Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Turun HO 27.05.1982 PÄ-412 AI generated

Prosecution dismissed because defendant failed to register car address change within one month, causing statute of limitations to expire.

Case Number Turun HO 27.05.1982 PÄ-412
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The prosecution was dismissed because the defendant failed to notify the vehicle registration center of the change of address within one month of acquiring ownership. The court held that the prosecution statute of limitations expired two years after the deadline for filing the notification had passed. Consequently, the criminal charge against the defendant was declared time-barred and inadmissible.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Maa 24 § 1; TLL 1957 9 §; RL 8 luku 1 § 1 mom. 4 kohta: Failure to register a change of vehicle address within the statutory one-month period triggers the expiration of the prosecution statute of limitations.

Keywords

AI generated
vehicle registration address statute of limitations criminal prosecution dismissal notification deadline time-barred charge

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Maa 24 § 1
MAA 24 § 1, TLL 1957 9 §, RL 8 luku 1 § 1 mom.
TLL 1957 9 §
MAA 24 § 1, TLL 1957 9 §, RL 8 luku 1 § 1 mom.
RL 8 luku 1 § 1 mom. 4 kohta
MAA 24 § 1, TLL 1957 9 §, RL 8 luku 1 § 1 mom. 4 kohta
AI generated
appeal_1983_eastern-finland__1794
Court dismisses prosecution for negligent failure to report vehicle ownership changes due to statute of limitations expiration.
appeal_1980_vaasa__1413
Court dismissed charge of handing over vehicle to drunk driver as defendant knew owner would drive drunk.
kko-precedent_2009_26
Supreme Court allows forfeiture of vehicle for repeated unlicensed driving to prevent future crimes.
kko-precedent_2014_67
Supreme Court allows self-incrimination defense against traffic law reporting duty violation charge.
kko-precedent_2010_49
Supreme Court partially allowed fraud charge for 1999 asset hiding but dismissed 1995 company omissions due to self-incrimination rights.

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 ei ollut kuukauden kuluessa siitä, kun rekisteröidyn auton omistusoikeus oli siirtynyt hänelle, tehnyt siitä auton kotipaikan poliisiviranomaisen välityksellä ilmoitusta autorekisterikeskukselle.

Kun syytettä A:ta vastaan ei ollut näytetty nostetun kahden vuoden kuluessa siitä, kun ilmoitus viimeistään olisi ollut tehtävä, syyte A:ta vastaan hylättiin vanhentuneena. (Ään.)

MAA 24 § 1, TLL 1957 9 §, RL 8 luku 1 § 1 mom. 4 kohta

Läsnä: Puotunen (erim.) - Putta - Aarola (apuj.) Esittelijä: Virtanen

Lainvoimainen