FORMS AND TYPES OF USE OF SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS ON APPROPRIATION, EMBEZZLEMENT OF PROPERTY OR TAKING POSSESSION OF IT BY ABUSE OF OFFICIAL POSITION

Abstract

The article examines the forms and types of use of special knowledge in criminal proceedings and identifies the most common types of use of special knowledge during the investigation of embezzlement, embezzlement of property or taking possession of it through abuse of official position. The analysis of the official statistics showed the low quality of the investigation of official embezzlement in Ukraine. It was emphasized that the use of qualified specialists and experts by a number of law enforcement and control bodies is an important component of gathering evidence in criminal proceedings on the appropriation, waste of property or possession of it through abuse of official position. A classification of the forms of use of special knowledge during the investigation of a criminal offense provided for in Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is proposed, with an exhaustive list of the corresponding types of use of special knowledge assigned to each form. It is substantiated that in criminal proceedings the forms of use of special knowledge are procedural, non-procedural (organizational) and mixed. The most common type of procedural form of using special knowledge during the investigation of misappropriation, waste of property or taking possession of it through abuse of official position is the involvement of an expert to conduct an examination, the participation of a specialist in investigative (search) actions; provision by a specialist of official consultations, explanations, certificates, as well as written explanations; interrogation of an expert in court, interrogation of a knowledgeable witness in court. It has been proven that the testimony of an auditor, accountant, tax collector, customs officer or other specialist who discovered official embezzlement obtained during interrogation in court can be considered a source of evidence of misappropriation, waste of property or taking possession of it by abuse of official position, if the court did not recognize them as inadmissible evidence. Deficiencies in the regulatory regulation of the involvement of specialists by the prosecution to conduct unscheduled audits of the financial and economic activities of enterprises, institutions, and organizations to verify information about official embezzlement were identified, and the need for appropriate changes in the current legislation was emphasized.