The Finnish Government submitted a bill for a new act on the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing to Parliament at the beginning of November. The new Anti-Money Laundering Act is based on the fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, which was drafted with consideration to the recommendations of the OECD’s Financial Action Task Force, founded to counteract money laundering and terrorist financing.
19.12.2016
Finnish Anti-Money Laundering Act Reformed: New Obligations, Tightened Supervision
Related services
This article presents the key obligations imposed on Finnish entities by the new Act. The parliamentary review of the Government Bill is still ongoing, but the Act is intended to enter into force at the beginning of 2017. At that moment, Finnish entities must comply with the requirements cited in this article, unless the text suggests otherwise.
All Entities Must Declare Their Beneficial Owners
Most of the amendments to the existing anti-money laundering provisions only concern entities that have a statutory reporting obligation (see list below), but there is one significant exception: the new Act obliges all legal persons to report their beneficial owners to registers maintained by the Finnish Patent and Registration Office. The details of the beneficial owners must be submitted to the register by 30 June 2019. Based on the Government Bill, the obligation to report beneficial owners would not concern companies listed on a regulated market.
In the Anti-Money Laundering Act, a beneficial owner refers to a natural person who owns or otherwise controls a legal person. As regards entities, persons holding more than 25% of the entity’s ownership or voting rights are considered beneficial owners. If such a share is held by another legal person, the entity must establish who the natural persons are who are able to make independent decisions in the holding entity. When determining the beneficial owners, entities must bear in mind that positions of control can also be based on, e.g. a shareholders’ agreement.
The following graph illustrates the obligation to report beneficial owners.
Overall, the amendments will make it easier for obliged entities to determine the beneficial owners of their customers by making the information available in a public register. However, it is worth noting that the authorities will not verify the information when it is entered into the register. This is why obliged entities should contact their customers directly to make sure the information is up to date. In addition, they should take into account that the information in the register of beneficial owners only covers the immediately following tier seen from the company in question. Complex ownership structures will still require additional investigation from obliged entities.
Statutory Identification Obligation to Be Based on the Entity’s Own Risk Assessment
The key obligations in the Anti-Money Laundering Act are customer identification and due diligence and the obligation to report suspicious transactions to the Financial Intelligence Unit of the Finnish National Bureau of Investigation. The provisions of the existing Act are fairly clear as to when and in what scope the obliged entities must identify their customers. In the future, the identification and due diligence obligation will be based on risk assessments performed by the entities themselves.
The risk assessment must be made in writing and cover risk factors relating to the obliged entity’s customers, countries or geographic areas, products, services, transactions or delivery channels. The Act requires obliged entities to have in place policies, controls and procedures to mitigate and manage effectively the risk factors identified in their operations. Obliged entities must also monitor and develop these policies, controls and procedures.
Those preparing a risk assessment should remember that the Act also requires a national risk assessment, which is to be prepared by the Finnish Ministry of the Interior. In addition, supervising authorities are obliged to make a risk assessment of the entities under their supervision. The national risk assessment and the supervisor’s risk assessment will probably provide a good starting point for the individual risk assessments of obliged entities. For example, according to Finland’s national risk assessment for money laundering and terrorist financing of 2015, the key risk items are generally related to real estate investments, transport of cash, front companies, online services, online shadow financial markets and customer fund accounts.
Obliged Entities Must Have Whistleblowing Channels
Many companies have opened various kinds of whistleblowing channels to make sure that their operations comply with the law as well as their internal policies. Finnish law already contains statutes that require whistleblowing channels in certain instances. Under the new Anti-Money Laundering Act, obliged entities will also have to establish an independent and anonymous whistleblowing channel for the reporting of suspected breaches of the Act.
When implementing these channels, companies must consider not just technical issues but also the requirements of data protection and employment laws. They should also prepare clear instructions on the use and purpose of the channel.
Administrative Sanctions Toughened and Made Public
Recent regulatory developments have tended towards toughened sanctions, which contributes to the prevention of violations. In the same vein, the sanctions provisions of the new Anti-Money Laundering Act are stricter than those of its predecessor. Furthermore, sanctions will in most cases be made public by the supervising authority.
The Government Bill proposes that the competent authority be given powers to impose a penalty payment on an obliged entity that intentionally or negligently breaches or fails to observe any of its following obligations under the law:
The penalty payment ranges between EUR 5,000 to EUR 100,000 for legal persons and between EUR 500 and EUR 10,000 for natural persons.
