Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Kouvolan HO 29.01.1981 1128/80 AI generated

Court of Appeal dismissed appeal; lower court erred in finding aggravated fraud without prosecutor's specific charge.

Case Number Kouvolan HO 29.01.1981 1128/80
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Court of Appeal in Kouvola dismissed the defendant's appeal regarding a conviction for continued fraud. The lower court had convicted the defendant of aggravated fraud despite the prosecutor failing to allege that the fraud involved a large sum of money or other aggravating features. The appellate court ruled that the lower court improperly investigated the aggravating circumstances on its own initiative rather than relying on the prosecutor's specific charges.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

s. 10 of the Code of Judicial Procedure; The lower court may not initiate an investigation into aggravating circumstances of a crime unless specifically charged by the prosecutor, and a conviction for aggravated fraud requires such specific allegation.

Keywords

AI generated
continued fraud aggravated fraud prosecutor's charge lower court error judicial procedure

Cited Legislation

AI generated
s. 10 of the Code of Judicial Procedure
AI generated
kko-precedent_1992_60
Supreme Court dismisses appeal allowing prosecutor to reduce sentence after lower court acquittal on aggravated theft.
appeal_1980_rovaniemi__550
Court held two traffic violations constitute one offense when committed in a single act.
appeal_1983_helsinki__1608
Court of Appeal may add qualifying circumstances to a convicted person's decision based solely on their appeal if evidence supports it.
appeal_1979_eastern-finland__766
Court upheld conviction for aggravated assault, rejecting reformatio in peius request despite new evidence of life-threatening injury.
kko-other_2018_944
Supreme Court allows retrial when lower court wrongly denies it based on insufficient evidence of participation in crime.

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 oli vaatinut syytetyn tuomitsemista rangaistukseen jatketusta kavalluksesta. Syyttäjä ei ollut väittänytkään syytteenalaisen jatketun kavalluksen kohdistuneen suureen määrään varoja tai muutenkaan toteuttavan törkeän kavalluksen tunnusmerkistön. Kihlakunnanoikeus katsoi kavalluksen kohdistuneen suureen määrään varoja ja huomioon ottaen rikokseen johtaneet ja siitä ilmenevät seikat kokonaisuudessaan tuomitsi syytetyn jatketusta törkeästä kavalluksesta. Hovioikeus katsoi, ettei kihlakunnanoikeus olisi oma-aloitteisesti saanut ryhtyä tutkimaan, oliko syytetyn syyksi luettua jatkettua kavallusta pidettävä törkeänä ja tuomitsi syytetyn jatketusta kavalluksesta.

KKO:n ratkaisu:

Päätös 10.6.1981 n:o 2275: Ei valituslupaa