Finland’s deputy prosecutor general’s office shows what prompt and firm action can look like. They filed 34 felony charges against the oil tanker Eagle S. Those charges include aggravated sabotage and aggravated interference with telecommunications. This comes on the heels of an incident last December when a swimmer allegedly severed undersea cables connecting Finland and Estonia. On December 26, Finnish authorities seized the Eagle S. Press reports indicate that this ship is one of the many vessels comprising Russia’s “shadow fleet.”
At the time of the collision, the Eagle S was transporting oil from Ust-Luga in Russia across the Gulf of Finland. Prosecutors claim that the vessel’s anchor dragged on the seabed for nearly 90 kilometers (56 miles) in Finnish waters. This irresponsible move resulted in serious damage to five undersea cables. This act has raised fears on the vulnerability of Finland’s telecommunication infrastructure. Its unique geographical position, surrounded by the Baltic Sea, makes these concerns even greater.
Finland’s unique location makes it especially susceptible to hybrid threats, as its connectivity relies heavily on undersea cables linking it to neighboring countries such as Sweden and Estonia. The prosecution argues that the damage created by the Eagle S protected critical telecommunications infrastructure. They further contend that it represented a significant threat to the security of Finland’s energy supply.
“The rupture of the extremely high-capacity electricity transmission and telecommunications cables is also suspected of having caused a serious danger to energy supply and telecommunications in Finland, although services have been secured by using alternative connections.”
While the indictment has already been filed with the Helsinki district court, crew members are still under investigation. All three suspects have been subject to a travel ban since the investigation began. A maritime lawyer on behalf of Caravella LLC FZ, the owner of the Eagle S, is pushing a hard, very hard, argument. They allege that Finnish authorities lack jurisdiction since the cable severing occurred beyond Finnish territorial waters.
“Does not have jurisdiction in the matter because the cable damage sites are outside Finnish territorial waters.”
Legal scholars dispute the jurisdictional question, emphasizing that whether or not jurisdiction applies might depend on the incident’s impacts. They think the location is not as important. Rappe, a legal scholar, made all the right points. He argued that the nature of the crimes and dangers they posed occurred on Finnish territory, even though the actions were carried out extraterritorially. He continued, saying that “the impact of this crime actually manifested itself here in Finland. That places it squarely in the jurisdiction of Finland, I believe. Of course it ultimately is for [the] district court to determine whether Finland has jurisdiction.”
This case is illustrative of a larger trend of suspected hybrid attacks on telecommunications services. All of these episodes have been popping up across the Nordic region since the end of 2022. After being seized, the Eagle S had its detention released in February and left Finland soon after in March.