FINLAND Law and Practice Contributed by: Jon Hautamäki, Max Atallah and Mikael Huhtala, Nordic Law
1.1.4 Smart Contracts There is no regulation in Finland explicitly prohibiting smart contracts, and they are generally capable of being enforced under Finnish law provided they sat- isfy the same fundamental requirements applicable to contracts generally. Finnish contract law, primar- ily governed by the Contracts Act (228/1929), does not prescribe a specific form for most agreements. A smart contract can therefore constitute a legally bind- ing contract if the core elements of offer, acceptance, mutual intention to be bound, legal capacity and law- ful subject matter are present. Where a smart contract operates fully automatically, care must be taken to ensure that automated execution genuinely reflects the parties’ mutual intentions and that terms are suf- ficiently clear and determinable. The EU Data Act, applicable from September 2025, has introduced specific requirements for smart con- tracts within its scope, including mechanisms to cease ongoing execution, internal termination functions and suspension capabilities to prevent unintentional exe- cution. These requirements serve both as a compli- ance framework and as a practical guide for ensuring smart contracts operate as the parties intend. Sector-specific obligations apply depending on con- text. Smart contracts used in connection with crypto- asset services, payment services or investment activi- ties must additionally comply with MiCA, DORA and other applicable financial regulatory frameworks. Areas of ongoing legal uncertainty include smart con- tracts interacting with DeFi protocols or operating across multiple jurisdictions, where questions of appli- cable law, jurisdiction and identification of contracting parties remain difficult to resolve. No specific Finnish judicial or regulatory guidance has been issued on these points to date. 1.1.5 Industry and Trade Bodies Finland does not have a self-regulatory organisation that produces formal, binding self-regulation specific to crypto-assets or blockchain. Regulation and super- vision of regulated financial activities are primarily car- ried out by FIN-FSA, particularly where activities fall within MiCA or other financial-services regimes, while
other authorities may be relevant depending on the topic (eg, taxation or AML-related reporting). At the industry level, the Finnish Cryptocurrency Asso- ciation Konsensus is a directly relevant body focused on education, advocacy and ecosystem development in the crypto-asset and blockchain sector, without for- mal regulatory powers. The broader fintech ecosys- tem is represented by Fintech Finland, a neutral, non- profit industry body that promotes the Finnish fintech sector, networking and growth, and engages on digital finance topics more generally. At EU level, Finnish blockchain and crypto-asset busi- nesses may also engage through industry associations such as the European Crypto Initiative (EUCI), which contributes to EU policy discussions, and Blockchain for Europe, a Brussels-based membership organisa- tion advocating for blockchain-compatible policy and regulation across the EU. 1.2 Crypto-Assets 1.2.1 Property Considerations Finland has not enacted specific legislation formally classifying crypto-assets as property, nor has any Finnish court issued definitive guidance on this issue, but their practical treatment under Finnish law is gen- erally consistent with a property-like characterisation. The Finnish Tax Administration’s updated guidance of December 2025 treats crypto-assets as assets for tax purposes rather than as official currencies or securities, meaning that economic events such as exchange, sale and use constitute taxable realisation events. Ownership is generally understood by analogy to the ownership of objects: where a crypto-asset is recorded on the blockchain at a specific address and a person has legal access to the private keys of that address, the crypto-asset is in their ownership, though this presumption can be rebutted by other evidence such as custody arrangements or contractual docu- mentation. The only Finnish judicial guidance on crypto-asset ownership is the Supreme Court case KKO 2020:64, in which bitcoins held in a commingled third-party custody account were found not to be separately enforceable in bankruptcy proceedings. This case illustrates the practical risks of commingled custody
225 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook