
L aitinen A hti 1989, pp. 4950. 3 I saksson Pa avo 1997, p. 143

P ersons convicted in court in Finland for bribery offences,

five-year totals , 1925 - 2004, and for 2005 - 2007

450 -

400 -
convicted in court

350 -

300 -

250 -

200 -
P ersons

150 -

100 -

50 -

0-
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

Years
3

of corruption in Finland
of cases involving construction. All of the
court cases up to the beginning of the new cen-
tury were domestic. However, at the moment
there 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 some
countries. In legal practice, it is not the mone-
4
4
L aitinen, p. 53. 5
Korruptiotilannekuva 2008 (RTP 9408/213/07)
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, in
determining 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 the
longer 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.
and 2009 (RTP 9122/213/08)
C orruption 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 point
in 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 is
referred 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 belong to the same political party, hunting club
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 land
rezoned 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 her
membership 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 know
one 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
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 that
the decisions can be subjected to review.
5
 C orruption 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 of
suspected 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 international
trade. 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 Finnish
companies 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
6
of economic crime. According to the results,
about one half of the Finnish company repre-
sentatives stated that their company had been
the 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.
 Seeking explanations
for the seemingly low incidence
of corruption in Finland
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 societal
factors. 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.
Factors 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 local
custom, 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
7
 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 on
meritocracy. Salaries may not have been high
but were nonetheless adequate. According to
an old Finnish saying, a public officials 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 authority
provided 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
8
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, according
to 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 are
taken 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
 for the seemingly low incidence of corruption in Finland
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 of
the 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 not
sign 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 public
officials, 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, the
right 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 is
enhanced by the obligation of the highest of-
ficials to declare their commitments, and by re-
9
 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 Finland
for that matter, all you have to do is ask.
Seeking explanations for the seemingly
12
10
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 in
the media. They have the power to reprimand
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 how
bankruptcy 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 internal
audits is part and parcel of the operation and
management of the office.
Factors 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-
13
11
 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.
12
14
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 to
retain 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.
S ocial 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.
Finlands 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 for
office, 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 UNDPs 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
Finlands welfare society are a free comprehen-
sive school education, higher education, and
basic 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.
15
13
 Anti-corruption policy, authorities and
legislation in Finland

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
A nti- corruption policy propose initiatives regarding this;
increase awareness of corruption in society
The guiding principle for anti-corruption work and promote awareness of anti-corruption
in Finland is that corruption is not seen as an guidelines in the State, municipal and pri-
isolated phenomenon. It is not seen to require vate sectors,
separate laws or separate supervisory bodies, follow and promote the implementation
nor a separate strategy or action plan. Instead, of obligations under international anti-
anti-corruption has been integrated into gen- corruption agreements (the United
eral policy. This is because corruption is seen Nations Convention on Corruption, the
as part of criminality and as part of bad gov- OECD Convention and the Council of
ernance and/or politics. The prevention of cor- Europe criminal law and civil law
ruption also involves creating and observing conventions against corruption) as well as
ethical norms of behaviour, increasing trans- obligations by international bodies (OECD
parency, minimizing opportunity and increas- and GRECO), and
ing the effectiveness of supervision. follow and promote research on corruption.

14
Authorities
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, Finlands 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 example
those 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 have
been included among those offences for which
a European arrest warrant can be issued. In
6
F urther information
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 prosecutorial
service, which will decide on whether or not to
bring charges and, if so, for what offences.
Finnish legislation related to
corruption 6
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 criminal
law 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 made
a separate offence, and the scope of predicate
offences (the offences producing the proceeds
is provided in H annula 2007.
15
 which are then laundered) has been expanded
to 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.
16
Separate provisions (chapter 16, section
14(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 equally
to foreign public officials and members of a
foreign Parliament (chapter 40, section 12).
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 body
or 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 in
chapter 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, such
as 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
 Finnish legislation on political funding
In Finland, political parties receive various pub-
lic subsidies, the most important of which is
State 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 groups proposals are intend-
ed to provide information to the public on who
has provided support to candidates for public
office, and also to limit the increase of spend-
ing on electoral campaigns. The proposals take
18 7
Act on the R eporting of
into consideration the recommendations that
the Council of Europe has given to Finland on
the 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
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.
the C ampaign F unds of C andidates (273/2009).
 Finlands active international commitment
to anti-corruption

