Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KKO 2/2012 AI generated

Supreme Court holds that multiple minor thefts constitute a crime when viewed as a whole.

Case Number KKO 2/2012
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court ruled that the defendant's multiple instances of stealing small items from various stores constituted a crime when evaluated collectively. The prosecution argued that the aggregate value and frequency of the thefts met the criminal threshold despite individual acts being minor. The court agreed, establishing that the totality of acts determines criminal liability rather than isolated instances.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

RL 28 luku 3 § 1 mom; The court held that multiple minor thefts, when considered as a whole, satisfy the requirements for criminal prosecution under the Penal Code.

Keywords

AI generated
multiple thefts aggregate value criminal threshold minor offenses collective evaluation Penal Code theft liability

Cited Legislation

AI generated
RL 28 luku 3 § 1 mom
AI generated
kko-other_2012_3
Supreme Court held that multiple minor thefts constitute a crime when viewed as a whole.
kko-precedent_2011_66
Supreme Court reclassified petty thefts as snatching and reduced sentence due to significant change in charge classification.
appeal_1986_vaasa__1729
Court holds that thefts committed in the same building and during the same incident constitute a single crime.
appeal_1983_helsinki__189
Court dismisses theft charges where defendant stole construction materials using his own excavator on a site where he worked.
kko-precedent_1994_66
Supreme Court reduces theft charge to simple theft because stolen weapons were not extremely valuable to the owner.

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 anastanut usealla eri kerralla eri myymälöistä vähäisinä pidettäviä määriä omaisuutta, muun muassa postimerkkejä, puukkoja, olutta, tupakkaa, elintarvikkeita, vaatteita ja bensiiniä. Kysymys siitä, oliko anastuksia kokonaisuutena arvostellen pidettävä vähäisinä.

RL 28 luku 3 § 1 mom