Finnish police open criminal probe into Google tree felling at data center site

Finnish police opened a criminal investigation on October 29 into Google's reported felling of an estimated 250,000 trees at its planned data center site in Muhos, northern Finland. The force suspects breaches of environmental law. The move follows a partial stop-work notice issued earlier against two of Google's Finnish data center campuses.

The case centers on the Muhos site, where Google subsidiary Tuike Finland Oy cleared the trees. It is the first criminal proceeding against the company's Finnish build-out, and it arrives seven weeks after Google announced a €13 billion (about $15.1 billion) investment in Finnish AI infrastructure in September.

Byline: Priya Raman

What do the police allege?

The Poliisi, Finland's national police service, pointed to construction-site water practices. Its statement was specific about the suspected failure.

"Based on preliminary information, there have been ambiguities and shortcomings in the drainage and water management at the construction site of Tuike Finland Oy's data center project," police said. "The criminal investigation will examine, among other things, circumstances related to these issues."

That wording matters. The police did not say the tree felling itself is the suspected offense. The investigation targets site drainage and water management. The 250,000-tree figure comes from media reports, not from a police count.

What does the stop-work notice cover?

The criminal probe is not the only constraint on Google's Finnish expansion. The Finnish Licensing and Supervision Authority (LVV), the regulator overseeing the projects, previously issued a partial stop-work notice covering both the Muhos and Kajaani campuses.

The notice suspends all environmentally significant preparatory work at both sites until required environmental impact assessments are complete. It does allow some activity to continue:

• planning work
• measurements
• soil surveys
• other work expected to have minimal impact on the local environment

The regulator also set out its next step. If Tuike Finland Oy does not comply with the notices, the agency will consider administrative enforcement proceedings under either applicable special legislation or the EIA Act (the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, Finland's framework law for evaluating major projects).

What has Google said?

Google confirmed it will cooperate. Its statement emphasized its record in the country and its dealings with regulators.

"We've partnered closely with the government and communities in Finland on infrastructure for more than a decade, and are actively responding to enquiries from LVV and other authorities," Google said. "We will cooperate with the investigation announced by the Oulu police on October 29 and will continue to focus on maintaining compliance at our sites."

Note what the statement does not address. Google did not dispute the reported 250,000-tree figure. It did not say whether the drainage work preceded or followed its environmental permits. The company framed the matter as one of process, not substance.

How large is the investment at risk?

Google is developing three data centers in Finland under the €13 billion AI infrastructure plan announced in September. The Muhos and Kajaani sites under restriction form part of that program. The company already operates one data center in Hamina, in southeastern Finland.

The scale is significant by Nordic standards. €13 billion is roughly comparable to Finland's annual public infrastructure spending, which puts the project under political and regulatory scrutiny that a smaller build would escape.

What happens next?

Three processes now run in parallel: the criminal investigation by Oulu police, the LVV stop-work enforcement track, and Google's continued site work in the permitted categories. The police have not announced a timetable. The regulator has not said when the environmental impact assessments might be complete.

Until then, the suspension holds. Google's promise of cooperation is on record; whether compliance failures occurred is precisely what the investigation must establish.