Dies ist eine HTML Version eines Anhanges der Informationsfreiheitsanfrage 'Zugang zu Dokumenten iZm. Whistleblowing u. Whistleblowerschutz'.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Providing an Alternative to Silence: 
 
Towards Greater Protection and Support for 
Whistleblowers in the EU 
 
 

COUNTRY REPORT: FINLAND 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


 
 
 
 
 
This report belongs to a series of 27 national reports that assess the adequacy of whistleblower protection 
laws of all member states of the European Union. Whistleblowing in Europe: Legal Protection for 
Whistleblowers in the EU,
 published by Transparency International in November 2013, compiles the 
findings from these national reports. It can be accessed at www.transparency.org. 
 
All national reports are available upon request at xx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Responsibility for all information contained in the report lies with the author. Views expressed in the report 
are the author’s own, and may not necessarily reflect the views of the organisation for which they work. 
Transparency International cannot accept responsibility for any use that may be made of the information 
contained therein. 
The project has been funded with support from the European Commission. The sole responsibility lies with 
the author and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use that may be made of the 
information contained therein. 
 
 
 
 
With financial support from the Prevention of and Fight against Crime Programme of the European Union. 
European Commission – Directorate-General Home Affairs 
 

Providing an Alternative to Silence: 
 
Towards Greater Protection and Support for Whistleblowers in the EU 
 
 

Research methodology for cataloguing and assessing  
whistleblower legislation in the EU-27 
 
 

May 2012 
 
I. Research objectives
 
 
This research project aims to identify and inventory whistleblower (WB) legislation (laws, 
rules, regulations, frameworks, etc.) in each EU country, and to assess them against the 
latest international best practices. 
 
The goals are to: 
 
pinpoint legislative and regulatory gaps around which advocacy efforts can be 
planned and implemented; 
 
highlight best practices currently being utilised and under consideration; and 
 
identify opportunities where the perception of whistleblowing and 
whistleblowers can be enhanced. 
 
The research findings will support broader efforts to implement and strengthen WB 
protection laws, empower whistleblowers to come forward, help to ensure that they are 
adequately protected from retaliation, and enhance the official and cultural appreciation of 
whistleblowing and its role in raising accountability in the public and private sectors. 
 
Questionnaire 
 
Depending on your country’s situation, not all of the questions will apply. Please note where 
a question does not apply or no information is available. Unless stated otherwise, these 
questions apply to laws and regulations for the public and/or private sector (some laws may 
apply to one or the other, or both, depending on the context). If needed, provide the 
information separately, depending on the sector to which it applies. 
 
Legislation, oversight and enforcement 
Do any specific laws or regulations (e.g. anti-corruption, civil service, witness protection, 
labour law) contain WB provisions? If so, do they cover the public sector, private sector or 
both – or portions of these?
 
 
Finland does not have any stand-alone WB law or similar law.  
 

No specific whistleblower protection system is in place in Finland. To protect persons report-
ing offences from retaliation, Finnish authorities rely on the provisions concerning victims 
and witnesses as well as provisions of administrative and labour law. The report of the UN-
CAC of Finland stated that fact that there are no specific rules for the protection of whistle-
blowers in labour and administrative law is a concern. 
(http://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/UNCAC/WorkingGroups/ImplementationReview
Group/ExecutiveSummaries/V1183525e.pdf) 
 
As stated in the OECD 3rd monitoring report on Finland regarding corruption: ‘Concerning 
the detection and reporting of foreign bribery, the Working Group is concerned by the lack of 
reporting mechanisms within key government agencies, including FINNVERA1, Ministry of 
Foreign Affairs and the Tax Administration. It recommends that Finland introduce 
appropriate measures to facilitate reporting by public officials to law enforcement authorities. 
Noting the absence of whistle blower protection, the Group further recommends that Finland 
introduce mechanisms to ensure that public and private sector employees who report in good 
faith and on reasonable grounds are protected from discriminatory or disciplinary action.’ 
(http://www.oecd.org/daf/briberyininternationalbusiness/anti-
briberyconvention/46212643.pdf)
 