Around the world, corruption has been recog- that Finland has received in the reviews have
nized as a serious social, economic and politi- been taken seriously, and have for the most
cal problem. However, it was long regarded as part led to the suggested changes in law and
a problem that each country must deal with on practice.
its own. Other examples of the growth of interna-
Recently, there has been a clear change tional cooperation include the establishment
in attitude. The importance of international by the European Union, in 2008, of a contact
cooperation has been recognized. This coop- point network against corruption, the under-
eration includes operational matters involving taking of bilateral and multilateral anti-corrup-
individual cases, but also the exchange of in- tion projects, and the mainstreaming of anti-
formation on best practices, and the provision corruption elements into technical assistance
of technical assistance. projects.
For Finland, this range of international
The most visible sign of this change in at- cooperation has required the involvement of
titude has been the fact that, since the mid- many governmental authorities. Examples in-
1990s, a number of international conventions clude the role of the Ministry of the Interior in
have been drawn up against corruption. Fin- the case of the contact point network, the Min-
land has acceded to the following: istry of Justice in the case of the bilateral anti-
the 1997 OECD Convention on Combat- corruption projects (currently with the Russian
ing Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in Federation and China), both the Ministry of
International Business Transactions the Interior and the Ministry of Justice in the
(ratified by Finland in 1998); international review of implementation of con-
the 1998 Convention on the Fight against ventions, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Corruption Involving Officials of the in the planning, funding, implementation and
European Communities or Officials of review of technical assistance projects.
Member States of the European Union; Socially sustainable development is at the
the 1999 Council of Europe Civil Law core of Finnish development policy. It includes
Convention on Corruption and the Crimi - work to support the rule of law, democratic gov-
nal Law Convention on Corruption ernance, democracy and human rights in the
(ratified by Finland in 2001 and 2002, Partner Countries of Finland. Anti-corruption
respectively); and forms a part of democratic governance work in
the 2003 United Nations Convention Finnish development policy. Development is
against Corruption (ratified by Finland in only possible in socially sustainable societies.
2006). For this reason, the Ministry of Foreign Af-
fairs, together with the Ministry of the Interior
Finland has participated very actively in the and the Ministry of Justice, has actively pro-
review of the implementation of these conven- moted anti-corruption in Finlands develop-
tions, both as a reviewing country and as the ment policy. The major part of work is carried
country under review. The recommendations out in multilateral fora and on the EU level,

19
 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 the
United 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 European
Union. 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-
20
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 through
the 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
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 Development
Programme (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 OECDs Network
on Governance Anti-Corruption Task Team,
of Transparency International, the World Eco-
nomic Forums 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 principles
of ethical business activity, and of anti-bribery.
The Finnish Central Chamber of Commerce
has sought to promote implementation of
these guidelines.
21
 Corruption and the
Prevention of Corruption in Finland
As noted at the beginning of this publication,
Finland has the reputation of being a country
with little corruption. So far, there has been
relatively little empirical data on corruption
in Finland, but the number of studies is con-
stantly increasing.
The publication has sought to describe what
the actual situation is in Finland. Corruption
does exist in Finland. It has been, and in the
future will continue to be, found on different
levels and in different sectors of State and mu-
nicipal government, and in the private sector.
The immediate gains to the decision-maker in
terms of money, status or other benefits may
overwhelm his or her moral considerations or
concern for being apprehended and convicted:
all persons, Finns and non-Finns, can fall to
temptation.
It nonetheless appears that Finlands en-
viable reputation is well-deserved. There is
relatively little corruption in Finland. Finnish
public officials, persons working in the private
sector, and the public at large do not appear
to accept corruption, and assume that corrup-
tion in general will not be tolerated by society.
In Finnish society, bribery offences have been
taken very seriously. For this reason, also the
media has been interested in such cases, and
they receive considerable attention. The media
has a significant role in identifying cases of cor-
ruption.
22
Instead of one or two single factors, this
situation appears to be the result of a complex
interplay among different factors. The key
concepts that can be distilled from the Finn-
ish experience are access to education for all,
well-functioning democracy both at national
and local level, openness in public administra-
tion, low hierarchical governmental structures,
devolution of decision-making powers to public
officials in their respective fields of responsibil-
ity, non-politicisation of key civil service posts,
and above all, the effort to defend the values of
an open society.
As competition becomes more and more
aggressive and efficiency increases in the
Western industrial societies, people seem to
become ever more sensitive to moral values.
Discussions on values become more common.
International recommendations dealing with
the social responsibility of companies are be-
ing drawn up, and ethical norms for different
professional groups are being confirmed. The
positive attitude to human rights and to popu-
lar movements advocating responsibility for
the developing countries and environmental
questions can be seen as a sign of a sense of
global responsibility.
Finland is proud of its reputation for hon-
esty, and will continue to work together with
her internationally partners on behalf of a
world with zero tolerance for corruption.
 Bibliography
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
Kernen, Juha (2009; in print). Suomea sitovat kor-
ruption torjunnan kansainvliset velvoitteet (In-
ternational obligations binding on Finland in the
prevention of corruption). Licentiate thesis in law,
University of Helsinki.
24
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 edellytyksist (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. 104105.
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 vallankytt (Public interest, spe-
cial interests and the use of power in Finland). in:
Riihinen, Olavi (ed.), Suomi 2017, pp. 289310.
Jyvskyl. 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-
lands Clean Politics, Journal of Democracy, vol. 20,
no. 1, pp. 157 168
P ublisher : M inistry of justice , Finland, www.om.fi

Texts: M atti Joutsen and Juha K er nen

L ay-O ut: Jari M atti K arhula , M adhouse O y

P rinting House : K eili O y, 2009