Talk:Corruption in Finland

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mickeymaitre.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Corruption in Construction - Guggenheim -case
Janne Gallen-Kallela-Sirén and his wife received economical benefits from major YIT and Pöyry owner C–G Ehrnrooth. C–G Ehrnrooth was initiator of the Guggenheim Helsinki –Plan. He has in my opinion evident economical interests in the construction rather than the arts. The Parliamentary Ombudsman investigation in May 2013 reported that the art museum director Gallen-Kallela-Sirén was not neutral in his position. Also Vilnius Guggenheim Hermitage Museum plan was closed in the alleged illegal funds. Gallen-Kallela-Sirén received a new post in the USA. Guggenheim made a new proposal that is ongoing. It is equal to as Paul Krugman has written about the USA: There are no consequences of corruption to anyone. How can this be possible? How can Guggenheim do a new proposal after the negative evaluation of their honesty? Watti Renew (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Rock exploding
Heikki von Herzen the founde of Tapiola garden city Finland, considered it barbarous to explode the natural rocks. He stopped the initiatives in the 1960s. Alvar Aalto did as well. In the construction of Tapiola the key value was to take in consideration the nature. Olavi Louko is responsible of constrution and environmental protection. This should include the protection of rocks, e.g. Matinkylä shopping center. The last years in my opinion it almost seems the opposite since dozens of large construction projects both in Espoo in general and also in Tapiola are situated at place of rocks. This is common tendency in Finland. The major company that sells the exposives has leading market position in Finland according to competition authorities study. Its sales has increased annually ashtonishingly the last ten years. The persons in the board of directors are known businessmen, e.g. many years CEO Ehrnrooth. How can we ignore the values of the founder Heikki von Herzen in respect to the basic ideology of the garden city? Rocks are millions of years old he wrote. As it is it seems for me that Olavi Louko has recieved bribes from some rock exploders, based on the court decision of bribes in 2004-2008.
 * I question the environmental protection and all consideration of the interests of the habitants. I have red many times that the construction initiatives in Espoo ignore the statements of residents, and all neutral experts like museum experts, e.g. in case of Tapiola Garden Hotel. Tourists will be most unpopular for me with the dozens of ongoing hotel construction projects. Also tourism is one of the major responsibles of the climate change. In my opinion the hotels must also be in charge of the economical costs of climate change in future. Are there initiatives for this? Watti Renew (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Flood protection
Espoo and the Suprime Coart accepted a new hotel in the public swimming place of Tapiola. Also here all corruption claims of the residents were unevaluated in all levels of Justice. The place is highly subject to flooding. All coast line in Espoo is evaluated highly risky to flooding in the national report. As flood protection Olavi Louko will cut down all the sea shore trees and situate large construction projects in the sea shore areas. Is this not exactly what one should not do? Trees and land masses hinder flood. He also plan large underground construction. The biodiversity is protected by removing the bird loved plants in the sea shore that have been named by Hertzen as core values in the sea shore. All nature is substituted by man made "gardens".
 * Top of all one of the Supreme Coart decision makers as judge, had taken steps as a potential precident election candidate when making the decision. In my opinion this is in conflict with the principle of the separation of powers. Watti Renew (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

2013 Lichtenstein tax havens accounts
These included e.g. funds of Casimir Ehrnrooth, Bertel Paulig and a construction company owners in Turku. News claimed that no juridical consequenses is possible. Please ecxplain why? It was also stated that one police in Turku was central that these persons had tax haven funds with no juridical consequenses. How can one person have such a big role? In my understanding tax office decisions are not juridical but administration decisions. Thus tax office decision would not be in conflict with the juridical claims. What are the results of the hidden funds in Lichtenstein tax haven abroad? Watti Renew (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Even if the juridical matter is not public, would it not be easy to find out the persons involved from the tax declations? Paid taxes are public. With the known names one could estimate the year of interest. There are not many people that own millions in cash in this country. Some persons involved may be found from the public registers. Watti Renew (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * When only consequence was 1 % interest rate of the hidden funds, it was cheap loan, was it not? For equality Finnish state should provide all citizens unlimited amount of loan with 1 % interest rate. Have I undesrstod this correct? Watti Renew (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * In my opinion the police and juridical experts have key responsiblity of the justice. If hidden taxes is not punished at all it is in my opinion political and juridical corruption. The reasoning that after administrative taxes, that are obligatory, juridical claims are not possible is in my opinion not sound. Finnish police should take more responsibility of the economical crimes, and not give the responsibility to third parties. E.g. private persons have no funds to make charges of the construction company corruption claims. In my experience the administrative Coart ignore corruption claims. Watti Renew (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Chancellor of Justice of Finland
Total tax deficit is annually €4.6-7.7 billion. The 2008 Liechtenstein tax affair was the largest known tax avoidance case. It is thus pattern-setting model. Hidden funds were €50-60 million. The profit if not found was €10 million. As found the lost was €0.5 million and unlike other criminalities the names were not published. There is hardly any other investment with as high priofit and low risk. Watti Renew (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Media and professors can not judge the independence of the decision of the coart. There is high public concern of the democracy. Chancellor of Justice of Finland should assess the case. Did the case promote the collection of hidden funds (more than 10 % of total taxes) in future as intended? Is goal to collect the taxes at the time the social security is heavily cut beacause lack of funds? Since the decision is not public, please give good reasons why not? In my opinion it should be in order to prevent corruption. Watti Renew (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Since the decision is not public, Chancellor of Justice is the only person able to access it. Watti Renew (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Tax havens
In Finnish media it is repeated that tax administration by removing the revenues in the low tax countries is legal. So is consideration tax. The tax office have right to act any tax it finds correct without any documents. Why this is not used to tax the revenue that should be taxed in Finland? Consideration tax is rutinely used for small income citizens and organizations. Watti Renew (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Birthday presents to the member of parliament: According to Finnish Supreme Court it was no bribe and need no info to voters when the construction company paid a politician €60,000 as present
As I understood according to Finnish Supreme Court it was no bribe when the construction company gave a politician Ilkka Kanerva €60,000 as a birthday present. Is this same in other countries? in Finland the justice must be same for everybody. Thus correspondingly, if I understand this, every construction company have right to give annually at least €60,000 birthday presents for every member of parliament without any notice to the public of the funding. In Finland we have low corruption, would this interpretation of a monetary present be same abroad? REF Nova-jupakalle lopullinen piste: "Huojentava päätös" yle 30.4.2014 Watti Renew (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Corruption in Finland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120713090746/http://omakaupunki.hs.fi/paakaupunkiseutu/uutiset/helsingin_rakennusvirastosta_erityistilintarkastus/ to http://omakaupunki.hs.fi/paakaupunkiseutu/uutiset/helsingin_rakennusvirastosta_erityistilintarkastus/
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20131213160950/http://prod07.tjhosting.com/Espoo/Epadyna/intrakun_e.nsf/3e12a7fcbc9e6736c22569d90040f1cd/89aa055bcb125f3fc22577820026adb1?OpenDocument to http://prod07.tjhosting.com/Espoo/Epadyna/intrakun_e.nsf/3e12a7fcbc9e6736c22569d90040f1cd/89aa055bcb125f3fc22577820026adb1?OpenDocument

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)