closed

[OrangeCrush]

.

[Upphew]

Brownie points and dinner/drinks are assured for the one who may provide the most insight/thoughtful advice...

Broadly, something (so-called "property" as defined under Finnish law) has allegedly been stolen. There is unquestionable documentation proving ownership, and no money has changed hands. A police report accusing defamation has been made, though the accused party has not been contacted directly by the police. Most recently, an independent "arbitrator" has made contact instead, suggesting the parties all voluntarily meet to discuss the matter.

Would it be fair to assume the party who's had their property stolen may have more leverage than the party alleging defamation?

Blunt honesty appreciated! Shouldn't be a problem from the Finland Forum I know.

Asking for who has more leverage isn't maybe the best attitude for mediation, but mediation is better than fighting it out in court.

[rinso]

Most recently, an independent "arbitrator" has made contact instead

It would be good to know where this arbitrator comes from and who activated the process and if there is a legal background (regulated branch?)
Going to court can be tricky. There it is only about the text of the law and the prove you have. Logic and good intentions often don't count.

[Upphew]

Most recently, an independent "arbitrator" has made contact instead

It would be good to know where this arbitrator comes from and who activated the process and if there is a legal background (regulated branch?)
Going to court can be tricky. There it is only about the text of the law and the prove you have. Logic and good intentions often don't count.

Indeed it would be prudent to check that the mediator is real deal. And not to sign anything you don't understand. Or at least I think the proper term is mediator: http://www.sovittelu.com/english/index.php and https://www.thl.fi/en/web/thlfi-en/topi ... ivil-cases
It rises flag if the mediator uses different title than the one used in official channels.

[OrangeCrush]

It is assumed that the police suggested the arbitration. And leverage was definitely the wrong word to use. Rather, why would the police have an accusation for defamation, and then never contact the accused, suggesting instead arbitration, if the accusation alleging defamation were "easy" to prove? (And easy's the wrong word.)

I'm going to guess, from what I've read, that the accusers would go after the accused full throttle, since defamation's pretty serious. The accused has told me that their lawyer sees no ground for a defamation charge, and neither can I. so what do the accusers and accused each have to gain from such a voluntary arbitration?

[rinso]

The accused has told me that their lawyer sees no ground for a defamation charge, and neither can I.

If there is already a lawyer involved, the accused should stick to his advice. Advice from the internet with only the very vague information you gave will not be of any value compared to the lawyers advice.

[Beep_Boop]

I think the best advice I can give is to move on with the arbitration with good faith (while being cautious about what you hear, say, sign, or write).
Handling the issue outside court is always a good option. You save yourself time, effort, and money. Through the arbitration process, you might end up getting exactly what you wanted.

As for your original question about why would the police initiate the arbitration. I think they do that whenever they think the issue can be handled between adults to get it over with without fuss. It saves their time with the investigation, it saves the court's time, taxpayers' money, all parties' time and money, etc. so don't read too much into it.

[OrangeCrush]

As for your original question about why would the police initiate the arbitration. I think they do that whenever they think the issue can be handled between adults to get it over with without fuss. It saves their time with the investigation, it saves the court's time, taxpayers' money, all parties' time and money, etc. so don't read too much into it.

The taxpayers are still on the hook, as arbitration compensates all parties for their time and effort in participating.

Yes, a lawyer is involved, but I am not...I am curious about this for my own learning purposes. Let's assume the accusers have a cut and dried case of defamation. Why would they not pursue it, and request that the accused pay all their legal fees on top of the 'guilty' charges and fine? Why would the accused, if they have proof of ownership of a piece of property (and let's assume the accused has a cut and dried case), need to submit to voluntary arbitration?

[rinso]

Why arbitration instead of court?
You know you're right, but still the court might see it slightly different.
And if you don't reach an agreement you can always try your luck in court.

[Beep_Boop]

The taxpayers are still on the hook, as arbitration compensates all parties for their time and effort in participating.

Nowhere near the cost of a lengthy trial, free lawyers if both parties can't pay, police investigating the case, etc.

Why arbitration instead of court?

Because if all parties reach an agreement that gives OP what he wants, then why waste own time on a trial? For me, I'd rather use the time and effort to work on a hobby or do some more work or spend it with friends/family.
My point is: Saving time and effort is a good thing. Life has too much stress and too little time already. So I try to avoid more stress and time waste as much as possible.

Another thing is that all we have is OP's POV on this. He's not our friend and we have no knowledge of the situation outside his description. The thief might have plausible case for purchase (previous transactions, history similar exchanges, some witness who heard OP talk about selling the thing, ...). We simply don't know enough.
An important thing for me is the value of thing. If total cost (in terms of the euro value of my free time) of pursuing the legal option gonna be higher than the current cost of the property, then I highly prefer the alternative routes that give me what I want with much less time waste.

[OrangeCrush]

"plausible case for purchase" - I'll tell you that neither party believes that to be true, most of all the accusers. It seems as if the accusers knew they were in the wrong all along, and are now grasping at "defamation" as their last resort.

"Because if all parties reach an agreement that gives OP what he wants, then why waste own time on a trial? For me, I'd rather use the time and effort to work on a hobby or do some more work or spend it with friends/family." - The only thing the accused wants is their property back. No other solution is considered, and the accused believes they're in the right. As I'm told, they would welcome a trial, if only to get this matter settled. It apparently took 2 weeks to hear anything after the police report was filed alleging, "My property was stolen, I have undeniable proof," (with no names used) was tantamount to defamation, and that contact came in the form of an arbitrator's text and not an officer taking an hour to investigate further.

My question is, how does arbitration in this country work, especially in a case where (and no one outside the room needs to believe this) it's cut and dried? Why would the police not bother to follow up with the accused, before requesting that arbitration takes place? Does it not "weaken" (maybe the wrong word) the accuser's claims in some way? Additional thoughts?

(Thanks everyone for your thoughts so far...I'm finding it quite fascinating!)

[OrangeCrush]

"An important thing for me is the value of thing. If total cost (in terms of the euro value of my free time) of pursuing the legal option gonna be higher than the current cost of the property, then I highly prefer the alternative routes that give me what I want with much less time waste."

The property has immense sentimental value.

[Beep_Boop]

Well, I'm glad you know exactly what you want and how to get it. In the end, that's all that matters. Since you asked for people's opinions, you'll probably get that.. subjective opinions.
In any case, I hope this ends up in away that makes you happy with the outcome

[Upphew]

In any case, I hope this ends up in away that makes you happy with the outcome

And someone with brownie points with dinner/drinks!

[OrangeCrush]

Well, I'm glad you know exactly what you want and how to get it. In the end, that's all that matters. Since you asked for people's opinions, you'll probably get that.. subjective opinions.
In any case, I hope this ends up in away that makes you happy with the outcome

WOW, you caught me!

Except you didn't. Thank you, anyway!