 
In OECD 3rd monitoring report on Finland regarding corruption, the OECD stated as 
following: ‘There is no specific whistleblower protection system in Finland to protect from 
discriminatory or disciplinary action public or private sector employees who report in good 
faith and on reasonable grounds suspected acts of foreign bribery to competent authorities. 
Finnish authorities rely on the existence of some limited levels of witness protection, and the 
ability of employees who are dismissed without cause from employment to bring action 
against employers under labour laws in Finland and as a result of the strong union movement 
in Finland. Authorities further stated that corporate codes of conduct usually contain some 
form of accommodation for whistleblowers. The lead examiners also heard from civil society 
representatives that there is not a strong culture of blowing the whistle in Finland, and that 
there is instead a preference for the internal resolution of issues.’ 
(http://www.oecd.org/daf/briberyininternationalbusiness/anti-
briberyconvention/46212643.pdf)
 
 
As stated in the OECD 3rd monitoring report on Finland regarding corruption: ‘Despite these 
explanations, the OECD Working Group is again concerned that Finland’s position is out-of-
step with that of other Parties. The 2009 Recommendation, which reflects the development of 
standards by the Parties in this regard, calls on Parties to ensure that appropriate measures are 
in place to protect from discriminatory or disciplinary action public or private sector 
employees who report in good faith and on reasonable grounds to the competent authorities 
suspected acts of bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions 
(Recommendation IX(iii)). Witness protection provides limited protection in the context of 
judicial proceedings only. Labour laws only protected against dismissal and do not cover 
other forms of discrimination that may follow a whistle blower report. Civil society 
representatives referred, in this regard, to a high-profile case in which a company sought to 
sue an employee who leaked classified information which related to foreign bribery 
                                                           
1 Finnvera is a specialised financing company owned by the State of Finland. It provides its clients with loans, 
guarantees, venture capital investments and export credit guarantees. Finnvera is the official Export Credit 
Agency (ECA) of Finland. 

allegations. Corporate codes of conduct may assist, but this involves a deferral of 
responsibility by Finnish authorities which cannot guarantee a uniform and adequate level of 
protection. Furthermore, corporate codes of conduct do not cover the protection of public 
sector whistle blowers. Given the difficulties in detecting foreign bribery cases, the OECD 
Working Group considers this to be a significant deficiency in Finland‟s fight against foreign 
bribery.’ (http://www.oecd.org/daf/briberyininternationalbusiness/anti-
briberyconvention/46212643.pdf)
 
 
The OECD Working Group recommended that ‘The lead examiners recommend that Finland 
introduce mechanisms that are capable of ensuring that public or private sector employees 
who report in good faith and on reasonable grounds suspected acts of foreign bribery to com-
petent authorities are protected from discriminatory or disciplinary action. Once established, 
Finland should take steps to raise awareness of such mechanisms….Regarding whistleblower 
protection, the Working Group recommends that Finland introduce mechanisms to ensure 
that public and private sector employees who report in good faith and on reasonable grounds 
suspected acts of foreign bribery to competent authorities are protected from discriminatory 
or disciplinary action, along with appropriate measures for raising awareness of these mecha-
nisms (2009 Recommendation IX(iii)).’ 
(http://www.oecd.org/daf/briberyininternationalbusiness/anti-
briberyconvention/46212643.pdf)
 
 
Depending on the matter there are some regulations in Finland which may be directly or 
indirectly concern the WB issue. E.g. the regulations concerning the accountants’ duties to 
report or their regulations and practices. (Limited Liability Companies Act (separate annex), 
Accounting Act and Ordinance, and Auditing Act (no English translations available on these))  
 
Civil Servant Act/Valtion virkamieslaki 750/1994 (no English translation available) Chapter 
7, section 25, includes the allowed (and not allowed) grounds for dismissal for civil servants. 
Whistleblowing is not mentioned there. 
 
In Finland there are some regulations concerning the protection of witnesses but there is no 
separate  Witness  Protection  Law.  These  existing  regulations  in  question  can  be  found  from 
Criminal Investigations Act/ Esitutkintalaki (449/1987) (the Ministry of Justice was not able 
to provide the English translation about this law). 1.1.2014 there is going to be in force a new 
Criminal Investigations Act (English translation is not available of it either). The regulations 
in  Criminal  Investigations  Act  concern  the  publicity  of  the  pre-trial  investigation  process. 
Furthermore,  the  applicable  provisions  (e.g.  the  suppress  of  the  contact  and  personal 
information) can be found from Population Information Act/Väestötietolaki (661/2009). Also 
on  the  basis  of  Act  on  the  Publicity  of  Court  Proceedings  in  General  Courts/  Laki 
oikeudenkäynnin julkisuudesta yleisissä tuomioistuimissa (370/2007) (annexed) the publicity 
of the court documents may be restricted. 
 
