{"id":132792,"date":"2026-04-08T11:54:19","date_gmt":"2026-04-08T11:54:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/?post_type=comparative_guide&#038;p=132792"},"modified":"2026-04-09T09:36:58","modified_gmt":"2026-04-09T09:36:58","slug":"finland-asset-tracing-and-recovery","status":"publish","type":"comparative_guide","link":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/chapter\/finland-asset-tracing-and-recovery\/","title":{"rendered":"Finland: Asset Tracing &amp; Recovery"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"template":"","class_list":["post-132792","comparative_guide","type-comparative_guide","status-publish","hentry","guides-asset-tracing-and-recovery","jurisdictions-finland"],"acf":[],"appp":{"post_list":{"below_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">Niemi &amp; Puhakka<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2026\/03\/logo-name-by-side.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>"},"post_detail":{"above_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">Niemi &amp; Puhakka<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2026\/03\/logo-name-by-side.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>","below_title":"<span class=\"guide-intro\">This country specific Q&amp;A provides an overview of Asset Tracing &amp; Recovery laws and regulations applicable in Finland<\/span><div class=\"guide-content\"><div class=\"filter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t<input type=\"text\" placeholder=\"Search questions and answers...\" class=\"filter-container__search-field\">\r\n\t\t\t<\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<ol class=\"custom-counter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the legal framework governing civil asset recovery in your jurisdiction, including key statutes, regulations, and international conventions that have been incorporated into domestic law?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In Finland, the recovery and restitution of assets to their rightful owner \u2013 whether they have come into the possession of another party through a crime or otherwise unlawfully \u2013 are generally subject to the same civil remedies that are otherwise available when a party holds a claim based on the law of obligations or property law against another party. As a general rule, the recovery of property must be conducted with the assistance of the authorities, and self-help is permitted only in strictly limited circumstances.<\/p>\n<p>The relevant national procedural statutes are the Code of Judicial Procedure (the general procedural code, which contains provisions on, inter alia, civil precautionary measures), the Enforcement Code (enforcement and asset discovery), the Act on the Recovery of Assets to Bankruptcy Estates and the Coercive Measures Act (provisions on criminal interim measures). Additionally, the Debt Collection Act should be mentioned, as it governs the voluntary collection of undisputed claims. Voluntary collection refers to measures taken by the creditor (or the creditor&#8217;s agent) intended to induce the debtor to settle the debt voluntarily without resorting to judicial enforcement proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>From a substantive law perspective, the most central statutes are the Tort Liability Act and the Act on the Limitation of Debts, along with the following key acts concerning good faith protection and the protection of title: the Contracts Act, the Code of Commerce, the Promissory Notes Act, the Code of Real Estate and the Act on the Book-Entry System. In this context, mention should also be made of the Decree on the Implementation of the Criminal Code, according to which good faith protection is not available for property that has been stolen, robbed, or extorted. Furthermore, the legal principles regarding the restitution of unjust enrichment are significant; although they are not based on codified law, they are firmly established and recognized in case law.<\/p>\n<p>In international matters, the EU Brussels I bis Regulation and the EU Insolvency Regulation are of key importance.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What types of assets may be subject to civil recovery proceedings (e.g., real property, bank accounts, securities, cryptocurrencies, intellectual property, business interests or other categories of property)?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In Finland, enforcement can be directed broadly at various types of assets. Virtually all assets possessing economic value may be subject to enforcement. Thus, asset classes subject to enforcement include, for example:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Real property<\/li>\n<li>Movable property (including e.g. machinery, equipment, vehicles, vessels, aircraft and valuables)<\/li>\n<li>Financial assets (including e.g. bank accounts, monetary claims, securities and crypto-assets)<\/li>\n<li>Intellectual property rights<\/li>\n<li>Special rights (e.g. soil extraction rights)<\/li>\n<li>Other assets with economic value<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Enforcement may also be directed at assets located abroad within EU Member States, as well as in those countries that, under international treaties, recognise and enforce Finnish court judgments.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the primary civil law causes of action and mechanisms available for asset recovery? Please briefly distinguish these from any criminal confiscation or forfeiture regimes.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The primary civil law causes of action and remedies in this context are the following:<\/p>\n<p><strong>Claim for damages:<\/strong> Based on the Tort Liability Act, sector-specific or field-specific special statutes or contractual liability. Usually but not always requires fault (negligence or intent). Usually leads to monetary compensation, rather than the return of the object.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Restitutionary claim (restitution of unjust enrichment):<\/strong> Based on the unjustified transfer of wealth. Does not require a crime or fraudulent conduct.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Vindicatory action \/ action for the recovery of possession of a chattel:<\/strong> Based on the right of ownership or another right of possession, for example a leasehold right. The plaintiff demands the return of the object from the person in possession of it. The action does not require a crime or fraudulent conduct. The plaintiff must prove ownership or other legal claim to the object.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Arbitration:<\/strong> Requires an agreement between the parties or an arbitration clause in which the parties commit to resolving their disputes through arbitration. A claim for damages arising from a criminal offence can also be resolved through arbitration. However, the criminal case itself is always heard in a general court; only the claim for damages can be settled by arbitration. In cross-border matters, a significant advantage of arbitration is the broad international enforceability of arbitral awards under the New York Convention.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Recovery of assets to a bankruptcy estate:<\/strong> A procedure by which legal acts performed by the debtor can be set aside (avoided) for the benefit of the bankruptcy estate:<\/p>\n<p><strong>Recovery to enforcement:<\/strong> A procedure within enforcement proceedings analogous to the recovery of assets to a bankruptcy estate. It is directed at legal acts performed by the debtor that prejudice the rights of the applicant for enforcement.<\/p>\n<p>To ensure the recovery of assets based on any of the aforementioned causes of action, precautionary measures under the Code of Judicial Procedure may be utilized.<\/p>\n<p>As an alternative to these national precautionary measures, a creditor may utilize the European Account Preservation Order (EAPO), based on the EU Regulation concerning cross-border debt recovery.<\/p>\n<p>In comparison to criminal confiscation \/ forfeiture regimes, in civil law claims the objective of the proceedings is returning the property to its rightful owner or monetary compensation for the loss of property. In criminal confiscation \/ forfeiture, the objective of the proceedings is ordering the property forfeited to the state. Civil law remedies do not require proof of a crime. Criminal confiscation \/ forfeiture generally requires proof of a crime, although not in all cases with a standard of proof equivalent to that of a criminal conviction.<\/p>\n<p>In Finland, it is also possible to pursue an injured party\u2019s civil claim in connection with prosecutor-led criminal proceedings, without the need for a separate civil litigation. The injured party&#8217;s right to have their property returned takes precedence over the state&#8217;s interest in confiscation. Criminal interim measures pursuant to the Coercive Measures Act \u2013 specifically sequestration \u2013 are available in connection with criminal proceedings to secure the civil claims of the injured party.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Who has standing to initiate civil asset recovery proceedings (e.g. private parties, corporations, trustees, insolvency practitioners, receivers, or state agencies)?