However, according to the Government Bill, obliged entities could be ordered to pay penalties much more severe than these if they intentionally or negligently commit serious, repeated or systematic breaches of the above requirements (with the exception of registration in the supervisory register). In this case, the penalty payment could be one million euros or max. twice the amount of the benefit derived from the breach, whichever sum is larger. The most severe penalties would be reserved for credit and financial institutions, which would pay max. five million euros or 10% of their turnover in the previous year, whichever is larger.
In addition, the competent authority can issue a public warning to an obliged entity for an intentional or negligent breach of its other obligations.
Concluding Remarks
It is estimated in the Government Bill that there will be almost 70,000 obliged entities in Finland alone. These entities should, obviously, evaluate the obligations created by the new Act as well as their practical fulfilment. The Act will also be visible in the daily lives of each entity and citizen through the increasing number of requests for information from obliged entities.
Latest news
Latest references
VR – Supreme Court decision clarifies working time practices
We successfully represented VR Group before the Supreme Court in a case concerning the meal break practice of commuter train drivers. On 6 February 2026, the Supreme Court ruled in VR’s favour (decision KKO:2026:12), confirming that VR had the right to amend the commuter train drivers’ meal break practice in 2021 by rendering the break unpaid in accordance with the applicable collective agreement. This decision clarifies the interpretation of collective agreements and employment legislation as well as the limits of the employer’s right to direct work. Over 250 commuter train drivers challenged the unpaid meal break practice which VR introduced in April 2021. Before the change, meal breaks had a long history of being paid. The change was based on the train drivers’ collective agreement, which allows for meal breaks to be organised either as paid or unpaid time. The Supreme Court ruled that the scheduling and managing of breaks falls within the core area of the employer’s right to direct work. This increases the threshold for an established practice becoming a binding condition for the parties. Merely following a practice consistently and over a long period of time does not make the practice binding; instead, the employer’s intent to commit to the practice must be clearly evident from the employer’s conduct or other circumstances. As both alternatives – paid and unpaid – for organising meal breaks had been retained in the collective agreement despite other amendments over the years, it could not be considered that VR had intended to commit to the paid break practice and waive its right to direct work as regards break scheduling. It was also significant that the employment contracts explicitly referred only to the collective agreement as regards working time. The Supreme Court deemed that the employees’ paid meal break was not an established term of employment and that VR was entitled to change the practice based on the collective agreement. The employer had the right, by virtue of its right to direct work, to unilaterally change the meal break practice by choosing to apply the other arrangement permitted by the collective agreement.
Case published 3.3.2026
CapMan Growth – Investment in Kuntokeskus Liikku
We are assisting CapMan Growth in its significant investment in Kuntokeskus Liikku, a Finnish gym chain known for its high-quality self-service facilities and excellent value for money. The investment will further strengthen Liikku’s position as a market leader and support the continued execution of its growth strategy. Liikku is one of Finland’s leading fitness chains, with more than 70 locations across the country serving nearly 90,000 members. The company’s concept is to offer high-quality self-service gyms at an exceptionally competitive price point which, combined with strong operational efficiency, provides a solid foundation for profitable growth. The company’s main shareholder is COR Group, a long-time partner of CapMan Growth, and a Finnish health and wellness conglomerate known for active ownership and long-term value creation. CapMan Growth is a leading Finnish growth investor that makes significant investments in entrepreneur-led growth companies with a turnover of €10–200 million. CapMan Growth is part of CapMan, which is a leading Nordic private equity investor engaged in active value creation work. CapMan has been listed on the Helsinki Stock Exchange since 2001.
Case published 27.2.2026
Terrafame – Environmental and water management permit processes concerning the company’s entire operations and the KL1 side rock area
Castrén & Snellman successfully assisted Terrafame Ltd in environmental and water management permit processes concerning the company’s entire operations and the KL1 side rock area, on which the Supreme Administrative Court issued its decision on 12 February 2026 (KHO 366/2026 and 367/2026). The changes made to the decisions of the Vaasa Administrative Court as a result of Terrafame’s appeals, enable the company to implement its new strategy and develop its operations as planned. The decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court brought the nearly ten-year-long permit process to a close.
Case published 20.2.2026
Plastep – Sale of share capital
We advised Plastep Oy and its shareholders in the sale of the entire share capital of the company to FinnProfiles Oy. The acquisition strengthens FinnProfiles’ position as a Nordic expert in sealing and insulation solutions and expands the company’s expertise in the manufacture of plastic products and technical components. Plastep, founded in 2001 and based in South Savo, is a contract manufacturer specialising in the design and production of demanding and technical plastic components, with a turnover of EUR 6.5 million.
Case published 18.2.2026