{"title":"From the Editors","authors":"Tuomas Tiihonen","doi":"10.33344/vol13iss1pp4-6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33344/vol13iss1pp4-6","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":215987,"journal":{"name":"Helsinki Law Review","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123454116","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-06-01DOI: 10.33344/VOL13ISS1PP92–121
Nanni Olsson
Every year, dozens of forced marriages are discovered in Finland. However, none of these have been prosecuted. In 2015, Finland ratified the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence, known as the ‘Istanbul Convention’, which explicitly requires States to criminalise intentional conduct forcing an adult or a child to enter into a marriage. This article evaluates the legislative measures made by the Finnish legislator in order to implement the Istanbul Convention, the potential need to criminalise forced marriage as a specific offence and the need for the crime to be subject to public prosecution. At the time of writing, forcing a person to enter into a marriage can be prosecuted as trafficking in human beings or as coercion. This article aims to show that these measures are insufficient. The findings indicate that criminalisation of forced marriage as a specific offence would be justified taking into account the principle of legality as well as Finland’s treaty obligations and duties to protect and to fulfil human rights.
{"title":"Pakkoavioliiton kriminalisointi Suomessa","authors":"Nanni Olsson","doi":"10.33344/VOL13ISS1PP92–121","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33344/VOL13ISS1PP92–121","url":null,"abstract":"Every year, dozens of forced marriages are discovered in Finland. However, none of these have been prosecuted. In 2015, Finland ratified the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence, known as the ‘Istanbul Convention’, which explicitly requires States to criminalise intentional conduct forcing an adult or a child to enter into a marriage. This article evaluates the legislative measures made by the Finnish legislator in order to implement the Istanbul Convention, the potential need to criminalise forced marriage as a specific offence and the need for the crime to be subject to public prosecution. At the time of writing, forcing a person to enter into a marriage can be prosecuted as trafficking in human beings or as coercion. This article aims to show that these measures are insufficient. The findings indicate that criminalisation of forced marriage as a specific offence would be justified taking into account the principle of legality as well as Finland’s treaty obligations and duties to protect and to fulfil human rights.","PeriodicalId":215987,"journal":{"name":"Helsinki Law Review","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116862449","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-06-01DOI: 10.33344/VOL13ISS1PP10–33
Jenna Piippo
This article discusses a money launderer’s awareness of the illegal origin of property as a requirement of intent. The aim of the research is to find out what is required for fulfilling the requirement of intent. A money launderer’s awareness of the illegal origin of property has been assessed in this article from the perspectives of theory and earlier legal practice. The object of intent in money laundering is the property’s illegal origin, to which the intent of the perpetrator must extend at the time of the act. The requirement of intent is fulfilled when the perpetrator perceives the illegal origin of the property to be a more likely alternative than its noncriminal origin. However, in some situations intent can also be based on negligence of the duty to investigate, even if the perpetrator had not perceived the property to be criminally obtained with a more than 50% certainty. The duty to investigate leads to a punishment for an intentional act especially in situations where the perpetrator, in order to avoid criminal liability, has not attempted to ascertain the origin of the property to a sufficient degree. In practice, the fulfillment of the requirement of intent is based on the circumstances of the act, which means that the factors to be considered depend on each case.
{"title":"Rahanpesijän tietoisuus varojen laittomasta alkuperästä tahallisuusvaatimuksena","authors":"Jenna Piippo","doi":"10.33344/VOL13ISS1PP10–33","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33344/VOL13ISS1PP10–33","url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses a money launderer’s awareness of the illegal origin of property as a requirement of intent. The aim of the research is to find out what is required for fulfilling the requirement of intent. A money launderer’s awareness of the illegal origin of property has been assessed in this article from the perspectives of theory and earlier legal practice. \u0000The object of intent in money laundering is the property’s illegal origin, to which the intent of the perpetrator must extend at the time of the act. The requirement of intent is fulfilled when the perpetrator perceives the illegal origin of the property to be a more likely alternative than its noncriminal origin. However, in some situations intent can also be based on negligence of the duty to investigate, even if the perpetrator had not perceived the property to be criminally obtained with a more than 50% certainty. The duty to investigate leads to a punishment for an intentional act especially in situations where the perpetrator, in order to avoid criminal liability, has not attempted to ascertain the origin of the property to a sufficient degree. \u0000In practice, the fulfillment of the requirement of intent is based on the circumstances of the act, which means that the factors to be considered depend on each case.","PeriodicalId":215987,"journal":{"name":"Helsinki Law Review","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126757775","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：