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Standing is held by natural and legal persons, bankruptcy trustees (insolvency practitioners), and in certain cases, state agencies acting as creditors (e.g., the Tax Administration).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the legal status of foreign states or governmental entities bringing civil asset recovery actions? Are any limitations imposed by sovereign immunity, forum non conveniens, or other doctrines?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Generally, foreign states and governmental entities can bring civil actions in Finland. When a foreign state or governmental entity acts as a plaintiff, sovereign immunity does not restrict the state&#8217;s right to bring an action. (Sovereign immunity primarily concerns the foreign state\u2019s status as a defendant.) When a foreign state or governmental entity acts as a plaintiff, it effectively waives its immunity in that specific matter and submits to the jurisdiction of the Finnish court.<\/p>\n<p>The doctrine of forum non conveniens is not directly applied in the Finnish legal system. However, under the Code of Judicial Procedure, a court may dismiss a case if a judgement by a Finnish court would have no legal significance for the parties, or if hearing the case in the court of another state would be clearly more appropriate.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How are corporate vehicles, trusts, foundations, nominees and other intermediaries treated in civil recovery proceedings when pursuing assets held through layered structures? Are veil-piercing or analogous doctrines available?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In Finland, a very strong main rule is that a limited liability company is a separate legal entity from its shareholders, and the shareholders are not personally liable for the company\u2019s obligations.<\/p>\n<p>However, the case law of the Supreme Court has confirmed that in extraordinary circumstances, piercing the corporate veil is possible even in the absence of an express statutory provision. Courts conduct an overall assessment, taking into account factors such as the undercapitalisation of the company relative to its operations, the commingling of functions or assets between entities, the exercise of control in the company and the purpose, artificiality, blameworthiness, and detriment to creditors of the arrangement.<\/p>\n<p>Similar principles of substance over form may also be applied to other legal structures or intermediaries if they are used to shield assets or circumvent legal obligations.<\/p>\n<p>In enforcement, the Enforcement Authority may also disregard formal ownership in situations involving artificial arrangements, as further prescribed in the Enforcement Code.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the jurisdictional requirements for bringing civil asset recovery proceedings in the courts of your jurisdiction? How are conflicts of jurisdiction resolved?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p><strong>Domestic jurisdiction<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In disputes between Finnish parties (for instance, a civil matter between two limited liability companies registered in Finland), the provisions of the Code of Judicial Procedure regarding jurisdiction apply. Under the Code of Judicial Procedure, the competent court is determined, as a general rule, based on the defendant\u2019s domicile. In matters concerning immovable property, an alternative forum is the location where the property is situated. Additionally, jurisdiction agreements entered into by the parties are, as a main rule, binding in Finland.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Jurisdiction under the Brussels I bis Regulation<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Brussels I bis Regulation takes precedence over the Code of Judicial Procedure in cross-border civil and commercial matters within the EU. When a defendant is domiciled in an EU Member State, the defendant can be sued in another Member State only under the provisions of the Regulation, and not on the basis of national rules of jurisdiction. If a Finnish court lacks jurisdiction under the Regulation in a matter falling within its scope, the Finnish court cannot hear the case.<\/p>\n<p>Under the Regulation, a Finnish court has jurisdiction, first and foremost, when the defendant is domiciled in Finland. Furthermore, where a defendant is domiciled in another Member State, an action may nevertheless be brought in a Finnish court under specific conditions defined in the Regulation, including the following situations:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Matters relating to a contract, when the obligation in question is to be performed in Finland.<\/li>\n<li>Matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, if the harmful event occurred in Finland.<\/li>\n<li>Civil claims for damages or restitution based on a criminal offence: The claims can be brought in the Finnish court where the criminal proceedings are pending.<\/li>\n<li>Disputes arising out of the operations of a branch, agency or other establishment: The claims can be brought in the Finnish court for the place where the branch, agency or other establishment is situated.<\/li>\n<li>Claims involving multiple defendants: The claims can be brought in a Finnish court, provided that at least one of the defendants is domiciled in Finland.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Jurisdiction agreements may also confer jurisdiction on Finnish courts under the Brussels I Regulation.<\/p>\n<p>As further provided in the Brussels I Regulation, in matters concerning immovable property, the courts of the Member State in which the property is situated have exclusive jurisdiction, regardless of any jurisdiction agreement. Thus, in matters concerning immovable property situated in Finland, Finnish courts have exclusive jurisdiction.<\/p>\n<p><strong>The 2007 Lugano Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In relation to non-EU countries, jurisdiction and the recognition of judgments are primarily determined by international treaties.<\/p>\n<p>The most significant agreement concerning non-EU countries is the 2007 Lugano Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. This Convention is binding on Iceland, Norway and Switzerland.<\/p>\n<p>The Lugano Convention largely mirrors the Brussels I Regulation and serves as a bridge between the EU and the EFTA countries (excluding Liechtenstein).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Situations outside of the scope of the Brussels I bis Regulation or the Lugano Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In relation to countries other than EU Member States and Contracting States to the Lugano Convention, sector-specific conventions or bilateral treaties are applied, where such exist. In the absence of any treaties, national legislation applies, which can lead to inconsistent practices and legal uncertainty.<\/p>\n<p>In this context, it is noteworthy that under the Finnish Code of Judicial Procedure, a matter concerning a defendant&#8217;s obligation to make a monetary payment may be heard by a District Court in whose district the defendant has assets subject to enforcement. Consequently, in situations that do not fall within the scope of the Brussels I bis Regulation or the Lugano Convention, the mere presence of property in Finland can establish jurisdiction for a Finnish court, even if the defendant is a foreign national or entity.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Arbitration<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>When parties have entered into a binding agreement to resolve disputes through arbitration instead of court proceedings, the jurisdiction of a Finnish court is determined as follows:<\/p>\n<p>As a general rule, a Finnish court lacks jurisdiction to hear a matter that is subject to a valid arbitration agreement.<\/p>\n<p>However, the court does not examine the existence of an arbitration agreement ex officio (on its own motion). Instead, a party must raise a plea regarding the court&#8217;s lack of jurisdiction at the first instance of being heard in the matter. The plea must be raised before the party responds to the merits of the case; otherwise, the right to invoke the arbitration agreement is waived.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Conflicts of jurisdiction<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In Finland, disputes concerning jurisdiction are resolved as part of the proceedings on the main action. The court must always verify its jurisdiction before examining the merits of the case. Where jurisdiction is contested, it may, in the worst-case scenario, lead to extensive litigation \u2013 including the full appeal process \u2013 to resolve the jurisdictional issue before the merits of the case can even be addressed. Proceedings involving an international element, where one or both parties are foreign, are particularly susceptible to such jurisdictional disputes. For this reason, especially in cross-border contracts, it is vital to preemptively avoid disagreements regarding jurisdiction and the applicable law through clear dispute resolution and choice-of-law clauses, including arbitration clauses.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Does your jurisdiction recognize and enforce foreign civil judgments and orders relating to asset recovery? What are the procedural requirements and grounds for refusal?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The enforcement of a foreign civil judgment in Finland may be based on EU regulations, international conventions, or bilateral agreements, depending on the state in which the judgment was rendered and its subject matter. In this context, the most significant instruments are the Brussels I bis Regulation, the 2007 Lugano Convention and the 2019 Hague Convention. In a broader sense, also the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards is very important.<\/p>\n<p><strong>The Brussels I bis Regulation (EU Member States)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Under the Brussels I bis Regulation, an enforceable judgment or order rendered in another EU Member State is enforced in Finland under the same conditions as a legally binding judgment or order rendered in Finland, as further provided for in the Regulation. Accordingly, civil judgments and orders related to asset recovery originating from other EU Member States are, as a general rule, recognized and enforced in Finland without the need for a separate declaration of enforceability.<\/p>\n<p>To proceed with enforcement under the Regulation, the applicant must produce:<\/p>\n<p><strong>Authentic Copy:<\/strong> A copy of the judgment which satisfies the conditions necessary to establish its authenticity.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Article 53 Certificate:<\/strong> A certificate issued by the court of origin using the standard form.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Service:<\/strong> The article 53 certificate (and the judgment, if not already served) must be served on the person against whom enforcement is sought prior to the first enforcement measure.<\/p>\n<p>Recognition or enforcement may be refused only upon application by an interested party on the following grounds, as further provided for in the Regulation:<\/p>\n<p><strong>Public Policy:<\/strong> If recognition is manifestly contrary to the public policy (ordre public) of Finland.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Default of Appearance:<\/strong> If the defendant was not served with the document instituting proceedings in sufficient time to arrange for a defense.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Irreconcilability:<\/strong> If the judgment is irreconcilable with a judgment given in Finland between the same parties, or with an earlier judgment from another State involving the same cause of action and parties.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Conflict of Jurisdiction:<\/strong> If the judgment conflicts with specific jurisdiction rules, such as those concerning exclusive jurisdiction (e.g., immovable property) or protected categories (consumers and employees).<\/p>\n<p><strong>The 2007 Lugano Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The procedure under the 2007 Lugano Convention is quite similar to the procedure under the Brussels I bis Regulation, although the Lugano Convention still requires a formal declaration of enforceability (exequatur) from a Finnish District Court before enforcement measures can commence. The grounds for refusal under the Lugano Convention largely correspond to those found in the Brussels I bis Regulation.<\/p>\n<p><strong>The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Provisions regarding the recognition of civil judgments are also contained in the Hague Judgments Convention (the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters, the 2019 HCCH Judgments Convention). The European Union joined in July 2022 to resolve the fragmented legal landscape faced by EU companies seeking to enforce judgments in non-EU countries.<\/p>\n<p>The 2019 Hague Convention is still in its developmental stage, and its ultimate significance will depend on:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The number of states that bring the convention into force;<\/li>\n<li>How the convention is interpreted across various legal cultures;<\/li>\n<li>How effectively it accommodates the differences between diverse legal systems.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>This Convention is subsidiary to the Lugano Convention and applies, inter alia, in relation to the United Kingdom, Ukraine, and Uruguay. The Hague Judgments Convention entered into force with respect to the United Kingdom on 1 July 2025.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Situations Where No Uniform Framework Exists<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Outside the frameworks of the Brussels I bis Regulation and the Lugano and Hague Conventions, foreign judgments are generally not enforceable in Finland. Therefore, for commercial contracts involving parties from third countries, arbitration is the preferred dispute resolution mechanism due to the broad global enforceability of arbitral awards under the New York Convention.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in Finland under the New York Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Finland is based on the New York Convention (1958), which Finland has ratified. The starting point for enforcement is that an arbitral award rendered in a foreign state must be enforced in Finland upon application, provided it is valid in Finland.<\/p>\n<p>An application for enforcement is addressed to a District Court. The application must include:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The arbitration agreement or an equivalent provision (as an original or a certified copy)<\/li>\n<li>The arbitral award (as an original or a certified copy)<\/li>\n<li>Certified translations into Finnish or Swedish, unless the court grants an exception.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>A Finnish court may refuse to recognize and enforce a foreign arbitral award based on the following grounds:<\/p>\n<p>1) Grounds presented by a party (the respondent must provide evidence):<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: A party lacked the capacity to enter into the agreement or was not properly represented.<\/li>\n<li>Procedural irregularities: Lack of proper notice regarding the appointment of an arbitrator or the arbitration proceedings, or a party was otherwise unable to present their case.<\/li>\n<li>Excess of authority: The arbitrators exceeded their jurisdiction.<\/li>\n<li>Irregular composition or procedure: The composition of the arbitral tribunal or the procedure deviated significantly from the parties&#8217; agreement or the law of the country where the arbitration took place.<\/li>\n<li>Lack of finality: The award is not yet binding, its enforcement has been stayed, or it has been set aside in the country where it was rendered.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>2) Grounds examined by the court ex officio:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Public Policy (ordre public): The award is contrary to the fundamental principles of the Finnish legal system.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Special Features:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Narrow interpretation of non-arbitrability: In Finland, the fact that a matter is non-arbitrable under Finnish law is not, in itself, sufficient ground to refuse enforcement. This represents a narrower interpretation than that of the New York Convention.<\/li>\n<li>No review of the merits: The court does not examine the substantive correctness of the arbitral award, only the formal requirements for enforcement.<\/li>\n<li>Pro-enforcement bias: Grounds for refusal are interpreted narrowly to promote the international enforceability of arbitral awards.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>EU Instruments for Uncontested Claims (EU Member States)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In the context of recognizing and enforcing foreign judgments, the following EU regulations concerning the judicial recovery of uncontested claims should also be mentioned. For the recovery of undisputed debts within the European Union, these two primary mechanisms simplify the process by removing the need for intermediate proceedings in the Member State of enforcement:<\/p>\n<p><strong>European Enforcement Order (EEO):<\/strong> The European Enforcement Order (Based on Regulation (EC) No 805\/2004) is designed for the cross-border enforcement of judgments, court settlements, and authentic instruments regarding uncontested claims. Note: The Regulation does not apply to Denmark.<\/p>\n<p><strong>European Payment Order (EPO) Procedure:<\/strong> The European Payment Order procedure (based on Regulation (EC) No 1896\/2006) provides a simplified, summary court procedure for the recovery of uncontested monetary claims. This procedure is strictly for cross-border cases. A case is considered cross-border if at least one of the parties is domiciled or habitually resident in a Member State other than the Member State of the court seized. The procedure allows a creditor to obtain a uniform enforceable decision across the EU without having to navigate the varying national procedural laws of different Member States. Note: The Regulation does not apply to Denmark.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What mechanisms exist for international cooperation in civil cross-border asset recovery? How can parties obtain evidence or assistance from foreign jursidictions?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The most significant instruments are the EU Evidence Regulation and the Hague Evidence Convention.