Finnish police open criminal investigation into Google’s Muhos data center project

Google’s Finnish subsidiary, Tuike Finland Oy, faces a criminal investigation over suspected environmental offenses at its Muhos data center project. Finnish police disclosed the inquiry in an official statement published on October 30, 2026, according to Tom’s Hardware. The investigation concerns development work at a site where forest has already been cleared.

Five complaints bring the site under scrutiny

The investigation followed five complaints concerning the Muhos development. Police are examining suspected breaches of environmental law and environmental damage, along with lesser suspected offenses involving drainage and water management. Those allegations include ambiguities and shortcomings in how water is handled at the site, rather than forest clearing alone.

Finland’s Licensing and Supervision Authority, known as LVV, is supporting the police investigation. Its involvement was identified in the police statement cited by Tom’s Hardware. The offenses remain suspected: the opening of a criminal inquiry does not establish that the company is guilty.

816 acresForest cleared

Tom’s Hardware reports that 816 acres of forest were cleared near Muhos for the data center project. The publication describes the cleared area as an expanse of mud where the forest previously stood.

Google pledges cooperation after its earlier apology

Google representatives had previously apologized publicly for unauthorized forest clearing near Muhos, Tom’s Hardware reports. That apology concerned work carried out for the same data center development now under criminal investigation. It addressed the clearing before police announced the inquiry into Tuike Finland Oy.

Responding to the investigation, a Google representative told Reuters that the company would cooperate with police and continue to focus on maintaining compliance at its sites. Tom’s Hardware relayed the company’s response in its October 30 coverage. Finnish government representatives had not commented on the case at the time of that article.