7.11.2025

Stricter penalties under new sanctions violation regulation – corporate fines of up to EUR 40 million

The new Finnish regulation on sanctions violations entered into force on 20 May 2025. The new statutory definitions under the Finnish Criminal Code place higher liability on companies with respect to sanctions compliance. Criminal liability of companies increased, and corporate fines for sanctions violations could now amount to as much as EUR 40 million. For companies, it is more important than ever to keep a keen eye on sanctions and ensure compliance with sanctions regulations in all their business operations.

The new regulation is based on Directive (EU) 2024/1226 on sanctions violations, which aims to ensure that violating sanctions is criminalised in all Member States and that the related penalties meet a common minimum standard. Finland transposed the obligations under the Directive through amendments to the Criminal Code, resulting in a significant increase in the penalties that can be imposed for violating sanctions.

New offences: sanctions offence, aggravated sanctions offence, negligent sanctions offence and sanctions violation

Prior to the amendment, sanctions violations were punishable as regulation offences, but this is no longer the case.

The amendment added four new offences into chapter 46 of the Finnish Criminal Code: sanctions offence, aggravated sanctions offence, negligent sanctions offence and sanctions violation

  • A sanctions offence is an act in violation of imposed sanctions. This includes, among other things, making funds or economic resources available for the benefit of a sanctioned person and violating import and export embargoes imposed under sanctions regimes.

  • A sanctions offence is considered aggravated if, in the violation of sanctions, considerable economic benefit is sought, the offence concerns considerably valuable assets, military equipment or dual-use items, or the offence is committed in a particularly premeditated manner. The offence must also be assessed as aggravated when considered as a whole.

  • A negligent sanctions offence is committed when the violation of sanctions is committed through gross negligence and concerns military equipment or dual-use items. This is a new provision that tightens the regulation – previously, criminal liability for sanctions violations required intent.

  • A sanctions violation is a less severe form of a sanctions offence. It covers acts involving assets of minor value and acts that are otherwise of minor importance. 

The new offences also apply to the circumvention of sanctions. For example, delivering goods with the knowledge that the goods will eventually end up in a country subject to sanctions may become punishable under the new regulation on sanctions violations.

Increased penalties highlight the importance of complying with sanctions in business operations

As a result of the amendment, a company that breaches or circumvents sanctions may be issued a corporate fine with a maximum amount that derogates from a typical corporate fine: 5% of the company’s turnover. Regardless of the turnover, the maximum monetary amount of the corporate fine is no less than EUR 850,000 and no more than EUR 40 million. The minimum amount is EUR 850, which means that, depending on the size of the company’s turnover, the fine can range from EUR 850 to EUR 40 million.

Increasing the maximum amount of corporate fines for sanctions violations is a significant change from the previous provision, under which corporate fines ranged from EUR 850 to EUR 850,000. This stricter maximum amount emphasises the responsibility of companies for their actions and guides them towards preventive measures in complying with sanctions legislation. A challenge in its own right is the ambiguity of sanctions regulation, resulting in a heightened importance of risk assessments in business decisions.

For natural persons, the maximum penalty for violating sanctions can be imprisonment, which is why company management must oversee and monitor sanctions compliance with particular care.

The continuous expansion of sanctions regulation, the specification of the elements of a criminal offence and the new maximum corporate fine emphasise that compliance with sanctions is more than just an administrative obligation. Companies need to make sure that their internal processes, guidelines, screening mechanisms, and staff competence meet regulatory requirements proactively, comprehensively, and consistently.

Increased focus on up-to-date and comprehensive compliance and sanctions processes

It is more important than ever for companies to stay up to date on sanctions developments and ensure compliance with sanctions regulation, which is enforced by criminal investigation authorities – the police and Customs. Companies need to ensure that their compliance and sanctions processes and guidelines are up to date and comprehensive, and train their staff so that everyone has the sanctions knowledge required for their role. Sanctions processes are particularly important for companies engaged in international trade.

If a sanctions violation is taken to a criminal investigation, one of the aspects the authorities will assess is the effectiveness and adequacy of the company’s compliance processes. The currency and effectiveness of these processes have a significant impact on how the authorities assess the intentionality of a possible violation – inadequate processes may indicate negligence or even wilful misconduct.

Effective and adequate compliance processes also play a key role in assessing the criminal liability of a company and its management. Effective internal screening systems and a clear allocation of responsibilities can protect not only the company itself but also its management from personal liability, whereas missing or inadequate processes can lead to liability for management if sanctions are violated. This is why compliance processes must not only be sufficiently comprehensive, but companies must also follow them and update them regularly.

Reform of sanctions violation regulation emphasises risk identification

If there is a suspicion of a possible irregularity in the company’s internal guidelines or processes, or of a sanctions breach, the matter must be thoroughly investigated. Companies should have a low threshold for initiating internal investigations, as assessing the necessary actions in a consistent manner requires gathering sufficient information about the events.

Under certain conditions, a company may become liable also if its products end up in sanctioned countries through its customer or partner networks. This means that companies must seek to ensure, up to a certain point, that sanctions are complied with in their own supply chains and endeavour to ensure that they themselves do not become suspected of sanctions circumvention, for example, in matters involving their customer or partner networks.

As part of risk management, it is worth assessing whether an internal investigation should be entrusted to an external expert. It is important to document the internal investigation carefully so that the company can demonstrate that it has acted diligently.

The EU’s 19th sanctions package enters into force

In late October, the EU adopted the 19th package of sanctions against Russia, which entered into force on 24 October 2025. The new EU sanctions specifically target the energy sector, and its measures include the ban on imports of Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) as of 1 January 2027 for long‑term contracts and 25 April 2026 for short-term contracts. The sanctions package also seeks to further restrict the operations of Russia’s shadow fleet. Litasco Middle East DMCC, a Russian oil operator, was added to the sanctions list, and transaction bans on Rosneft and Gazprom Neft were tightened.

The package also expanded the product coverage of goods subject to export bans. As regards export restrictions, it is worth noting that the export ban on Belarus was also extended.

The EU was not the only one to introduce new sanctions in October – the US and the UK also implemented additional measures. For example, both countries added the Russian oil companies Lukoil and Rosneft to their sanctions lists. These listings also impact companies directly or indirectly owned by Lukoil and Rosneft.

Latest references

We delivered two AI workshops for Fortum Corporation’s Mergers and Acquisitions team, with both legal and business professionals participating. The sessions combined fundamental AI principles with custom use cases for commercially available AI tools tailored to Fortum’s needs. We also presented a bespoke solution merging AI with a script-based tool developed by our Legal Tech team, enabling a more automated way of working. Our experts conducted the training drawing on their legal background and leading experience in this emerging field of legal technology. Participants particularly appreciated the clarity and relevance of the implementations demonstrated. ‘C&S delivered an excellent, well-structured series of workshops, with directly applicable takeaways,’ says Sabina Hautaviita, Legal Counsel for M&A at Fortum.
Case published 9.3.2026
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
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
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