Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KKO VL:2026-227 AI generated

Supreme Court allows appeal regarding a partner's criminal liability for omitted bookkeeping entries in a sole proprietorship.

Case Number KKO VL:2026-227
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal against the District Court's finding that a non-listed partner bears criminal liability for omitted bookkeeping entries. The District Court held that the individual, though not registered as a business operator, engaged in sole proprietorship activities and was thus responsible for the omission. The Court decided to allow the appeal to examine whether the statutory requirements for attributing criminal liability to a partner in this specific context were correctly applied.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

S. 10 of the Business Act; s. 10 of the Business Act: A partner in a sole proprietorship may be held criminally liable for bookkeeping omissions if they engaged in the business activities, regardless of their registration status.

Keywords

AI generated
sole proprietorship liability criminal bookkeeping omission of entries unregistered partner business activities

Cited Legislation

AI generated
s. 10 of the Business Act
AI generated
kko-other_2020_340
Supreme Court allows continued processing of asylum claim where serious bookkeeping crime is not a bar to protection status.
ECLI:FI:KKO:2021:26
Supreme Court allows retrial for defendant in serious tax fraud case due to lack of hearing.
kko-other_2010_1291
Supreme Court dismisses appeal regarding High Court's duty to hold main trial for bookkeeping crime.
kko-other_1999_2030
Supreme Court denied leave to appeal a lower court's decision on a change of custody arrangement.
kko-precedent_2001_85
Supreme Court dismisses state compensation claim when partial acquittal occurs alongside partial conviction on same charge.

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

Hovioikeus oli katsonut, että A, jota ei ollut toiminimien perustamisilmoituksissa

ilmoitettu elinkeinonharjoittajaksi, oli harjoittanut toiminimien liiketoimintaa ja

oli siten vastuussa toiminimien liiketapahtumien kirjaamisten laiminlyönneistä. A

oli tuomittu rangaistukseen kirjanpitorikoksista.

Kysymys A:n rikosoikeudellisesta vastuusta.

Valituslupakortti sisältää kuvauksen siitä kysymyksestä, johon liittyen asiassa on

myönnetty valituslupa. Sen sisältö ei sido korkeinta oikeutta eikä rajoita asian

käsittelyä siltä osin kuin valituslupa on myönnetty.