Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KKO 2139/1997 AI generated

Supreme Court dismissed claim for damages against financier due to lack of proof of fraudulent intent.

Case Number KKO 2139/1997
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for damages against a financier who funded a share purchase agreement. The plaintiff alleged the financier acted fraudulently by paying part of the sum in cash and using old debts to offset the rest, but failed to prove specific fraudulent intent. The court ruled that without evidence of intentional deception, the claim for damages based on fraud could not be sustained.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Act on Damages for Fraud; Act on Damages for Fraud: A claim for damages based on fraud requires proof of intentional deceptive conduct by the defendant; mere suspicion or alleged irregularities in payment methods are insufficient without concrete evidence of fraudulent intent.

Keywords

AI generated
damages for fraud proof of intent share purchase agreement offsetting debts cash payment financial institution liability burden of proof

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Act on Damages for Fraud
AI generated
ECLI:FI:KKO:2019:58
Supreme Court allows partial liability reduction for cartel member when other members' debts expire due to statute of limitations.
kko-other_1996_1899
Supreme Court dismisses debt arrangement claim where criminal debt remains after tax debt exemption.
kko-other_2005_2476
Supreme Court dismisses claim for damages against a debtor based on insolvency and lack of fault.
kho-precedent_2017_113
Individual education injury compensation claims were dismissed as time-barred under the Debt Limitation Act despite the underlying liability not expiring.
ECLI:FI:KKO:2018:67
Supreme Court allows client to offset bankruptcy debt with recovery from insolvent company in fraud case.

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

Rahoitusyhtiö A oli rahoittanut yhtiöiden B ja C välisen osamaksukaupan 400 000 markalla siten, että se oli maksanut B:lle osan mainitusta määrästä rahana ja osan kuittaamalla sillä B:ltä olleita vanhoja velkoja. Kysymys B:n edustajan X:n, joka oli saanut rahoituksen kaupalle petollisella menettelyllä, A:lle maksettavan vahingonkorvauksen määrästä.