KKO: acquittal later does not undo dismissal for serious breach of duty

Finland's Supreme Court has held that an employer may dismiss an employee for misconduct linked to a suspected crime even where the criminal charge is later finally dismissed, provided the employer proves a serious breach of employment dutiesFinlex. In KKO:2026:65 the court set aside the Court of Appeal's judgment and left the District Court's outcome standingFinlex: the dismissal of a district manager was lawfulFinlex, and his compensation claim failed.

A had worked since 2008 as a district manager for B Oy, responsible fairly independently for machine sales and leasing. In a sale concluded on 6 March 2018 he accepted as a trade-in a Liebherr machine that the customer, C Oy, did not own: it belonged to a finance company, a fact A knew. Trusting the customer's word that the matter would be put right, A did not verify the transfer of ownership. He also entered the machine's model and serial number incorrectly in the contract and omitted its registration number, so B Oy's sales support could not detect the problem through normal routines.

A was relieved of his duties in November 2020 once B Oy learned of the suspicion. In February 2021 the prosecutor charged C Oy's managing director with aggravated embezzlement and A with negligent money laundering. In May 2021 the court convicted the managing director but dismissed the charge against A; that part became final in June 2021. B Oy had dismissed A in April 2021 with effect from October 2021, naming the charge against him among the dismissal grounds. The District Court found proper and weighty dismissal grounds, but the Court of Appeal held that mere reliance on the dismissed charge could not suffice and ordered compensation equal to 15 months' salary.

The Supreme Court, ruling for the first time on dismissal grounds where a charge is later finally dismissed, laid down three starting points. The assessment is an employment-law one, not a criminal-law oneFinlex. The presumption of innocence observed in criminal proceedings does not stop the employer from responding to the employee's conduct through employment-law measures while the criminal case is still pendingFinlex; in other words, the employer has no duty to wait for the criminal case to end in a final judgment before dismissing on the basis of that conductFinlex. And a later final dismissal of a charge does not by itself show the dismissal was unfoundedFinlex, particularly where breach of duty is shown but the same conduct is acquitted on a criminal-law assessment. The employer must, however, prove the breach it relies onFinlex.

Here A's post demanded heightened care and greater-than-usual trust. The suspected offence was in principle serious: negligent money laundering carries up to two years' imprisonment. The conduct exposed B Oy to the appearance that money laundering could occur in its operations, caused a 25,000 euro loss and risked reputational harm. Accepting a finance-leased machine was not unusual, but A should still have verified the transfer of ownership, and neither a long-standing customer's word nor practice relieved him of that. The recording errors were minor singly but together made the problem undetectable. A's thirteen years of faultless service counted in his favour but did not outweigh these factors, and no improper motive was shown.

Because the breach was so serious that the employer could not reasonably be expected to continue the relationshipFinlex, B Oy had neither to warn A with a chance to mend his ways nor to investigate reassignment before dismissing him.

Legal basis: Työsopimuslaki (55/2001) 7 luvun 2 §:n 1 momentti (127/2019) ja 5 momentti (55/2001), sovellettuina sellaisina kuin ne olivat voimassa 31.12.2025 saakka (laki 1390/2025, voimaan 1.1.2026).