The District Court of Lapland has sentenced Jukka Kristo to two years and six months of imprisonment in a criminal case concerning human trafficking. The charge of aggravated human trafficking was dismissed. The District Court ordered Kristo, Polarica Marjanhankinta Oy, and a Thai coordinator who acted as the company’s business partner to pay various compensations jointly and severally to the injured parties in the total amount of approximately EUR 500,000, and to reimburse the State for its legal costs. The claims for the forfeiture of criminal proceeds were dismissed. Polarica Marjanhankinta Oy was ordered to pay a corporate fine of EUR 150,000. The Thai coordinator was sentenced to nine months of unconditional imprisonment.
Kristo and Polarica Marjanhankinta Oy have expressed their dissatisfaction with the judgment. The judgment will be appealed to the Rovaniemi Court of Appeal. According to Kristo and the company, the District Court’s findings of guilt and the resulting judgment are incorrect.
Polarica Marjanhankinta Oy will examine the extensive judgment of the District Court in greater detail. As the judgment has not become final due to the intended appeals, it will have no impact on the company’s operations. The judgment and the events underlying it relate to an earlier operating environment, and the company has continuously developed its operations in accordance with the instructions and regulations issued by the authorities.
“The judgment appears to follow the earlier decision rendered in the Kiantama case, and for that reason the outcome was not surprising. Consistency in the judicial practice in similar cases often leads to similar outcomes. It is noteworthy that the charge of aggravated human trafficking was dismissed. In any event, the case will be reassessed and decided in its entirety by the Court of Appeal. We disagree with the District Court’s judgment and its conclusions in all respects,” states Attorney at Law, laamanni Kai Kotiranta, counsel for Kristo and Polarica Marjanhankinta Oy.
“The industry and its operating practices have been subject to particularly close supervision and guidance by various authorities before, during, and after each berry-picking season, especially following the enactment of the Berry Act. However, during the relevant period, the authorities did not identify any deficiencies or misconduct in the company’s operations. In addition, the company’s operations have been continuously audited both internally and externally and have also been reviewed by customers. From this perspective, the criticism expressed in the judgment appears unusual when assessed retrospectively. The company will now carefully review this criticism,” states Kotiranta.
Neither Kristo nor Polarica Marjanhankinta Oy will comment further on the matter in public.