Act  on  the  Publicity  of  Court  Proceedings  in  General  Courts  (annexed)  includes  provisions 
concerning the concealment of the contact details of witnesses. Also provision (31c) in Police 
Act (annexed – the new Police Act comes into force 1.1.2014 and of it no English translation 
is  available)  concerning  the  telecommunication  surveillance  may  be  employed.  The  Act  on 
the  Openness  of  the  Government  Activities  (annexed)  includes  provisions  concerning  the 
secrecy of the documents. 
 

‘Finland does not have a witness protection programme as such. Nevertheless, a certain de-
gree of witness protection can be afforded by relying on the nondisclosure of information 
concerning the identity and the whereabouts of witnesses to be heard during pre-trial investi-
gations and in court. As a relatively small and homogenous country with an extensive degree 
of transparency and high technology, a witness relocation programme would be very difficult 
to implement. In general, a pressing need for a relocation programme has not yet arisen – 
albeit there have been discussions about its introduction based on the identification of good 
practices in the EU….Finland is currently considering the adoption of an obligation for public 
officials to report corruption offences, or even a more general obligation to cover all offences. 
More generally, no specific whistleblower protection system is in place. To protect persons 
reporting offences from retaliation, Finnish authorities rely on the few provisions concerning 
victims and witnesses as well as provisions of administrative and labour law (Employment 
Contracts Act – separate annex).’ 
(http://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/UNCAC/WorkingGroups/ImplementationReview
Group/7-9September2011/V1183525e.pdf)
 
 
‘The UNCAC recommended Finland to Consider to adopt statistical information tools to 
monitor the witness protection policy, and, if appropriate, establish a witness protection pro-
gramme.’ 
(http://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/UNCAC/WorkingGroups/ImplementationReview
Group/7-9September2011/V1183525e.pdf)
 
 
The National Bureau of Investigation has a witness protection unit. But the information about 
it is not public. 
 
What comes to the witnesses in courts, Code of Judicial Procedure, Chapter 17, Section 34, 
states that: 
‘(1) A witness, another person heard for probative purposes and an injured party may be 
heard in the main hearing without the presence of a party or another person, if the court 
deems that this is appropriate and such hearing is necessary
 
(1) in order to protect the person being heard or a person related to said person in the man-
ner referred to in chapter 15, section 10, subsection 2 
(Failure to report a serious offence) of 
the Criminal Code, from a threat directed at life or health; (2) if the person being heard 
would otherwise not reveal what he or she knows about the matter; or (3) if a person disturbs 
or attempts to mislead the person being heard during his or her testimony.
 
(2) A party shall be reserved an opportunity to put questions to the person being heard. 
(3) A witness or other person may be heard in a hearing closed to the public, as provided in 
the Act on the Publicity of General Court Proceedings.’ 
 
In Finland there have been debates about possibility of the anonymous witnessing in courts, 
but I do not know whether there is some working group thinking this issue or not. In Finland 
there are security rooms in courts where the witness can be held without s/he exposing 
his/her faces to the defendant. 
 
With regard to the UNCAC requirements in the area of law enforcement, the report of the 
UNCAC made for Finland following recommendation: Explore the possibility of establishing 
a comprehensive system for the protection of whistle blowers. 
(http://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/UNCAC/WorkingGroups/ImplementationReview
Group/ExecutiveSummaries/V1183525e.pdf) 
 

Have any laws or regulations related to WB been formally proposed by, or submitted to, 
national legislative or administrative bodies since 2007? If so, what are their provisions, 
title and status?
 
 
There is currently a working group which task is to consider the possibility to introduce some 
regulations relating witness protection in Finland. There are yet no 
documents/papers/suggestions available concerning the work of this working group. But 
some documents may be available to public in November 2012. 
 
