Lappeenranta mayor criticises police over halted fraud investigation

Police have ended an investigation into suspected falsification of tax records in a public procurement process in Lappeenranta, Yle reported. Mayor Tuomo Sallinen criticised the decision, saying it could encourage attempts to cheat in future public tenders.

The suspected forgery was linked to a 2024 procurement process in which the city was seeking a partner to provide restaurant services at city hall, meeting catering, and intermission refreshments for the city orchestra and theatre.

The investigation was discontinued because the entrepreneur is also suspected of more serious offences that carry heavier penalties than falsifying tax records. Under legal practice, a preliminary investigation may be ended in such circumstances without the case being referred to a prosecutor.

“This sends a message that cheating may not necessarily have serious consequences,” Sallinen told Yle.

Police documents examined during the investigation suggested that the date on an electronic tax debt certificate had been altered after the document was issued. The suspected forgery made the company’s tax debt situation appear better than it was in the tender process.

According to an authentic certificate from the Finnish Tax Administration, the company owed about 100,000 euros in unpaid taxes and other charges when the tender was held in June 2024. The certificate submitted with the tender showed a debt of about 30,000 euros, corresponding to the company’s situation in March that year.

The March certificate appeared to have been altered to make it look as though it had been issued in June, when the company took part in the tender.

The city itself noticed the suspected forged document among the tender attachments. Sallinen acknowledged that the alleged attempt to cheat might also have gone unnoticed.

He said ending the investigation was problematic because it weakened confidence in the public procurement process. Sallinen added that a prosecutor could have reached a different decision and taken the matter to court.

Yle tried to contact the restaurant entrepreneur who was the subject of the criminal suspicion, but the entrepreneur did not respond. The company’s tender was unsuccessful.