Animal welfare offences encompass a heterogeneous range of crimes, including violence and various forms of negligence toward animals’ needs. However, there is limited understanding of the offenders’ rationalisations concerning their criminal behaviour against animals, despite this information being essential for enhancing the prevention of these crimes. Our data comprised 1,443 judgements in animal welfare offences in Finland between January 2011 and May 2021. We categorised the rationalisations used by defendants and identified differences between offender profiles according to the offence type. Nearly all defendants responded to the charges. Overall, defendants appealed most often to their challenging circumstances, e.g. a lack of resources. Defendants charged with offences against production animals offered more explanations than the other defendants and often denied their responsibility for the animals, or having caused them any harm, and appealed to financial problems, weather conditions, and having too many animals. Moreover, they frequently challenged the norms, appealing in particular to the immorality of the authorities, who were mostly official veterinarians. Defendants charged with animal hoarding offences rationalised their actions similarly to animal farmers, whereas those charged with violent crimes against animals more often cited provocative or otherwise problematic behaviour of the animal victim. Our results support the observation that farmers may perceive official animal welfare supervision negatively. Violent animal welfare crimes and animal hoarding stand out as distinctive types of crime at the level of rationalisations. The differences between offence types and offenders’ underlying motivations should be considered when developing animal welfare control, agricultural support systems, and crime prevention.