Former Supo chief Antti Pelttari, facing serious charges: “I have only been doing my job”

Antti Pelttari is a former leader of Finland’s Security and Intelligence Service, or Supo. His lawyer said Pelttari led an organisation of more than 500 people. The case concerns how confidential intelligence was handled, especially the alleged use of retired Supo employees in counterintelligence. It matters because the prosecution says Supo did not protect secret information properly and broke handling rules.

Pelttari denies all charges and calls them unfounded. His lawyer, Markku Fredman, said Pelttari believes he was doing his job. The defence argues that staff were responsible for supervising individual operations, rather than the leader personally following every activity. Pelttari also seeks reimbursement of his legal costs from the Finnish state.

The public hearing covered the charges and defendants’ responses before continuing behind closed doors. The prosecutor stressed that the case does not allege anyone deliberately leaked information abroad or to a foreign state. Several defendants have separate admission proceedings, but Pelttari is not among them, according to his lawyer.

A security secret is sensitive information protected because revealing it could threaten Finland’s external security or national safety. The article describes such information as material that should have been kept confidential and handled according to rules. Criminal liability can arise because the law protects both the information itself and the security procedures surrounding it. This explanation uses general legal principles; the article does not provide a complete statutory definition.

The case shows two possible routes to exposure. Some defendants are accused of revealing security secrets. Former Supo investigator Juhani Hakala faces a negligence allegation after storing intelligence-related material in an email account. His defence says outsiders obtained emails and other data through a data breach, not because he handed them over.

The court must decide whether the material was legally classified, whether the defendants disclosed it, and whether any carelessness was serious enough for criminal liability. The public hearing ended before detailed presentations, because the remaining proceedings are secret. The article gives no verdict or sentence.

The case involves seven current or former employees of Finland’s Security and Intelligence Service. Six are accused of revealing security secrets, while one faces an allegation of negligent disclosure. Four defendants are also accused of official misconduct. These figures show that the investigation covers both alleged mishandling of protected information and possible failures connected with public office.

The article does not identify every defendant or explain each official-misconduct allegation in detail. It does identify former investigator Juhani Hakala, who denies negligent disclosure, and Antti Pelttari, who denies all charges. The prosecution says the central issue is that confidential information was not protected as carefully as it should have been and that rules were broken.

All defendants denied the crimes during the pre-trial investigation, although the court has several admission proceedings pending. Those proceedings may indicate that some defendants acknowledge certain acts described in the charges. Their schedule had not yet been decided. The main hearing continues behind closed doors, so further details are unavailable in the report.

According to Yle’s information, the charges mainly concern retired Supo employees being used in counterintelligence between 2012 and 2024. The core issue is whether confidential intelligence work was effectively outsourced from Supo to people who had already retired. This matters because retirement may change a person’s official position, access, duties, and supervision.

Antti Pelttari’s lawyer rejected the idea that using a retired employee as a source was inherently illegal. He pointed to the Police Act, which regulates who may be used as an informant. The defence said there is no legal obstacle to a retired civil servant becoming a police source. The article does not describe the specific operations or identify all the retired people involved.

The prosecution’s position is broader than an allegation of foreign espionage. It says secret information was not properly protected and handling rules were broken. All defendants denied crimes during the investigation. The court will continue examining the matter privately, so the precise role and legal status of each retired person remain unresolved.

Intentional disclosure and negligent exposure differ mainly in the person’s state of mind and conduct. Intentional disclosure means knowingly passing, communicating, or revealing protected information to someone else. Negligent exposure means failing to take reasonable precautions, so outsiders can obtain the information without the person intending that result. This distinction reflects general legal principles; the article does not set out every legal test.

Juhani Hakala’s defence illustrates the difference. Hakala admits handling intelligence information after retirement and saving it to an email account. He denies that he gave, transferred, or communicated secret information to an outsider. His lawyer says a data breach took the emails and other material against Hakala’s wishes. Hakala also denies that his conduct was seriously careless.

The prosecution alleges intentional security-secret disclosures against six defendants and negligent disclosure against one. It says the broader problem was inadequate protection and rule-breaking, not deliberate leaking abroad. The court must assess classification, handling, foreseeability, and the seriousness of any carelessness. The article reports no final findings, because proceedings continue privately.

Sensitive intelligence is valuable because it can reveal sources, methods, investigations, or assessments. If it is not properly controlled, unauthorised people may obtain information and intelligence work may become less effective. It can also damage confidence between agencies and partners. These broader consequences are established security principles; the article itself does not list specific harms to foreign relations or particular operations.

The reported case provides a concrete warning. Juhani Hakala admitted storing intelligence information in an email account after retirement. A data breach exposed emails and other stored material. His defence says he did not expect disclosure and used security software he considered reliable. The prosecutor says Supo did not protect secret information well enough and broke handling rules.

The case has not established that national security or foreign relations were actually damaged. The prosecutor expressly said no one is alleged to have intentionally leaked information abroad or anywhere else. Still, the proceedings may clarify how agencies should control information, supervise retired personnel, and enforce security rules. The remaining hearing is closed.

Intelligence agencies face three linked duties: protect sensitive information, obtain information lawfully from human sources, and make employees answerable for their conduct. The article shows that using retired personnel is not automatically unlawful, according to Pelttari’s defence. But source use still needs clear authority, secure handling, and supervision. The article does not describe the full legal framework or Supo’s internal controls.

The practical tension appears in two examples. Defence lawyer Markku Fredman said a retired official may legally become a police informant under the Police Act. Former investigator Juhani Hakala, however, is accused of negligent disclosure after storing intelligence material in an email account. He says a breach exposed it and denies serious carelessness. These examples separate lawful source use from unsafe information storage.

Accountability comes through criminal charges and court scrutiny. The prosecutor says rules were broken, while defendants deny crimes and Pelttari denies every charge. Several admission proceedings are pending, but the court has not set their timetable. The closed proceedings will determine how responsibility is assessed, though the report gives no outcome.