Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vaasan HO 14.02.1967 AI generated

Court convicted individual of forgery for substituting another employee's ID number on logs to claim false wages.

Case Number Vaasan HO 14.02.1967
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court upheld a conviction for forgery against an individual who altered another employee's identification number on timber logs to claim false wages. The defendant substituted the original number with their own, either by carving or scraping, and submitted the altered logs to the company for payment. The court ruled that these actions constituted the forgery of a private document under the relevant statute.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

RL 36:5; Forgery of a private document is established when an individual alters a document to create a false identity or claim, thereby deceiving the recipient of the document.

Keywords

AI generated
forgery of private document substitution of identification number false wage claim deception by alteration criminal conviction upheld

Cited Legislation

AI generated
RL 36:5
AI generated
kko-precedent_1991_109
Concealing director's status to bypass appeal period constitutes fraud under Finnish Penal Code Section 36.
labour_2012_29
Labor court dismisses union appeal against employer's dismissal but orders damages for failed re-employment efforts.
labour_1981_142
Union dismissed for failing to stop intermittent strikes violating collective agreement management rights.
labour_1972_77
Union fined for failing to monitor collective agreement compliance regarding weather-related pay disputes.
kko-precedent_2015_88
Supreme Court allows conviction for gross fraud and bookkeeping crime but dismisses business ban due to lack of necessity.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

A, joka tehdessään tukkeja yhtiön metsäpalstalla, jolla aikaisemmin oli työskennellyt B, oli hankkiakseen itselleen laitonta aineellista etua ainakin viidenkymmenen B:n tekemän, lumen alta löytämänsä tukin päähän B:n tunnusnumeron sijaan muuttanut oman tunnusnumeronsa joko sahattuaan palan tukin päästä tai raaputettuaan B:n hiilikynällä tekemän numeron sekä esittämällä nämäkin tukit varastopaikalle ajettuina tekemikseen erehdyttänyt yhtiön maksamaan niistä tekopalkan, tuomittiin yksityisen asiakirjan väärentämisestä RL 36:5 nojalla kuritushuonerangaistukseen.

Lainvoimainen