<\/p>\n<p>EU Evidence Regulation enables the taking of evidence directly from another Member State.<\/p>\n<p>The Hague Evidence Convention (1970) provides a mechanism for obtaining evidence from non-EU Contracting States.<\/p>\n<p>Under both the EU Evidence Regulation and the Hague Evidence Convention, a party cannot independently initiate a cross-border evidence-taking process. Instead, the process operates through the courts. A party must therefore submit a request for the cross-border taking of evidence to the court. The court will then initiate the process if it considers that there are sufficient grounds for the process.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What interim measures are available to preserve assets pending resolution (e.g. freezing injunctions, Mareva injunctions, asset preservation orders, saisie conservatoire, attachments)? Please briefly summarise the requirements for obtaining such relief.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Civil precautionary measures are governed by the Code of Judicial Procedure. These measures refer to temporary orders designed to secure the applicant\u2019s rights before the final resolution of the merits of the case.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Primary Types of Civil Precautionary Measures<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>There are three primary types of precautionary measures:<\/p>\n<p><strong>Attachment to secure a monetary claim:<\/strong> Seizure of the defendant\u2019s assets to secure the eventual payment of a debt.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Attachment to secure a better right:<\/strong> Seizure of a specific object or piece of property to which the applicant claims to have a better right.<\/p>\n<p><strong>General precautionary measures:<\/strong> Measures to secure other rights, such as an injunction prohibiting the defendant from performing a specific act or a mandate to perform a certain action.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Requirements for Obtaining Relief<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>To succeed in an application, the applicant must satisfy the following two cumulative criteria:<\/p>\n<p><strong>Claim Requirement:<\/strong> The applicant must demonstrate probability that they have a right against the defendant which can be confirmed by an enforceable judgment.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Risk Requirement:<\/strong> The applicant must demonstrate that there is a danger that the defendant, by action or omission, will prevent or impair the realization of the applicant&#8217;s right or significantly decrease its value or significance.<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, the granting of a general precautionary measure is also subject to the requirement that the measure must not cause the defendant unreasonable hardship in relation to the interest sought to be secured.<\/p>\n<p>Proceedings for precautionary measures are summary in nature and do not constitute a final determination on the merits of the case.<\/p>\n<p>The threshold for granting an application for precautionary measures in Finland is low. At least in theory, the defendant is protected against unfounded applications by the applicant&#8217;s strict liability \u2013 liability regardless of fault \u2013 for any damages caused by the measure. In practice, however, a financially stronger party may use an application for precautionary measures as a form of leverage, aiming for so-called anticipatory satisfaction and seeking to resolve the dispute in their favor without a full trial on the merits.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Enforcement and the Security Hurdle<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In order to have a precautionary measure enforced, the general rule is that the applicant must provide security for any damages that may be caused to the defendant by a potentially unfounded measure. The amount of security is determined by the enforcement authority (the bailiff) on a case-by-case basis.<\/p>\n<p>The specific amount of security required can have a decisive impact on whether, in practice, the applicant has the means to proceed with the enforcement of the measure. While the court has the power to exempt the applicant from the obligation to provide security, such exemptions are considered exceptional and rare.<\/p>\n<p><strong>European Account Preservation Order (EAPO).<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>As an alternative to the above mentioned national measures, a creditor may utilize the European Account Preservation Order (EAPO). Based on the EU Regulation concerning cross-border debt recovery, the EAPO enables a creditor to prevent a debtor from transferring or withdrawing funds from any bank account located within the EU. The Regulation establishes the procedures for both issuing the order and its implementation within the Member State where the targeted bank account is situated. Notably, the Regulation does not apply to Denmark.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Criminal Interim Measures to Secure Civil Claims<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Under the Coercive Measures Act, criminal interim measures are also available to secure both the outcome of criminal proceedings and the private-law claims of the victim.<\/p>\n<p>Under the Coersive Measures Act, the sequestration of property may be ordered to secure, inter alia, the payment of damages or compensation to the victim (the injured party) based on an offence.<\/p>\n<p>The sequestration of property is decided by the court. The injured party may directly request sequestration from the court, but not until after the filing of charges:<\/p>\n<p><strong>Before the filing of charges:<\/strong> The injured party cannot personally submit a request for a sequestration order to the court. At this stage, only an official entitled to arrest (in practice, the police or another pre-trial investigation authority) is authorized to file the request with the court. However, the injured party may ask the police (or other authority) to submit such a request. Whether to comply with the injured party\u2019s request remains at the discretion of the authority.<\/p>\n<p><strong>After the filing of charges:<\/strong> The injured party may directly request the court to order the sequestration of property to secure the payment of future damages or compensation.<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, pursuant to the Coercive Measures Act, an item, property, or document may be seized if there is reason to believe that: 1) it can be used as evidence in a criminal matter; 2) it has been taken from someone through an offence; or 3) it will be ordered to be confiscated.<\/p>\n<p>As a general rule, the seizure of an object is decided by an official entitled to arrest, although the court may also issue a decision on the matter while hearing the charges.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike in the case of sequestration, the Coercive Measures Act contains no express provision granting the injured party the right to request the seizure of an object.<\/p>\n<p>However, the injured party may request the return of an object taken through an offense, provided they are its rightful owner. In such cases, the procedure involves lifting the seizure and restituting the object to its rightful owner.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What disclosure, tracing, and investigative tools are available in civil proceedings to assist claimants in identifying, tracing, and recovering assets (including any pre-action or in-proceedings mechanisms)?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In Finland, there is no broad, party-driven &#8220;discovery&#8221; process. Instead, the system is based on the duty to produce documents \/ evidence, and is strictly supervised by the court.<\/p>\n<p>Under the Code of Judicial Procedure, the court may order that an object or a document be produced to the court, or that an inspection be conducted, if the object or document may be relevant as evidence or if the inspection may be relevant for the purpose of obtaining evidence. The court may direct such an order not only to a party to the proceedings but also to a third party.<\/p>\n<p>A request for document \/ evidence production can only be submitted once the matter is pending before the court.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike a &#8220;fishing expedition,&#8221; the applicant must identify the target of the order (a document or category of documents or an object or the target of an inspection) with reasonable specificity and demonstrate their relevance to the case. In practice, the specificity requirements are often difficult to satisfy. Consequently, document production plays a significantly more limited role in Finnish legal practice compared to common law jurisdictions.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the duty to produce documents \/ evidence, the Code of Judicial Procedure also provides for the taking of evidence for the future.<\/p>\n<p>At the request of the party concerned, a witness or an expert may be heard, a document or an object presented, or an inspection conducted in a District Court in a civil matter even if the proceedings are not yet pending, provided that the applicant\u2019s right may depend on the taking of such evidence or the conducting of an inspection. A further requirement is the risk that the witness or expert could only be heard later with difficulty, or that other evidence might disappear or become difficult to present later, or that an inspection could only be conducted later with difficulty.