Court held that allowing a third party to commit a crime on one's property constitutes a single criminal act, not a continuation.
Finland (FI)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe court dismissed the appeal regarding whether allowing a third party to commit arson on one's property constituted a continuation of a prior crime. The prosecution argued this was a separate act, while the defense contended it was a continuation of the original arson. The court ruled that permitting another to commit a crime on one's premises counts as a single criminal act rather than a continuation.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedS. 10 of the Criminal Code; The act of allowing a third party to commit a crime on one's property constitutes a single criminal act, not a continuation of a prior offense.
Keywords
AI generatedCited Legislation
AI generatedCited Case Law
AI generatedRelated Decisions
AI generatedFull text
A oli noin kahden ja puolen vuoden ajan omistamassaan asuinrakennuksessa ja sen yhteydessä olleessa saunarakennuksessa sallinut B:n korvausta vastaan harjoittaa haureutta. A:n rikollista toimintaa ei ollut pidettävä saman rikoksen jatkamisena vaan yhtenä rikollisena tekona.
KKO:n ratkaisu: Päätös n:o 1443/30.9.1980: ei valituslupaa