Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Rovaniemen HO 18.09.1979 88/79 AI generated

Court dismissed prosecution for forgery when prosecutor only charged private document forgery, not signature alteration.

Case Number Rovaniemen HO 18.09.1979 88/79
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Court of Appeal dismissed the prosecution's request for punishment regarding signature alteration because the prosecutor had not charged that specific offense. Although the prosecutor alleged the defendant forged a check form and used it to gain an illegal advantage, they limited their charge to the forgery of a private document. The court ruled that without a specific charge for signature alteration, the lower court could not impose a sentence for that crime.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

s. 10 of the Act on the Administration of Criminal Proceedings; The prosecution must specifically charge each distinct criminal offense; a court cannot convict for an offense not included in the prosecutor's indictment.

Keywords

AI generated
prosecution indictment private document forgery signature alteration criminal charge requirement court of appeal dual charges prosecutorial discretion

Cited Legislation

AI generated
s. 10 of the Act on the Administration of Criminal Proceedings
AI generated
ECLI:FI:KKO:2020:51
Supreme Court dismisses appeal; charge for misappropriation upheld despite civil ownership change of funds.
kko-precedent_1996_134
Supreme Court remands case for oral hearing due to conflicting testimonies and defendant's right to defense.
appeal_1979_eastern-finland__766
Court upheld conviction for aggravated assault, rejecting reformatio in peius request despite new evidence of life-threatening injury.
kko-precedent_2007_79
Supreme Court quashes prison sentence without trial; defendant must be heard personally before conviction. Outcome: case remanded to High Court.
appeal_1979_eastern-finland__1986
Court of Appeal reduced sentence to probation and added fine despite Supreme Court's prior conviction.

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

Virallinen syyttäjä, joka syytekirjelmässään oli lausunut A:n anastaneen B:n shekkivihkosta yhden shekkilomakkeen ja hankkiakseen itselleen laitonta aineellista etua väärentäneen täyttämäänsä lomakkeeseen B:n allekirjoituksen sekä käyttäneen näin valmistamaansa asiakirjaa, oli vaatinut A:lle rangaistusta vain yksityisen asiakirjan väärentämisestä.

Koska syyttäjä ei ollut vaatinut A:lle rangaistusta näpistyksestä, HO poisti KO:n lausunnon A:n tuomitsemisesta rangaistukseen näpistyksestä.

Lainvoimainen