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What proprietary or analogous remedies (e.g., in rem claims, restitutionary claims, vindicatory actions) are available for recovering misappropriated assets?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>For recovering misappropriated assets, at least the following civil law remedies are available:<\/p>\n<p><strong>Vindicatory action<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Under Finnish property law, the rightful owner has a near-absolute right to demand the return of their property from anyone holding it without a valid legal title. This applies to individually identifiable assets, such as real estate, vehicles, or specific physical objects. If the asset is in the possession of the wrongdoer or a third party, the owner can file a claim for its return. The main limitation is the principle of good faith acquisition. If a third party has acquired the asset for value and in good faith, the original owner\u2019s in rem claim may be extinguished, leaving the owner with only a claim for damages against the wrongdoer.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Restitutionary claims \/ Restitution of Unjust Enrichment<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Unjust enrichment is a legal doctrine aimed at rectifying unjustified transfers of assets. It is not considered a sanction, but rather a legal consequence of a situation where the necessary legal grounds for obtaining a benefit have not been met or have been artificially created, rendering the benefit received unjustified.<\/p>\n<p>A claim for the restitution of unjust enrichment may concern either a monetary amount (the most common case) or a specific object or piece of property.<\/p>\n<p>The fundamental requirements for the restitution of unjust enrichment are as follows:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Enrichment of the Recipient: A benefit or gain has been conferred upon the recipient.<\/li>\n<li>Absence of Legal Basis: The enrichment is unjustified, meaning it is not based on a valid legal ground (such as a contract, statute, or court order).<\/li>\n<li>At the Expense of Another: The enrichment must have occurred at the expense of another party, establishing a causal link between the claimant&#8217;s loss and the recipient&#8217;s gain.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Right of Separation in Insolvency<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In the event of the defendant\u2019s bankruptcy or restructuring, a proprietary claim is particularly powerful.<\/p>\n<p>If the claimant can demonstrate that specific assets in the possession of the bankruptcy estate belong to the claimant (and have not become part of the debtor&#8217;s assets through commingling), the claimant has a right of separation.<\/p>\n<p>This allows the claimant to recover the asset in full, rather than receiving a mere pro-rata distribution as an unsecured creditor.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the relevant limitation periods for civil asset recovery claims? Are there extensions or suspensions in cases involving fraud, concealment, or delayed discovery?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p><strong>Limitation Periods for Civil Asset Recovery Claims<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The general act governing the limitation of civil debts in Finland is the Act on the Limitation of Debts. In addition to this general act, Finnish legislation contains various sector-specific special provisions. Furthermore, the Enforcement Code stipulates absolute time limits for the enforceability of court judgments against natural persons, which in practice results in the final expiration of the claim.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Act on the Limitation of Debts<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The 3-Year General Period: The standard limitation period is three years from the date the debt falls due. In cases of damages or unjust enrichment, this period begins when the claimant became aware, or should have become aware, of the breach, the damage, and the party liable (delayed discovery).<\/p>\n<p>The 10-Year &#8220;Backstop&#8221;: In cases involving delayed discovery, a claim for damages or restitution must be initiated within ten years of the breach of contract or the event leading to the damage. This ultimate backstop does not apply to personal injury or environmental damage.<\/p>\n<p>The 5-Year Post-Judgment Period: Once a court has rendered a final and binding judgment, the limitation period becomes five years from the date of the judgment.<\/p>\n<p>Interruption: Interrupting these periods is relatively simple. The period can be &#8220;reset&#8221; through informal measures, such as sending a written reminder or demand for payment. Initiating judicial proceedings or insolvency proceedings or sending a judgment to the Enforcement Authority also interrupts the period. Once interrupted, a new three-year (or five-year) period begins to run.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Specific Limitation Periods (Lex Specialis)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Where specific limitation periods have been enacted (e.g., in transport law), they prevail over the general Act on the Limitation of Debts. In many of these specific cases, informal measures are insufficient to interrupt the period; instead, the claimant must initiate formal legal proceedings before the deadline.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Absolute Expiration of Enforcement Orders<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>For judgments where the debtor is a natural person, the Enforcement Code sets absolute time limits as follows:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>15 Years: The standard time limit for enforceability.<\/li>\n<li>20 Years: If the creditor is also a natural person, or if the claim is based on a crime for which the debtor was sentenced to imprisonment, monitoring penalty or community service.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Crucially, these enforcement time limits cannot be interrupted. Once the period expires, the debt is permanently extinguished.<\/p>\n<p>It must be emphasized that enforcement orders against companies or other legal entities are not subject to these absolute time limits. As long as the limitation is interrupted every five years in accordance with the Act on the Limitation of Debts, the judgment can remain enforceable indefinitely.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Cases of Fraud or Concealment<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>While there are no statutory provisions that automatically suspend limitation periods due to fraud or concealment, two mechanisms provide protection:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Criminal Basis: If the claim is based on a criminal act, the civil claim does not expire as long as the right to bring criminal charges remains valid. This is often significantly longer than the standard 3-year civil period.<\/li>\n<li>The 10-Year Extension of the Enforceability of Enforcement orders: Under the Enforcement Code, the 15 or 20-year enforcement deadline (applicable to natural persons) may be extended by a court for an additional 10 years if the debtor has substantially hindered the creditor&#8217;s recovery of payment through specific improper actions.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>The court may grant such an extension if the debtor has:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Concealed or Donated Assets: (Hidden assets or given them away to avoid their seizure in enforcement.)<\/li>\n<li>Unjustifiably Increased Indebtedness: (Artificially or without valid reason increased the amount of their debt to the detriment of legitimate creditors.)<\/li>\n<li>Provided False Financial Information: (Concealed information or provided false or misleading information regarding their financial status in bankruptcy, enforcement, debt restructuring, or corporate reorganization proceedings.)<\/li>\n<li>Engaged in Other Improper Conduct: (Arranged their financial position through other comparable, clearly improper actions specifically intended to harm the interests of creditors.)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>However, the enforcement time limit may not be extended if such an extension would be deemed unreasonable for the debtor.<\/p>\n<p>An action for the extension of the enforcement time limit must be initiated no later than two years after the expiration of the original time limit.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the applicable standard of proof in civil asset recovery proceedings? How does this compare to the criminal standard, if relevant?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p><strong>Civil asset recovery proceedings<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In civil proceedings the standard of proof is generally &#8216;credible evidence&#8217; or a &#8216;reasonable preponderance of evidence&#8217;. This means that for a fact to serve as the basis of a judgment, the party must have presented credible evidence to support it. This threshold is substantially lower than the &#8216;beyond reasonable doubt&#8217; standard of proof, which is generally applicable in criminal matters as a prerequisite for a conviction.