Concerning special WB laws, the OECD has recommended Finland to consider establishing 
some protection system for WBs. The only anti-corruption organ in Finland, the Anti-
Corruption Network has discussed on the matter relating the need to establish special laws 
concerning WB in Finland in its meetings. On basis of this discussion the Anti-Corruption 
Network tried to gain the issue to the Governmental Platform of the current Prime minister 
Jyrki Katainen Government but this attempt failed. 
 
Does the country have an independent agency, authority or official that receives and 
investigates complaints of WB retaliation or improper investigations? 

-No independent authority of this kind in Finland. 
-The local police investigates the crimes in Finland. The Police is the general criminal investigative 
authority and it is for the Police to detect and investigate corruption related offences (bribery, 
embezzlement, fraud, misuse of funds..) committed in Finland. 
-The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) is the national central authority in charge of the 
investigation of criminal cases having wide national significance or coverage or criminal cases with 
links abroad.  
-The prosecutor investigates the suspected crimes committed by police. 
Are there any civil, criminal, professional or other penalties for individuals who retaliate 
against whistleblowers?
 
 
Normal criminal and civil law provisions are applicable in here. Of course, there can be 
considered whether the provisions concerning discrimination, and also e.g. provision 
concerning disturbance of domestic peace (Chapter 21, sections 1-2, of the Finnish Criminal 
Code – annexed) could be applied here.  
 
Have there been any official or unofficial reviews of the effectiveness of whistleblower 
protection practices or agencies? If so, what are the findings? If not, how would you assess 
the effectiveness?
 
 
I far as I know there has not been any reviews in Finland concerning the effectiveness of 
whistleblower protection practices or agencies.  A private company BDO sells WB services to 
both private sector and public sector actors. I do not know whether they have made any 
reviews concerning Finland. 
 
Scope of application 

 
What types of disclosures are covered under whistleblowing (e.g. corruption, fraud, 
bribery, financial waste, dangers to public health, safety or environment)?
 
There  is  no  separate  law  on  wb  in  Finland,  but  following  laws  can  be  considered  in  regarding  this 
question: 
According to Finnish Criminal Code, the Chapter 15, section 10 ‘Failure to report a serious offence’ 
(563/1998): 
(1) A person who knows of imminent genocide, preparation of genocide, breach of the 
prohibition  of  chemical  weapons,  breach  of  the  prohibition  of  biological  weapons, 
compromising of the sovereignty of Finland, treason, aggravated treason, espionage, 
aggravated espionage, high treason, aggravated high treason, rape, aggravated rape, 
aggravated sexual abuse of a child, murder, manslaughter, killing, aggravated assault, 
robbery,  aggravated  robbery,  kidnapping,  hostage  taking,  aggravated  criminal 
mischief,  aggravated  endangerment  of  health,  nuclear  device  offence,  hijacking,  an 
offence  committed  with  terrorist  intent  referred  to  in  chapter  34  a,  section  1(1)(3), 
aggravated impairment of the environment or aggravated narcotics offence, and fails 
to report it to the authorities or the endangered person in time to prevent the offence, 
shall be sentenced, if the offence or a punishable attempt is committed, for a failure to 
report a serious offence to a fine or to imprisonment for at most six months.
 
(2) However, a person shall not be sentenced for a failure to report a serious offence, if, 
in  order  to  prevent  the  offence,  he/she  would  have  had  to  denounce  a  spouse,  a 
sibling, a direct ascendant or descendant, a person living in the same household or a 
person who is close owing to another comparable personal relationship.
 
In addition journalists have the right to protect their sources based on the Freedom of Speech Act 
§16 and the Code of Judicial Procedure.  
What types of individuals, if any, are covered as whistleblowers – beyond traditional 
employees (e.g. consultants, contractors, trainees, volunteers, temporary workers)?
 
 
There is no special WB law in Finland and thus no this kind of protection. 
 
Whistleblower protection provisions 
What types of retaliation and harassment are whistleblowers protected from  
(e.g. demotion, firing, unwanted transfer, stripping of job duties or benefits, reduction of 
pay, negative evaluations – or the threat of these)?
 
 
There is no special WB law in Finland and thus no this kind of protection. But see: 
Employment Contracts Act – separate annex and Civil Servant Act/Valtion virkamieslaki 
750/1994. 
 
Are whistleblowers specifically protected if good-faith disclosures are found to be 
incorrect or inaccurate?
 
