Veronkorotus ja rikosvastuun toteuttaminen
Avainsanat:
ne bis in idem, veronkorotus, veropetos, oikeusvoimaAbstrakti
Each year tax avoidance causes significant losses to society in the form of lost revenue. The society has to prevent tax evasion by the means of general prevention. The current Finnish legislation does not prevent the simultaneous imposition of a tax increase and a criminal sanction for the same act. This practice has now been proven to be problematic concerning human rights and interpretation of the Convention on Human Rights.
Regardless of its internal legal system, Finland has to obey the obligations of the European Convention on Human Rights. Finland also has to follow the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the European Union Court of Justice (ECJ) and respect and comply with their interpretation, if necessary, by altering its own laws. The ECHR’s autonomous interpretation of the notions of the Convention overrules any national legislation and its legal concepts.
The ECHR has outlined the concept of criminal prosecution, punitive nature of tax increase, the ne bis in idem principle and the criteria for applying the definition of an inhibitory effect based on the finality of a solution. Last year the Finnish Supreme Court followed the interpretation of the ECHR in three solutions.
The prosecutor can not prosecute for tax avoidance when the tax increase, which the tax authority has imposed, has come into force. The first sanction that comes into force remains so, while the second sanction must be revoked. The accused no longer knows which sanction to expect, as in similar cases one can receive a tax increase and the other a criminal sanction, just depending on procedural schedules.
