How to Report Trade Secret Theft in Finland: Step‑by‑step Guide for Companies & Executives

Understanding how to report trade secret theft in Finland is critical for any company that discovers, or suspects, that proprietary information has been unlawfully obtained, used or disclosed. Finland’s Trade Secrets Act (595/2018) provides both criminal sanctions and civil remedies, but the effectiveness of either track depends almost entirely on how quickly and methodically the injured company acts in the first hours and days after discovery. This guide sets out the complete, timed procedure, from immediate evidence containment through filing a police complaint, coordinating parallel civil relief, and navigating the pre‑trial investigation, so that general counsel, compliance officers and senior executives can move decisively when it matters most.

The procedural landscape is shifting: prosecutors are increasingly active in business‑related investigations, and 2026 practice developments around whistleblower protections and evidence‑preservation standards make early legal coordination more important than ever.

Overview of the trade secret theft procedure in Finland and who it applies to

Trade secret misappropriation in Finland is governed primarily by the Trade Secrets Act (595/2018), which transposed EU Directive 2016/943 into Finnish law. The Act prohibits the unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure of trade secrets and provides for injunctions, damages, corrective measures and, for the most serious conduct, criminal penalties. Criminal liability may arise under the Finnish Criminal Code when an act amounts to corporate espionage or a trade‑secret offence, carrying the possibility of fines or imprisonment.

The key actors in the reporting process are the injured party (typically the company that holds the trade secret), the Finnish Police (who conduct pre‑trial investigation), the National Prosecution Authority (Syyttäjälaitos, which decides on charges), and the courts, either a general district court or, for certain intellectual‑property matters, the Market Court (Markkinaoikeus). Where the misappropriation crosses national borders, EU mutual legal assistance instruments and, in some circumstances, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) may become relevant.

When to treat an incident as criminal versus an internal breach

• Criminal track. Pursue a criminal complaint when the conduct involves deliberate theft, espionage, or systematic exfiltration of trade secrets, for example, an employee copying confidential databases to a personal device before moving to a competitor. The Trade Secrets Act (595/2018) and the Criminal Code provide the statutory basis for prosecution.
• Internal‑only track. Where the incident is an accidental exposure, a minor policy violation without evidence of intent, or where the information does not meet the statutory definition of a trade secret (i.e., it lacks economic value, is not subject to reasonable confidentiality measures, or is publicly available), the matter may be resolved through internal disciplinary procedures without engaging police.

Eligibility and prerequisites for filing a criminal complaint about trade secrets in Finland

Before filing a police complaint, the company must satisfy itself on several prerequisites. These relate to standing, evidentiary readiness, and compliance with data‑protection obligations when gathering internal evidence.

Who may file a complaint

Under the Criminal Procedure Act (689/1997), an injured party, or an authorised representative, may file a criminal complaint with the police. In corporate cases this means the company itself, acting through a board member, general counsel, managing director, or an external lawyer holding a written power of attorney. Foreign companies may also file; there is no requirement for the complainant to be domiciled in Finland.

Evidentiary threshold and GDPR considerations

The police will assess whether there are grounds to open a pre‑trial investigation (esitutkinta). Companies should therefore present a complaint that is supported by at least preliminary evidence, access logs, forensic indicators, witness accounts, sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion. A bare allegation without supporting material is unlikely to result in an investigation being opened.

Critically, when collecting evidence from internal systems, including employee email, access logs, and device forensics, companies must comply with Finland’s data‑protection framework (the EU General Data Protection Regulation as supplemented by national provisions). The Office of the Data Protection Ombudsman has issued guidance on processing employee data; the legal basis will typically be the employer’s legitimate interest in investigating suspected criminal conduct, but proportionality must be documented and legal privilege over the internal investigation trade secrets materials must be maintained from the outset.

