Following orders does not absolve employees of criminal liability, says professor

Employees cannot avoid criminal responsibility by claiming they were following a superior’s orders, except in highly complex cases, according to criminal law professor Matti Tolvanen. He cited the recent discrimination case in Kontiolahti, eastern Finland, as a clear example, where a shopkeeper and an employee were convicted for refusing service to Romani customers.

The North Karelia District Court sentenced former shopkeeper Jari Venäläinen to 60 day-fines and an employee to 40 day-fines for discrimination after they denied Romani customers the right to purchase goods. The case stemmed from an incident in early 2024, where a Romani woman, Tamara Nyman, was refused service based on her ethnicity. Nyman recorded the encounter, and the video was later used as evidence in court.

Tolvanen, an emeritus professor of criminal law, stated that the employee’s conviction was justified, even though they acted on the employer’s instructions. “If an employer gives a clearly unlawful order, it must not be followed. An employer’s directives do not exempt an employee from criminal liability,” he said, comparing the situation to traffic violations: “If a transport company orders a driver to speed, the driver remains responsible.”

The professor emphasised that Finland’s anti-discrimination laws are unambiguous and widely known. “It’s part of general knowledge. The law contains an absolute prohibition on discrimination,” he said.

Tolvanen noted that courts frequently handle cases where defendants claim they were acting under orders. In such instances, supervisors often deny giving any instructions. He referenced a past case where a wedding service provider refused to serve a same-sex couple, which similarly involved discrimination.

While employees may avoid liability in rare, highly complex situations—such as unclear environmental regulations or EU directives—Tolvanen stressed that employers bear responsibility for interpreting such rules. In the Kontiolahti case, he supported the court’s decision to impose a stricter penalty on the shopkeeper than the employee, as issuing an unlawful order is more culpable than complying with it.

The verdicts are not yet legally binding. The case originated from earlier theft incidents in the store, but the court ruled that the employee did not suspect Nyman of shoplifting; rather, she was denied service solely because of her Romani background.