Міжвідомчий Науково-методичний збірник
"Криміналістика і судова експертиза"
ISSN: 2786-7072 (Online); ISSN: 2786-7080 (Print)
PDF A2fc25cb69 129 138 Завантажень: 137, розмiр: 1.2 MB

I. Mezentseva


The article deals with tactical and methodological elements of the investigation, which unite corruption crimes. The Criminal Code of Ukraine in the note of Article 45 contains a list of 14 separate articles that are classified as “corruption crimes”. On the one hand, they are diverse, so the tactics and methods of their investigation have many features and differences. The achievement of an agreement on the undue profit between the person offering it (the so-called bribe-taker) and the official is already sufficient for the qualification of the completed crime. However, with the criminal procedure norms available in the Ukrainian legislation, the efficiency and effectiveness of such a truncated part of the crime is absent. The achievement of an oral agreement on wrongful gains (bribes) can be proved with the help of secret investigative actions, in particular “Survey of publicly inaccessible places, dwelling or other possession of a person”, “Monitoring a person, thing or place”, “Monitoring bank accounts”, “Audio, video control of the place”, “Control over the commission of a crime” (Articles 267, 269, 269–1, 270 271 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine). However, for the purpose of proving a significant number of corruption acts, secret investigative actions cannot be used, since they are conducted solely in criminal cases (proceedings) for serious or particularly serious crimes, and almost 50% of the list of articles of the note in Article 45 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which fix the corruption offenses, do not have a corresponding degree of severity. This indicates the inconsistency of material and procedural norms, which has a negative impact on the criminal policy of counteracting corruption crime in Ukraine.

The classic algorithm of investigative actions at the initial stage of investigation of corruption offenses: 1) extracting and reviewing documents; 2) search by place of work and residence; 3) interrogation of an official; 4) spot rates; 5) the appointment of the examinations needs to be completed. Preliminary conduct of secret investigative actions in order to expose criminal agreements on obtaining an undue advantage by an official is made as well. Computer technical examinations allow digital evidence “digital evidence” to be validated, understood as any stored data or data transmitted using a computer and support or refute the intention or alibi of a bribed official.