When to avoid immediate police reporting

In some situations, tactical considerations counsel against filing a police report immediately. If the company’s priority is to obtain an urgent civil injunction for trade secrets in Finland, for example, to prevent a competitor from launching a product based on stolen specifications, filing a civil application first may be preferable, because a parallel criminal complaint can sometimes complicate or delay civil discovery. Similarly, if there are ongoing safety risks (e.g., a suspect who may destroy evidence if alerted), coordinate with counsel to determine whether a simultaneous application for a court‑ordered search or seizure provides better protection.

How to report trade secret theft in Finland: step‑by‑step procedure

The following numbered procedure covers the full trade secret theft procedure in Finland, from initial containment through cross‑border evidence measures. The timeline table below summarises each step, the responsible party, and typical duration.

Step 0: Immediate containment and evidence preservation (first 0–48 hours)

Speed is decisive. Within the first 48 hours, the company should take the following containment and evidence‑preservation actions:

• Isolate affected systems. Disconnect compromised servers, endpoints or cloud instances from the network to prevent further exfiltration. Do not power down devices, a forensic image of a live system captures volatile data (RAM, active sessions) that is lost on shutdown.
• Disable suspect access. Revoke or suspend the suspect’s credentials, VPN tokens, cloud‑service accounts and physical access badges. Coordinate with HR so that this action aligns with employment‑law obligations.
• Instruct external digital forensics. Engage a qualified forensic firm to create bit‑for‑bit disk images with cryptographic hash values (SHA‑256). Maintain a written chain‑of‑custody log from the moment devices are secured, this is essential for admissibility in both criminal and civil proceedings.
• Preserve logs. Export and archive authentication logs, VPN connection records, email server logs, file‑access records (including cloud‑audit trails), and any version‑control repository activity. Ensure exports are in an immutable, timestamped format.
• Restrict internal disclosure. Limit knowledge of the investigation to a need‑to‑know group. Premature internal or public disclosure can tip off suspects and compromise evidence preservation in Finland.

Step 1: Internal fact‑gathering and legal triage (24–72 hours)

With evidence secured, the company should conduct a privileged internal investigation into the trade secrets matter. This involves:

• Documenting the trade secrets affected. Prepare a detailed description of each trade secret allegedly misappropriated, its nature, the date it was created or acquired, its economic value, and the confidentiality measures in place (access restrictions, NDAs, technical protections).
• Identifying the suspected actors. Map the individuals who had access, any unusual behaviour (large downloads, after‑hours access, cloud uploads to personal storage), and connections to competitors or third parties.
• Legal triage. Assess whether the facts support a criminal complaint, a civil action, or both. Identify statutory deadlines for injunctions and evaluate whether cross‑border elements exist. Instruct external counsel experienced in filing a police complaint in Finland for trade‑secret matters.
• Privilege audit. Ensure that the internal investigation is conducted under legal professional privilege. All memoranda, interview notes, and analyses should be clearly marked as privileged and addressed to or from counsel.

Step 2: File the police report / criminal complaint

The police report is the formal trigger for a criminal investigation. There are two ways to file a criminal complaint about trade secrets in Finland:

1. Online via Poliisi e‑services. The Finnish Police website provides an electronic reporting form at poliisi.fi. Complete the form with a factual narrative, attach supporting evidence, and identify the suspect(s) if known.
2. In person at a police station. For complex or high‑value cases, filing in person allows the complainant’s counsel to brief the receiving officer and request specific pre‑trial measures (e.g., search and seizure, travel bans).

A well‑prepared police complaint for trade‑secret theft should include the following elements:

• A concise chronology of events (dates, times, actors).
• A description of each trade secret, how it was protected, and why it meets the statutory definition under the Trade Secrets Act (595/2018).
• A summary of the evidence collected (reference forensic images, log exports, witness statements).
• Identification of suspects and their relationship to the company.
• A request for pre‑trial investigation measures, specifying any urgency (risk of evidence destruction, flight risk).
• Contact details for the company’s authorised representative and external counsel.