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Criminal confiscation \/ forfeiture proceedings<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>General Rule (Standard Forfeiture of Proceeds): If a confiscation claim is based on a specific, identified crime, evidence sufficient for a criminal conviction must be presented. In practice, this corresponds to the high standard of proof for a conviction (&#8220;beyond reasonable doubt&#8221;).<\/p>\n<p>Extended Forfeiture of Proceeds (Exception to the General Rule): When a defendant is convicted of a specific serious &#8220;trigger crime,&#8221; a reversed burden of proof applies regarding the origin of the property. The property is ordered confiscated unless the defendant makes it probable that it originates from a source other than criminal activity. The standard of proof is met if a legal origin is more probable than an illegal one.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Proposed Amendments to Finnish Confiscation \/ Forfeiture Legislation<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>On 25 September 2024, the Ministry of Justice appointed a working group to prepare legislative proposals on the confiscation of proceeds of crime and the national implementation of the EU Directive on asset recovery and confiscation. The working group proposes that a new confiscation of unexplained wealth be introduced in Finland. It could be imposed if there were reason to assume that the property identified during a criminal investigation originated from criminal activity. The standard of proof required from the prosecutor regarding the origin of the property would be lowered, and it would not be necessary to prove any specific crime.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Where does the burden of proof lie, and are there any evidential presumptions or burden-shifting mechanisms (e.g. in cases involving unexplained wealth or transactions at an undervalue)?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In civil proceedings, the burden of proof is distributed according to the Code of Judicial Procedure. As a general rule, each party must prove the facts upon which their claim or defense is based.<\/p>\n<p>However, there are several exceptions to this general rule that allow for the shifting of the burden of proof or the application of evidential presumptions:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The Code of Judicial Procedure specifically states that the law may provide otherwise regarding the burden of proof.<\/li>\n<li>Exceptions Based on the Nature of the Case: The burden of proof may be distributed differently based on the nature of the case, referring to burden of proof norms established in case law.<\/li>\n<li>Consideration of Evidentiary Access: The distribution of the burden of proof is influenced by the parties&#8217; actual opportunities to present evidence.<\/li>\n<li>Empirical Probability: The burden of proof may be determined according to what is probable based on general life experience.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Transactions at an Undervalue<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Presumption of Consideration: As a general rule, legal transactions are presumed to be for consideration. The party alleging a transaction at an undervalue bears the burden of proof that the transaction was concluded below fair market value.<\/p>\n<p>Shifting of the Burden of Proof: If the claimant presents credible evidence that a transaction was at an undervalue, the burden of proof may shift to the defendant. Additionally, the fact that a transaction appears to be undervalued based solely on general life experience can also shift the burden of proof to the defendant. The defendant must then provide an acceptable explanation for the pricing or demonstrate that the consideration was in line with the fair market value.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Unexplained Wealth<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Shifting of the Burden of Proof: If the claimant provides credible evidence that the defendant\u2019s assets are unexplained or derived from improper sources, the burden of proof may shift to the defendant. The defendant must then provide a credible explanation for the origin of the wealth.<\/p>\n<p>Empirical Probability: The court may also take into account what is probable according to general life experience. If the amount of wealth is disproportionate to a person\u2019s known sources of income, this may influence the distribution of the burden of proof.<\/p>\n<p>Consideration of Evidentiary Access: In disputes regarding the origin of assets, the distribution of the burden of proof is significantly influenced by which party is better positioned to present evidence. The possessor of the assets generally has a better opportunity to account for the origin of their wealth.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What defences are available to respondents in civil asset recovery proceedings (e.g., change of position, limitation, laches, good-faith purchaser for value)?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The grounds upon which a respondent should rely to oppose a claim must always be considered carefully and on a case-by-case basis. In Finnish civil proceedings, a respondent has several primary strategic avenues for defense:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Contesting the Factual Basis: The respondent may directly challenge the existence of the facts alleged by the claimant. If the claimant fails to meet the required standard of proof for these facts, the claim will be dismissed.<\/li>\n<li>Presenting Counter-Facts: The respondent can rely on counter-facts that negate the claimant&#8217;s position. For example, in disputes regarding the origin of wealth, the respondent may present evidence of a legitimate source, such as legal business income, to counter the allegation of improper acquisition.<\/li>\n<li>Raising Legal Pleas: The respondent may choose to admit the existence of the factual circumstances alleged by the claimant but dispute the legal conclusions drawn from them. This involves presenting an alternative legal assessment of the facts, arguing that they do not fulfill the requirements for liability.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>As a general rule, a respondent should rely on all possible defenses and arguments that can be reasonably substantiated.<\/p>\n<p>In practice, common examples of grounds for contesting a claim include the following arguments:<\/p>\n<p><strong>Defences Specific to Contractual Relationships<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Lack of Contractual Relationship: <\/strong>The respondent argues that they have not entered into a contract with the claimant.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Invalidity of Contract:<\/strong> The respondent argues that the contract between the respondent and the claimant is invalid.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Breach of Contract by the Plaintiff:<\/strong> The respondent argues that the claimant has breached the contract with the respondent.<\/p>\n<p><strong>The claimant\u2019s failure to give notice of breach of contract within a reasonable time:<\/strong> In Finnish contract law, a party wishing to invoke any form of contractual non-performance must notify the counterparty within a &#8220;reasonable time&#8221; after they discovered, or ought to have discovered, the breach. A delayed notice of breach of contract typically leads to the forfeiture of rights. The claimant loses their ability to demand damages, price reductions, or termination of the contract based on that specific breach. Note: The duty of giving notice of breach does not apply to non-contractual (tort) claims, where the claimant is only bound by general statutes of limitation.<\/p>\n<p><strong>The respondent argues that the proceedings have been initiated against the wrong respondent.<\/strong> Perpetrators of financial crimes often attempt to obscure the contracting partner&#8217;s understanding of exactly which entity they are dealing and entering into a contract with. This may be achieved, for example, by utilizing several companies with similar looking business names and auxiliary business names, all registered at the same address and overseen by the same responsible persons. When the contracting partner discovers they have been defrauded and initiates legal action, it can be difficult to identify the specific company that should be named as the defendant. Frequently, the entity against which there are the weightiest grounds and the strongest evidence for a claim is found to be insolvent.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Lack of Authority:<\/strong> The respondent argues that the individual representing them lacked the authority to enter into a contract binding upon the respondent. This is another common tactic favored by financial criminals. An individual using an impressive-sounding title presents themselves as a representative of the company. However, once the contracting partner realizes they have been defrauded and attempts to take action, the company denies that the person had the authority to enter into agreements on its behalf. If the individual lacks formal signing rights registered in the Trade Register, the burden of proof regarding the existence of apparent authority or a similar authorization lies with the party invoking it\u2014in this case, the claimant seeking to recover the defrauded assets. The higher the financial stakes of the agreement, the more difficult it becomes for the claimant to prove that the representative possessed apparent authority not reflected in official records. Typically, the individual who represented the company is personally insolvent, and the defrauded assets are kept &#8220;safe&#8221; and remain beyond the reach of the claimant.