 

There is no this kind of protection in Finland.   
  
Does the burden fall on the employer to prove that any action taken against an employee 
was motivated by reasons other than the employee making a disclosure?
 
 
There is no this kind of regulation in Finland. 
 
Procedures for disclosure
 
Do any WB laws include internal or external disclosure mechanisms? Do any external 
disclosure mechanisms allow disclosures to be made to NGOs, the media, trade unions, 
business associations or other “non-official” actors?
 
 
No this kind of regulation. However, the current legislation would enable some sort of a 
disclosure mechanism and the voluntary protection of WBs. 
 
Are certain types of disclosures prohibited or restricted (e.g. state secrets, business/trade 
secrets, confidential information)?
 
 
There is no this kind of regulation in Finland. 
 
List any hotlines/helplines, online disclosure forms or other publicly accessible disclosure tools. 

-In the Internet site of Police of Finland, there is possibility to give tips (concerning non-emergency 
information relating to crimes) to police also anonymously.  This site is called Nettivinkki (Net Tip). 
There is also an online possibility to report the offence to the Police. This can also be made 
anonymously. Also the Police can be telephoned and informed about the suspected crime. 
There are no hotlines available to general public to report wb in Finland. 
Relief, remedies and participation 
What types of remedies are available for whistleblowers (e.g. job reinstatement, lost pay, 
interim relief, future earnings, monetary reward, legal fees, pain and suffering)
 
 
None. But these can be executed voluntarily. Normal regulations concerning compensation 
for damage can be applied if someone has caused damage.  
 
Are there specific mechanisms for public sector whistleblowers to participate in follow-up, 
corrective action or policy reforms that result from their disclosures?
 
 
None. But these can be executed voluntarily. 
 
Are whistleblowers who have been retaliated against entitled to a fair hearing before an 
impartial forum, with full right of appeal (a “genuine day in court”)?
 
 
There is no this kind of regulation in Finland. 
 
Public awareness and societal values 
Briefly characterise the public and media perception of whistleblowing (i.e. “heroes” or “snitches”, 

or somewhere in between?). What are the cultural or political barriers/deterrents to 
whistleblowing? Include anecdotes if any. 

The media itself (by the means of the investigative journalism) has exposed some corruption cases 
e.g.  the case concerning the suspected bribery of foreign public officials by Finnish company in Costa 
Rica. Journalists have the right to protect their sources based on the Freedom of Speech Act §16 and 
the Code of Judicial Procedure. During the recent years Finnish media has been very active in 
exposing corruption related cases. The media in Finland works as a watchdog and I think that general 
public sees this being a good thing. 
Briefly characterise the perception of WB among political and economic leaders, and the level of 
political will to protect whistleblowers. Include anecdotes if any. 

In Finland there have not been much public/political debates about the need to establish a 
special WB protection law. 
What terms are used for “whistleblowers” or “whistleblowing” in your national language(s), what 
is the connotation, and how do the terms roughly translate into English? 

In Finnish language the direct translation for whistle-blower is pilliinviheltäjä and it is used very 
rarely. However, wording ilmiantaja (direct translation: a person who finds out something) is more 
commonly used. 
Cases 
If information is available, briefly describe: 
  one WB case that reveals loopholes in laws or regulations, and  
  one “successful” case in which a whistleblower was protected and the disclosure was fa-
vourably adequately acted upon 
 
No information available. 
If available, include any available statistics on the number/prevalence of WB (e.g. via ALACs or 
WB/corruption hotlines).
 
No information available. 
 
 
IV. Country report 
 
The research should be presented in a country report of approximately 8-10 pages (excluding charts). 
The report must include the following sections: 

 
1. Introduction (1 page) 
An overview/summary of key findings – including the general aspects, strengths and weaknesses 
of WB laws, regulations and protections; and perceptions of WB in the country. Very briefly include 
noteworthy legislation (passed, defeated, proposed), and statistics or anecdotes as appropriate. 