Step 3: Coordinate civil relief in parallel, injunctions and discovery

Criminal and civil proceedings are separate in Finland, and companies should pursue both tracks simultaneously where appropriate. An injunction for trade secrets in Finland can be sought from a district court or, for matters falling within its specialist jurisdiction, the Market Court (Markkinaoikeus).

Interim injunctions can prohibit the suspect (or a competitor) from using or disclosing the trade secret pending trial. Expedited hearings are available in urgent cases and can be obtained within days. When coordinating with the criminal track, take care not to disclose to the civil defendant evidence that the police intend to use in a surprise search, close liaison between criminal and civil counsel is essential.

Step 4: Work with prosecutors and investigators during the pre‑trial investigation (esitutkinta)

Once the police open a pre‑trial investigation under the Criminal Procedure Act (689/1997), the lead investigator will gather evidence, interview witnesses and suspects, and may execute search warrants or device seizures. The injured company’s role during esitutkinta is to cooperate with investigators, provide supplementary evidence as requested, and remain available for witness interviews.

Upon completion of the pre‑trial investigation, the police forward the case file to the National Prosecution Authority (Syyttäjälaitos), which decides whether to press charges. The prosecutor may request additional investigation, dismiss the case if the evidence is insufficient, or proceed to trial. Industry observers expect that in 2026, prosecutors are coordinating earlier with police on business‑related investigations, requesting involvement during, not only after, the pre‑trial phase.

Step 5: International evidence measures, cross‑border seizure and MLATs

Where the misappropriation involves foreign actors, servers located outside Finland, or disclosure to an overseas competitor, cross‑border seizure of evidence becomes necessary. Finland participates in EU mutual legal assistance frameworks under Directive (EU) 2016/943 and other instruments. The prosecutor or police can issue or receive European Investigation Orders (EIOs) to obtain evidence from other EU Member States. If the case involves an EU financial‑crime element, EPPO may assume jurisdiction.

Companies should instruct local counsel in the relevant foreign jurisdiction to coordinate with Finnish authorities and, where necessary, seek parallel preservation orders abroad. Translation, legalisation and dual‑criminality requirements can extend timelines significantly.

Required documents and evidence for reporting trade secret theft

Thorough evidence preservation in Finland is the foundation of both criminal prosecution and civil recovery. The table below lists the documents and information companies should assemble before, or immediately after, filing a police complaint.

Timeline and key deadlines for the trade secret theft procedure in Finland

There is no single statutory clock governing the entire process from complaint to verdict. Timelines depend on the complexity of the case, the volume of evidence, the number of suspects, and whether cross‑border cooperation is required. The following table provides realistic ranges based on typical Finnish business‑crime investigations under the Criminal Procedure Act (689/1997).

Escalation checklist

Use the following triggers to determine when to bring in additional resources:

• Engage external counsel, as soon as trade‑secret theft is suspected and before any evidence is collected from employee devices or communications.
• Instruct digital forensics, within the first 24 hours, before any systems are modified, rebooted, or returned to normal operation.
• Notify the board / audit committee, within 48 hours if the incident is material (significant economic value, public‑company disclosure obligations, or reputational exposure).
• Engage PR / crisis communications, before any information becomes public, particularly for listed companies with continuous‑disclosure obligations.

Costs, fees, and financial considerations

Reporting trade secret theft and pursuing enforcement involves significant expenditure. The company bears these costs upfront; partial recovery may be available through civil damages awards or cost orders if litigation succeeds. All figures below are indicative estimates for Finland and will vary by case complexity.

What changes in 2026: enforcement trends and practical impacts

Several developments in 2025–2026 are reshaping how companies should approach reporting trade secret theft in Finland. While the statutory framework under the Trade Secrets Act (595/2018) remains substantively unchanged, the enforcement environment has shifted.

The National Prosecution Authority (Syyttäjälaitos) has increased its focus on business‑related criminal investigations, and early indications suggest that prosecutors are requesting involvement at earlier stages of the pre‑trial investigation, coordinating with police during, rather than only after, evidence collection. The likely practical effect for companies is that complaints will receive more structured engagement from prosecutors, but also that prosecutorial expectations for the quality of initial evidence packages are higher.