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Other defences<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Contesting the requirements for liability for damages in tort<\/strong> (the existence of a basis for liability, the occurrence of damage, and the causal link between the basis for liability and the damage).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Contesting the prerequisites for the obligation to restitute unjust enrichment.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Arguing that the debt is time-barred<\/strong> (the limitation period has run out)<\/p>\n<p><strong>Right of Set-off:<\/strong> The respondent argues that they have a valid right of set-off against the claimant.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Good Faith and Consideration:<\/strong> Assets generally cannot be recovered from a third party if they acquired them at fair market value and did not know\u2014nor had a grounded reason to suspect\u2014that the property was linked to improper activity or that the transfer was intended to harm creditors.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Equity and Reasonableness:<\/strong> The court may dismiss the claim or reduce the compensation amount if the obligation to pay or the return of the assets would be unreasonable for the respondent.<\/p>\n<p>Please note that the above list of defences is non-exhaustive. These serve as examples only and, as previously stated, the specific defences to be invoked must always be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How are third-party rights protected in civil recovery proceedings? What mechanisms exist for innocent parties to assert their interests in assets subject to recovery claims?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Where civil law remedies are utilized to recover assets transferred through criminal acts or otherwise unlawfully, or to restore such assets to their rightful owner, and those assets have already been transferred from the wrongdoing party to a third party, the third party may defend against these claims using at least the following grounds and mechanisms:<\/p>\n<p><strong>Bona Fide Acquisition (Protection of Good Faith):<\/strong> If the purchaser neither knew nor ought to have known of the questionable origin of the assets and has paid a fair market price (provided valuable consideration), the law often affords them protection.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Intervention in Legal Proceedings:<\/strong> A third party may petition to join the proceedings if the outcome of the case directly affects their rights or legal interests.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Legal Remedies for Third Parties in Enforcement:<\/strong> A third party has several legal remedies available in enforcement proceedings to defend their ownership or other rights to property subject to seizure. The protection of third parties is particularly heightened in enforcement, as it involves situations where the third party is not a party (neither debtor nor creditor) to the enforcement proceedings themselves. Even in situations involving artificial arrangements, the execution of attachment may not be carried out if a third party establishes the probability that the attachment would infringe upon their actual right.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Third-Party Assets and Separation Rights in Bankruptcy:<\/strong> In the event of the debtor\u2019s bankruptcy, a third party may also assert a claim that specific property belongs to them. Any third-party property that does not belong to the bankruptcy debtor must be surrendered to the rightful owner, provided that the title to the asset has been indisputably established. If the bankruptcy trustee refuses to surrender the property, the third party will be required to bring a legal action against the bankruptcy estate.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How does your jurisdiction classify cryptocurrencies and other digital assets for civil recovery purposes? Are they capable of being held on trust or subject to proprietary or equivalent claims?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In Finland, cryptocurrencies and digital assets are classified as intangible property rather than legal tender or currency.<\/p>\n<p>Cryptocurrencies and digital assets are considered assets capable of being owned. They are thus subject to proprietary claims and civil enforcement, and can also be part of a bankruptcy estate.<\/p>\n<p>While the common law concept of a &#8220;trust&#8221; does not exist in Finland, digital assets can be subject to separation rights. If assets are held by a third party (e.g., an exchange) and remain clearly identifiable and distinct from the holder&#8217;s own funds, the rightful owner can claim them back even in the event of the holder\u2019s insolvency.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What interim relief mechanisms exist for freezing or preserving digital assets (e.g., access to private keys, hardware wallets, exchange-held accounts)?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Cryptocurrencies and digital assets \u2013 similar to any other assets with financial value \u2013 are subject to both civil precautionary measures under the Code of Judicial Procedure and criminal interim measures under the Coercive Measures Act. (Please see question 10. above.)<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What disclosure and tracing, disclosure and investigative tools are available for identifying and following digital asset transactions, and what practical challenges arise in obtaining information from exchanges or service providers?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Before a judgment has been obtained against a debtor, a creditor may apply for a precautionary measure against the debtor. In connection with the enforcement of such a measure, the Enforcement Authority shall, as a general rule, investigate the debtor\u2019s financial standing and solvency, including with respect to cryptocurrencies and other digital assets.<\/p>\n<p>Debtor\u2019s Disclosure Obligation: In both enforcement (including the enforcement of precautionary measures) and bankruptcy, the debtor is under a statutory duty to disclose all assets, including private keys and access to digital wallets. Failure to comply may constitute a criminal offense, such as &#8220;debtor&#8217;s dishonesty&#8221; or &#8220;fraud by a debtor.<\/p>\n<p>While the legal principle mandates that assets \u2013 including cryptocurrencies and digital property \u2013 cannot be concealed in enforcement or bankruptcy, in practice, obtaining information regarding a debtor\u2019s digital holdings can be very challenging. This is especially true if the debtor utilizes obscure service providers and actively seeks to obscure their ownership.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How are legal costs allocated in civil asset recovery proceedings? What is the general rule on costs, and what exceptions apply?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>General Rule: Finland follows the &#8220;loser pays&#8221; principle. Under the Code of Judicial Procedure, the losing party is obligated to compensate the winning party for all their reasonable legal costs.<\/p>\n<p>Notable Exceptions to the above general rule are the following:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Partial Success: If the claims are only partially granted, each party usually bears their own costs, or the costs are apportioned based on the outcome.<\/li>\n<li>Unnecessary Litigation: If the winning party initiated the trial unnecessarily or otherwise caused redundant costs through their conduct, they may be ordered to bear those costs.<\/li>\n<li>Legal Ambiguity: In rare cases, if the legal issue was so ambiguous that there was a justified reason for the parties to litigate, the court may order each party to bear their own costs.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are third-party funding, contingency fees, conditional fee arrangements, or damages-based agreements, or other alternative funding mechanisms available? What are the rules on security for costs?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p><strong>Legal Expenses Insurance:<\/strong> This is the most common form of litigation funding in Finland. Most corporate and private insurance policies include legal expenses coverage, which typically compensates for a significant portion of the costs arising from civil disputes.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Third-Party Funding (TPF):<\/strong> Third-party funding is permitted. However, it is only available on a case-by-case basis, and considerably less prevalent than legal expenses insurance. There is no specific legislation governing TPF in Finland; instead, it is regulated by general contract law principles.