In Finland there is  no specific whistleblower protection system in  place, nor any legislation 
specially  concerning  wb.  To  protect  persons  reporting  offences  from  retaliation,  Finnish 
authorities rely on the provisions  concerning victims  and witnesses as well as provisions  of 
administrative and labour law. There are some regulations which may be directly or indirectly 
concern  the  WB  issue:  e.g.  the  regulations  concerning  the  accountants’  duties  to  report  or 
their regulations and practices.  
Neither  does  Finland  have  a  separate  witness  protection  programme  as  such.  However,  a 
certain  degree  of  witness  protection  can  be  afforded  by  relying  on  the  nondisclosure  of 
information concerning the identity and the whereabouts of witnesses to be heard during pre-
trial investigations and in court. 
There is currently a working group which task is to consider the possibility to introduce some 
regulations 
relating 
witness 
protection 
in 
Finland. 
There 
are 
yet 
no 
documents/papers/suggestions  available  concerning  the  work  of  this  working  group.  But 
some documents may be available to public in November 2012. 

 
2. A compilation, description and assessment of WB protection laws (5-6 pages) 
A detailed description of standalone WB laws and regulations (including title and year of 
passage/implementation), and any specific laws and regulations that include WB provisions. 
Include laws or regulations that have been formally proposed and their status. Use the chart to list 
the key provisions of each law or regulation. 
 
Finland does not have a stand-alone WB law. 

 
 
3. Perceptions and political will (1-2 pages) 
Describe the general perception of whistleblowing and whistleblowers among the general public, 
the media, and the public and private sectors. Describe the level of political will in 
protecting/supporting whistleblowers, and the willingness to carry out corrective action and policy 
reforms based on whistleblowers’ disclosures. Are there any unique or notable cultural or political 
barriers to or incentives for whistleblowing? Include any information on cases here. 

The  OECD  has  recommended  Finland  to  consider  establishing  special  protection  for  WBs. 
The only anti-corruption organ in Finland, the Anti-Corruption Network has discussed on the 
matter relating the need to establish special laws concerning WB in  Finland. An on basis of 
this  discussion  the  Anti-Corruption  Network  tried  to  gain  the  issue  to  the  Governmental 
Platform of the current Prime minister Jyrki Katainen Government but this attempt failed. 
 
It is very difficult to try to identify any cultural or political barriers for establishing the wb 
regulation in Finland.  In Finland there have not been much public/political debates about the 
need to establish a special WB protection law. 
The Finnish media has a strong role as a watchdog in Finnish society. The media itself (by the 
means  of  the  investigative  journalism)  has  exposed  some  corruption  cases  e.g.  the  case 
concerning  the  suspected  bribery  of  foreign  public  officials  by  Finnish  company  in  Costa 
Rica. Media reports actively about suspected cases of corruption. Journalists have the right to 
protect  their  sources  based  on  the  Freedom  of  Speech  Act  §16  and  the  Code  of  Judicial 
Procedure. During the recent years Finnish media has been very active in exposing corruption 
related  cases.  I  think  that  general  public  sees  this  active  role  of  media  in  exposing  cases  of 
corruption as a good thing. 
 

 
 
4. Strengths, weaknesses and recommendations (1-2 pages) 
Identify best  practices to be noted and  potentially emulated in other countries,  and weaknesses 
that should be addressed. Information on ongoing reform efforts and insights on routes to reform 
would be useful.
 
In  Finland  there  is  no  specific  whistleblower  protection  system  is  in  place.  Neither  does 
Finland have a separate witness protection programme as such. 
The  UNCAC  recommended  Finland  to  explore  the  possibility  of  establishing  a 
comprehensive  system  for  the  protection  of  whistle  blowers  and,  if  appropriate,  establish  a 
witness  protection  programme.  Regarding  whistleblower  protection,  the  OECD  Working 
Group  recommends  that  Finland  should  introduce  mechanisms  to  ensure  that  public  and 
private sector employees who report in good faith and on reasonable grounds suspected acts 
of foreign bribery to competent authorities are protected from discriminatory or disciplinary 
action,  along  with  appropriate  measures  for  raising  awareness  of  these  mechanisms  (2009 
Recommendation 
IX(iii)). 
(http://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/UNCAC/WorkingGroups/ImplementationReview
Group/ExecutiveSummaries/V1183525e.pdf) 
 
In Finland there should be carefully analysed whether the current regulations indirectly 
concerning the wb are sufficient or whether there would be a need for separate and specific 
legislation concerning wb. More political and public debates are needed on the matter.