The interplay between trade‑secret protection and whistleblower legislation has also been clarified through recent practice developments. Companies must ensure that their internal investigation trade secrets procedures do not inadvertently penalise employees who report wrongdoing through legitimate channels. Mishandling whistleblower complaints can create separate liability and undermine the credibility of the trade‑secret claim.

Actionable steps for 2026 readiness:

• Preserve logs immediately and automatically. Implement automated, tamper‑proof log retention for all critical systems, do not rely on manual preservation after an incident.
• Document whistleblower channels. Maintain clear records showing that reporting channels comply with Finnish and EU whistleblower requirements, and that no complainant has been subjected to retaliation.
• Maintain a privilege audit trail. From the first moment of an internal investigation, document who directed the investigation, who received privileged communications, and how privilege was maintained, prosecutors may challenge privilege claims that are poorly documented.

Common pitfalls when reporting trade secret theft, and how to avoid them

• Spoiling forensic evidence through uncontrolled access. Allowing IT staff to “take a quick look” at a suspect’s laptop before a forensic image is taken can alter metadata, overwrite deleted files, and render the evidence inadmissible. Mitigation: instruct external forensics before anyone accesses the device.
• Premature public disclosure. Issuing a press release or internal all‑staff communication about the theft before evidence is secured can alert suspects, trigger evidence destruction, and complicate civil proceedings. Mitigation: restrict knowledge to a need‑to‑know group until counsel advises otherwise.
• Failing to maintain legal privilege. Internal investigation memoranda, interview notes, and legal analyses lose privilege protection if they are shared with non‑privileged recipients (e.g., circulated to the entire management team). Mitigation: mark all documents as privileged, address them to counsel, and control distribution strictly.
• Ignoring GDPR when collecting employee data. Accessing employee personal email, monitoring private communications, or imaging personal devices without a lawful basis and proportionality assessment can expose the company to data‑protection complaints and may taint evidence. Mitigation: obtain legal advice on lawful processing grounds before collecting any personal data, and document the proportionality assessment.
• Delaying the police complaint. Waiting weeks or months to file a criminal complaint erodes the persuasiveness of the evidence, increases the risk of spoliation by suspects, and may lead police to question whether the matter is genuinely urgent. Mitigation: file within 72 hours once reasonable suspicion is established.
• Neglecting the civil track. Relying solely on criminal prosecution, without filing parallel civil claims for injunctions and damages, means the company has no direct control over the proceedings and no guaranteed route to financial recovery. Mitigation: instruct civil counsel to assess injunctive relief and damages at the same time as filing the criminal complaint.

Conclusion

Knowing how to report trade secret theft in Finland, and executing each step in the right sequence and timeframe, can be the difference between recovering proprietary information and watching it dissipate beyond reach. The process demands immediate containment, disciplined evidence preservation, a well‑drafted police complaint, and careful coordination between criminal and civil proceedings. With prosecutors taking a more active role in business investigations in 2026, the standard expected of corporate complainants is higher than ever: complete evidence packages, clean chains of custody, and documented compliance with data‑protection and whistleblower obligations.

Companies that invest in preparation, automated log retention, pre‑agreed forensic retainers, and standing relationships with experienced criminal counsel, will be best positioned to protect their trade secrets when a breach occurs. For those facing an active incident, the priority is clear: secure the evidence, instruct counsel, and file the complaint, in that order, and within hours, not weeks. Find a Finland criminal lawyer to begin the process.

Sources

1. Police of Finland, Report a crime
2. Finlex, Trade Secrets Act (Liikesalaisuuslaki) 595/2018
3. Finlex, Criminal Procedure Act (689/1997)
4. National Prosecution Authority (Syyttäjälaitos)
5. EUR‑Lex, Directive (EU) 2016/943 on trade secrets
6. Market Court (Markkinaoikeus)
7. Finnish Government, Data protection