Itsepesukriminalisoinnin suhde myötärangaistuja tekoja koskevaan oppiin
Avainsanat:
rikosoikeus, rikosten yhtyminen, lainkonkurenssi, itsepesuAbstrakti
Criminalisation of self-laundering in relation to the concurrence doctrine
This article addresses the criminalisation of self-laundering from the viewpoint of the concurrence doctrine. In Finland, self-laundering is considered primarily as a secondary offence that carries no punishment. However, it is possible to impose a separate penalty for self-laundering in particular cases referred to in the law. Even in these cases, liability for self-laundering is limited by the concurrence doctrine and the related interpretation criteria of the punishability of secondary offences.
The article shows that, in assessing the relation between self-laundering and the predicate offence, the relevant question is how the criterion concerning further damage is conceptualised in practice. In this context, the possible emergence of further damage can be considered to relate to several types of concealment or disguising arrangements, to the damage caused by a self-laundering act and deviating from the predicate offence and also to legal interests which are protected by the self-laundering provision, and which are different with respect to the predicate offence. In other words, the question is which interpretation criteria on the punishability of a secondary offence are given the greatest emphasis in the assessment of the concurrence of offences in a self-laundering context. The interpretation may either provide support for the concurrence of offences concerning self-laundering and the predicate offence, or not provide such support.
The way in which the interpretation criteria are weighed is of special interest in reference to the punishability of self- laundering on the basis of its consequences because this sphere of punishability has not been restricted by law, unlike that pertaining to intent-oriented self-laundering. It is not justifiable to impose a separate punishment for self-laundering especially in case of minor offences, although the established interpretation criteria of the punishability of a secondary offence, excluding the criterion of regular involvement, would in fact enable an interpretation that expands the punishability of self-laundering of this type. It would seem that the independent reprehensibility aspect of self-laundering is connected, above all, to the active money laundering operations of the self-launderer. In situations like this, it may be justified to draw the conclusion that self-laundering and the primary offence are not concurrent offences, whereby it is possible to impose a separate punishment for self-laundering.
