What sources does Taxxa search?

Taxxa searches a continuously updated collection of more than one million pages from tax authorities, government publications, legislation and case law across the European jurisdictions it covers. Every response cites the underlying material, so a professional can inspect the rule, its jurisdiction and whether it is current before relying on the result.

Can Taxxa work with a team’s own documents?

Yes. Research can combine the public knowledge base with a team’s own PDF, DOCX, CSV and TXT files in one workspace. That makes it possible to compare a client document with the relevant guidance, trace a conclusion to its source and prepare a draft without losing the evidence that supports it.

Who is Taxxa built for?

Accountants, auditors, tax advisors, payroll specialists, bookkeepers and advisory teams working across European jurisdictions. Shared workspaces keep research available to colleagues, and citations make review easier.

Where is customer data stored, and is it used to train models?

Customer data stays in the European Union and is never used to train language models.

Does Taxxa replace professional judgement?

No. Taxxa is a research and drafting workspace. It helps professionals reach an informed starting point faster; the professional still reviews the evidence and makes the final decision. It does not file returns, post bookkeeping entries or give legal advice.

FinlandFinlex

Firewall evidence can lift sanctions freeze on listed person's companies

Non-listed companies presumed controlled by a listed person can rebut an EU asset freeze with credible proof that firewalls block the person's actual control — even with evidence from after the seizure.

By Taxxa AI OyPublished 4 November 2026

Financial Sector & Markets Legal & Corporate

Assets in Finland of companies that are not themselves sanctioned must still be frozen when a listed person owns or controls themFinlex, but the freeze falls away when credible evidence shows safeguards prevent the listed person from actually controlling the assetsFinlex. The Supreme Court applied that rule in KKO:2026:79Finlex to foreign companies X and Y, whose property had been seized for freezing under Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014Finlex.

A had been added to the annexed sanctions list on 9 March 2022Finlex. The Ministry for Foreign Affairs asked the Enforcement Authority on 10 March 2022 to enforce the regulation. The enforcement officer decided on 13 May and 1 July 2022 that X and Y were owned and controlled by AFinlex, and seized movable property of X stored in FinlandFinlex and a receivable of Y owed by a Finnish debtor, for freezing under Article 2(1)Finlex.

X and Y appealed. The District Court of Helsinki rejected the appealsFinlex on 29 November 2023, finding A kept dominant influenceFinlex and no verifiable safeguards removed that controlFinlex. The Court of Appeal reversedFinlex on 31 January 2025, finding safeguards kept assets from AFinlex and barred A from decisions and asset useFinlex, so it lifted the seizuresFinlex. The Supreme Court heard the Ministry's appeal on what weight such safeguards carryFinlex.

The starting point is strict. Under Article 2(1) all funds and resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by listed persons are frozenFinlex, and Court of Justice case law presumes assets of a company controlled by a listed person to be under that person's controlFinlex, so they must be frozen even though the company itself is not listedFinlex. That presumption can be rebutted by showing the listed person does not in fact control the company's funds or resourcesFinlex, assessed against governance and actual operating circumstances.

Firewalls have an explicit foothold in Article 6b(5)(d)Finlex, added by Council Regulation (EU) 2023/1215Finlex, which lets authorities release frozen funds where strictly necessary to establish or assess a firewall removing the listed person's control, so the entity can continue businessFinlex. The regulation does not detail effectiveness assessment. Commission guidance, including the 19 June 2020 opinion on Article 2 and the 29 November 2023 guidance on independent audit and national approval, does not bind the court but may be taken into accountFinlex, as KKO 2025:30 confirms.

On proof the court applied the credible-evidence thresholdFinlex: X and Y had to evidence the safeguardsFinlex, and once they did, the Ministry had to present counter-evidence casting doubt on effectivenessFinlex. Evidence is not frozen at the seizure datesFinlex; later-introduced safeguards may be shown on appealFinlex, and effective safeguards may be established even after freezingFinlex.

That decided the case. Y owns the other group companies including XFinlex and is domiciled in SwitzerlandFinlex. The group showed measures from March 2022 isolating sanctioned persons from decisions and asset flowsFinlex, audited retrospectively from 1 March 2022 by an external auditorFinlex. SECO accepted the procedures as effectiveFinlex and imposed long-term supervisionFinlex; Cyprus kept the Cypriot owner of Y under a special procedureFinlex; French, Belgian and Irish authorities assessed the safeguards as sufficientFinlex. A further audit report of 22 July 2025 showed continuous applicationFinlex, and the Ministry offered no counter-evidenceFinlex. The Supreme Court left the lifting of the seizures unchanged.Finlex

For practice, listed-person ownership or control triggers the freeze presumptionFinlex, but a documented, independently audited and authority-approved firewall evidenced through appeal can rebut itFinlex. Legal basis: Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, Article 2(1) and Article 6b(5)(d)Finlex; L eräiden Suomelle Yhdistyneiden Kansakuntien ja Euroopan unionin jäsenenä kuuluvien velvoitusten täyttämisestä, 2 b §.

Map any freeze touching a non-listed company against this firewall standard and assemble audited safeguard evidence, including post-seizure material, before challenging the freeze.

Sources

KKO:2026:79