Original in-game verdict

Background 1. The Finnish public prosecutor asks the Court to find Pohjankajo Data Oy criminally liable for work allegedly prohibited by a regulator’s suspension direction and to impose a corporate fine. The company asks that the charge and fine claim be rejected. 2. The direction required the company to suspend environmentally significant preparatory work while an assessment remained incomplete. It expressly allowed necessary maintenance of existing drainage. The dispute is whether the company’s later ditch-clearing work exceeded that exception. Issues for determination 3. The sole material issue is whether the prosecution proved that the ditch work went beyond necessary maintenance and therefore constituted prohibited preparatory work. The prosecution bears the burden of proving the required criminal elements under Rule 41, read with the supplied rules that a claim requires proof and suspicion is not enough. Submissions of the parties 4. The prosecution submits that the company received the direction and thereafter used a machine to clear an existing ditch. It argues that the work must be assessed against the direction’s limit, rather than accepted as maintenance merely because the company describes it that way. In its final submission, however, the prosecution acknowledged that the note does not state how much work was done and that the record does not reliably show that the work exceeded permitted maintenance. It sought liability and a fine only if the required elements were proved. 5. The defendant submits that the work was limited to managing standing water in the existing ditch, which it understood to be necessary maintenance. It says it did not extend or create drainage and argues that the direction did not define the maintenance boundary in detail. It asks the Court to reject the charge and corporate-fine claim. Evidence and findings 6. The written suspension direction, presented as exhibit-2-e1 and repeated in exhibits-3-e1, 5-e1, and 7-e1, establishes that environmentally significant preparatory work was to stop while necessary maintenance of existing drainage remained permitted. The direction does not define the boundary in detail. Its existence and terms are not materially disputed. 7. The contemporaneous site manager’s note, presented in exhibit-2-e2 and repeated in exhibits-3-e2, 4-e2, 5-e2, and 6-e2, records: “Machine: clear existing ditch; manage standing water.” It establishes that machine clearing of an existing ditch occurred after the direction and that the recorded purpose was managing standing water. The note is contemporaneous and therefore carries weight as to those points. It is brief, however, and gives no measurements, description of excavation, or other detail showing the extent of the work. It does not establish that the ditch was extended, that new drainage was created, or that the work otherwise exceeded maintenance. 8. The company’s attributed answers state that it understood maintenance to include clearing loose material from the existing ditch to let standing water drain, and that it believed clearing was necessary. Those answers are not independently verified documents or admitted witness testimony. They are relevant as the company’s account, but their weight is limited. The prosecution’s submissions are not evidence of additional work beyond what the note records. The prosecution expressly acknowledged that it has no reliable measurement or other proof showing that the work exceeded maintenance. Reasons 9. The prosecution has proved that the company received a direction allowing necessary maintenance while suspending other environmentally significant preparatory work, and that machine clearing of an existing ditch occurred afterward. Those facts alone do not prove the charge. The decisive question is whether the work crossed the line between the permitted and prohibited categories. 10. The note’s reference to clearing with a machine could be consistent with either more extensive preparatory work or ordinary maintenance. Its stated purpose—managing standing water—is consistent with the company’s maintenance explanation. The note does not say how much material was removed or describe any change to the ditch. The Court cannot infer prohibited work merely from the use of a machine or from the fact that clearing occurred after the direction, because the direction expressly allowed some maintenance. 11. The company’s account does not independently prove that the work was necessary or limited to loose material. But the company does not bear the burden of proving its innocence or disproving the prosecution’s case. The prosecution must establish the prohibited character of the work with reliable evidence. The uncertainty in the company’s account does not fill the evidentiary gap in the prosecution’s proof. 12. The direction’s lack of a detailed definition of maintenance does not, by itself, decide the case. The Court need not determine the precise boundary for every possible ditch-maintenance activity. On this record, the prosecution has not shown what work was done beyond the brief note’s description, or why that recorded clearing was outside the permitted exception. Rule 41 requires each criminal element to be supported by reliable evidence; the supplied proof rules likewise make clear that suspicion or an accusation cannot substitute for proof. The prosecution’s own final position recognizes that the record does not establish this element. 13. The issue is therefore not proven. Because the prosecution has not established that the work exceeded necessary maintenance, the charge cannot succeed. The corporate-fine request depends on a finding of corporate criminal liability and likewise fails. No amount for a fine is established in the record, and none is imposed. Final order 14. The charge against Pohjankajo Data Oy is dismissed. The prosecution’s request for a finding of corporate criminal liability is denied, and no corporate fine is imposed. No payment is ordered between the parties. This decision rests on the prosecution’s failure to prove that the recorded ditch clearing exceeded the maintenance permitted by the direction; it is not a finding that the company’s account of necessity was independently verified.