Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vaasan HO 23.06.1983 1013/83 AI generated

False accusation of burglary in preliminary investigation leads to conviction under false statement law.

Case Number Vaasan HO 23.06.1983 1013/83
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court upheld the conviction of A for making a false statement during a police preliminary investigation regarding a non-existent burglary. Although A claimed the premise was not broken into, the court found the accusation to be untrue and punishable. The decision affirms that knowingly fabricating facts in an official investigation constitutes a crime under the relevant penal code section.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Rikoslain 17 luvun 4 §:n nojalla; knowingly making a false statement in a preliminary investigation constitutes a punishable offense regardless of the underlying incident's actual occurrence.

Keywords

AI generated
false statement preliminary investigation criminal liability fabricated accusation police procedure

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Rikoslain 17 luvun 4 §
A tuomittiin rangaistukseen perättömän lausuman antamisesta esitutkinnassa rikoslain 17 luvun 4 §:n nojalla.

Cited Case Law

AI generated
TurHO:n päätös D:1974-RD-184/22, A:10.5.1976
TurHO:n päätös D:1974-RD-184/22, A:10.5.1976
AI generated
kko-precedent_1990_141
Supreme Court dismisses appeal; witness convicted for false testimony on irrelevant matter under Criminal Code s. 17.1.1. §
kko-precedent_2015_86
Supreme Court remands case for retrial due to High Court's procedural error in handling anonymous expert report. High Court failed to verify defendant's request for expert interview before excluding evidence.
appeal_1964_vaasa__x302
Court dismisses appeal for false accusation where defendant knowingly lied in police investigation and court testimony.
kko-precedent_2015_20
Supreme Court allows appeal when lower court uses prior investigation statement as evidence without giving defendant a chance to comment.
kko-leave_2026_8
Supreme Court allows appeal on confession evidence admissibility, ruling admission does not bind court on new evidence.

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 oli tehtyään rikosilmoituksen poliisiviranomaisen toimittamassa esitutkinnassa kertonut, että hänen huvilalleen oli murtauduttu ja sieltä oli viety erilaista omaisuutta, vaikka niin ei ollut tapahtunut. A tuomittiin rangaistukseen perättömän lausuman antamisesta esitutkinnassa rikoslain 17 luvun 4 §:n nojalla.

Ks. TurHO:n päätös D:1974-RD-184/22, A:10.5.1976

Lainvoimainen