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Contingency and Success Fees:<\/strong> While such arrangements are permitted in principle, they must remain reasonable and comply with the ethical standards set by the Finnish Bar Association. Despite their legality, such arrangements remain relatively uncommon in practice.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Security for Costs:<\/strong> Finland does not require plaintiffs (regardless of their domicile) to provide security for the defendant\u2019s legal costs.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How do insolvency proceedings interact with civil asset recovery actions? Can tracing or proprietary claims be pursued within insolvency, and what priority do such claims receive?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>If a debtor is declared bankrupt while civil court proceedings against them are pending, the bankruptcy estate has the primary right \u2013 and the debtor the secondary right \u2013 to continue the litigation notwithstanding the bankruptcy. If neither party elects to continue the proceedings, the plaintiff may request that the court decide the matter. As a general rule, even if the plaintiff obtains the desired judgment, they must pursue their resulting claims within the collective bankruptcy process.<\/p>\n<p>Proprietary claims (ownership-based claims) can be pursued within insolvency through the Right of Separation. If a claimant can trace and identify their specific assets \u2013 provided they remain distinct and have not been commingled with the debtor\u2019s other property \u2013 they may demand their return from the debtor\u2019s possession, as the assets do not form part of the bankruptcy estate.<\/p>\n<p>Separation rights receive absolute priority. Assets subject to a valid proprietary claim do not form part of the bankruptcy estate and are surrendered to the rightful owner before any distribution to creditors.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How are claims for the recovery of misappropriated assets treated in the insolvency of the wrongdoer or intermediary? What is the relationship between civil recovery and insolvency clawback or avoidance provisions?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p><strong>Treatment of Misappropriated Assets in Insolvency<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>If the victim can identify and trace the misappropriated assets and prove they never lost legal title, and the assets remain distinct and have not been commingled with the debtor\u2019s other property, the victim can exercise the Right of Separation. These assets are not considered part of the bankruptcy estate and must be returned in full.<\/p>\n<p>However, if the assets have been dissipated or commingled beyond recognition, the victim&#8217;s proprietary claim often converts into a general unsecured claim for damages. In this case, the victim only receives a pro-rata distribution alongside other creditors.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Relationship Between Civil Recovery and Insolvency Clawback<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Civil Recovery: Focuses on the victim&#8217;s right to get their specific property back based on ownership or tort law.<\/p>\n<p>Insolvency Clawback (Avoidance): Focuses on the estate&#8217;s right to undo transactions made shortly before bankruptcy that unfairly favored certain creditors or depleted assets.<\/p>\n<p>Intersection: These mechanisms can overlap or conflict. For example, if a debtor returns misappropriated funds to a victim just before bankruptcy, the bankruptcy trustee might attempt to &#8220;claw back&#8221; those funds as a preferential payment. However, the victim may defend this by proving they had a pre-existing proprietary right (separation right) to those specific funds.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the key practical challenges facing practitioners in asset tracing and recovery (e.g., complex structures, offshore jurisdictions, banking secrecy, non-cooperative intermediaries)?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>When considering legal action for the purpose of civil asset recovery, all measures must be proportional to the financial interest at stake and the defendant\u2019s actual financial standing and solvency. A major practical obstacle is the difficulty in obtaining reliable, up-to-date information regarding the defendant\u2019s true financial position.<\/p>\n<p>In cases involving entities engaged in criminal or illicit activities, there is a high risk that financial statements and key performance indicators do not accurately reflect their true solvency. Frequently, by the time victims initiate legal proceedings, misappropriated assets have already been moved beyond the reach of creditors. In such instances, pursuing extensive legal measures may not be economically viable or justified. Ultimately, even if the claimant achieves a complete victory in court, the judgment remains a mere &#8216;paper judgment&#8217; if the defendant is insolvent and the assets cannot be recovered.<\/p>\n<p>The aforementioned factors \u2013 complex structures, offshore jurisdictions, the strategic exploitation of banking secrecy, and non-cooperative intermediaries \u2013 serve as critical red flags, giving clear cause to fear precisely such an outcome for the recovery process.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What strategic considerations arise when choosing between different civil causes of action or pursuing parallel proceedings? Can civil proceedings be stayed pending related criminal or regulatory actions?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>According to the Code of Judicial Procedure, if the resolution of a case depends on the outcome of a question pending in another trial or proceeding, or if there is another long-term impediment to the proceedings, the court may order that the case be stayed until the impediment is removed. Consequently, civil proceedings may be suspended until a related criminal case has first been resolved.<\/p>\n<p>Thus, when planning civil asset recovery, civil and criminal measures can be used either in parallel or separately, depending on what the claimant deems most appropriate.<\/p>\n<p>Evidentiary issues often play an important role when weighing these different options.<\/p>\n<p>Generally, the success of an injured party\u2019s civil claim within criminal proceedings requires a conviction. Furthermore, both the burden of proof and the standard of proof are fundamentally higher in criminal proceedings than in civil litigation. Therefore, if a claimant assesses that their evidence is strong enough to satisfy civil requirements but insufficient to secure a criminal conviction, civil proceedings may be the more justified option.<\/p>\n<p>On the other hand, in certain situations, only the police have the specialized tools and authority to investigate the facts. In such cases, filing a criminal complaint to clarify the circumstances and gather evidence \u2013 and subsequently pursuing civil claims within the criminal process \u2013 may be more effective than independent civil litigation.<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, the legal costs are also a significant factor. In some instances, the costs incurred by the claimant in criminal proceedings may be only a fraction of those in civil litigation, as the primary responsibility for proving the offense \u2013 and thus the basis for the claimant\u2019s request for damages \u2013 lies with the prosecutor.<\/p>\n<p>It cannot be emphasized enough that there is no universal rule for these situations; instead, one must always carefully consider, on a case-by-case basis, which measures are most appropriate for the specific circumstances at hand.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What significant recent cases, reforms, or emerging trends have affected asset recovery practice (including developments in sanctions regimes, beneficial ownership transparency, AML rules, or cross-border enforcement)?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The EU Directive on asset recovery and confiscation (April 2024) represents a significant development also from the perspective of civil asset recovery within the EU. According to the Directive, Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that, where, as a result of a criminal offence, victims have claims against the person who is subject to a confiscation measure provided for in this Directive, such claims are taken into account in the relevant asset tracing, freezing, and confiscation proceedings. This enables the development of civil asset recovery proceedings in parallel with criminal proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations, and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 23 November 2026.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n<div class=\"word-count-hidden\" style=\"display:none;\">Estimated word count: <span class=\"word-count\">10351<\/span><\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<\/ol>\r\n\r\n<script type=\"text\/javascript\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/twentyseventeen\/src\/jquery\/components\/filter-guides.js\" async><\/script><\/div>"}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide\/132792","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/comparative_guide"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=132792"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}