Evidentiary problems in the investigation of corruption crimes in Ukraine

Mikhailo Shcherbakovskyi; Ruslan Stepaniuk; Vasyl Kikinchuk; Oleksiy Oderiy; Liudmyla Svyrydova

doi:10.34069/AI/2020.32.08.12

Mikhailo Shcherbakovskyi Kharkiv National University of Internal Affairs; Ukraine. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8413-9311
Ruslan Stepaniuk Kharkiv National University of Internal Affairs; Ukraine. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8201-4013
Vasyl Kikinchuk Kharkiv National University of Internal Affairs; Ukraine. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2241-6384
Oleksiy Oderiy Donetsk Law Institute of Ministry of Internal Affairs; Ukraine. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6999-4387
Liudmyla Svyrydova Bokarius Kharkiv Research Institute of Forensic Examinations; Ukraine. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6667-2852

DOI: https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2020.32.08.12

Keywords: evidence in criminal cases of corruption, admissibility of the evidence, corruption investigation methods, corruption investigation errors, countering corruption.

Abstract

The fight against corruption in Ukraine is one of the main tasks of law enforcement agencies. However, the process of proving corruption crimes in criminal cases is accompanied by problems that negatively affect the quality of the pre-trial investigation. The purpose of the article is to identify and study typical investigative errors and develop recommendations on the proper use of means and methods of proof in criminal cases of corruption crimes, taking into account the norms of national legislation and international criteria for ensuring human rights in criminal proceedings. To achieve this goal, a comparative and systemic structural analysis of international and domestic regulatory legal acts and court decisions, a selective study of materials from criminal cases on corruption crimes were made. It has been established that the process of proving in cases of corruption crimes in Ukraine will fully comply with international standards for ensuring human rights, provided that operational officers, investigators, and prosecutors comply with the admissibility criterion of evidence, especially when using secret measures. Investigative errors that take place at the stage of pre-trial investigation in this category of criminal cases lead to the restriction of human rights and freedoms and consist in significant violations of the criminal procedural law when collecting, checking, and evaluating evidence, as well as when opening the collected materials to the defense. Preventing such violations requires strict adherence to the general requirements for conducting undercover activities, formulated in the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and domestic courts. The proof must take into account the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine of the inadmissibility of evidence derived from materials collected in violation of the law. The defense side should be provided with timely access to the materials of covert events, including the documents that served as the basis for their implementation. It is important not to allow actions that are regarded as a provocation (incitement) of the suspect to commit a corruption offense.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Mikhailo Shcherbakovskyi, Kharkiv National University of Internal Affairs; Ukraine.

Doctor of Law, Professor, Manager of the Department of Criminalistics and Forensic Science, Faculty № 6, Kharkiv National University of Internal Affairs; Ukraine.

Ruslan Stepaniuk, Kharkiv National University of Internal Affairs; Ukraine.

Doctor of Law, Professor, Professor of the Department of Criminalistics and Forensic Science, Faculty № 1, Kharkiv National University of Internal Affairs; Ukraine.

Vasyl Kikinchuk, Kharkiv National University of Internal Affairs; Ukraine.

Candidate of Law, Manager of the Department of Criminalistics and Forensic Science, Faculty № 1, Kharkiv National University of Internal Affairs; Ukraine.

Oleksiy Oderiy, Donetsk Law Institute of Ministry of Internal Affairs; Ukraine.

Doctor of Law, Associate Professor, Professor of the Department of Criminal Law Subjects and Forensic Examinations, Faculty № 1, Donetsk Law Institute of Ministry of Internal Affairs; Ukraine.

Liudmyla Svyrydova, Bokarius Kharkiv Research Institute of Forensic Examinations; Ukraine.

Candidate of Law, Manager of the Laboratory of Handwriting analysis, Linguistic, Psychological and Art Critic Researches, Hon. Prof. M. S. Bokarius Kharkiv Research Institute of Forensic Examinations; Ukraine.

References

APEC Anticorruption and Transparency Working Group (ACTWG) (2015). Best Practices in Investigating and Prosecuting Corruption Using Financial Flow Tracking Techniques and Financial Intelligence. A handbook. Buenos Aires, Argentina. October 2015. Retrieved from https://www.apec.org/Publications/2015/10/Best-Practices-in-Investigating-and-Prosecuting-Corruption

Ashworth, A. J. (1976) The Doctrine of Provocation. The Cambridge Law Journal. Vol. 35, No. 2 (Nov., 1976), 292-320.

Bahryi, M. and Lutsyk, V. (2017) Procedural aspects of covert obtaining of information: domestic and foreign experience: monograph. Kharkiv: Pravo, 376 p.

Basysta, I. (2011). The impact of investigative errors on investigators' final decisions. Law and society. № 5. pp. 174–178.

Baulyn, O., Dziurbel, A. and Karpov, N. (2004) Investigative errors: concept and content. Bulletin of the Khmelnytsky Institute of Regional Management and Law. № 1-2. pp. 207-213. Retrieved from http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/Unzap_2004_1-2_35.

Council of Europe (2015). Recommendation Rec(2005) 10 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on “Special Investigation Techniques” in Relation to Serious Crimes Including Acts of Terrorism. Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers. Strasbourg, France. April 20, 2005. Retrieved from https://www.refworld.org/docid/43f5c6094.html

Drozdov, O. (2016) Current issues of prohibition of provocation of a crime (according to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights). Legal support of operational and service activities: current problems and ways to solve them: materials of a permanent scientific practice seminar (Kharkiv, May 27, 2016). Kharkiv: Pravo. Isuue 7. pp. 246-256.

Ho (2015). The Legal Concept of Evidence. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward N. Zalta (ed.). November 13, 2015. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2015/entries/evidence-legal/

Hultai, M. (2008) Detection and correction of investigative and judicial errors in the criminal process of Ukraine (stages of pre-trial investigation, preliminary consideration of the case by a judge, judicial review and appellate proceedings): monograph. Kharkiv .: Crossroad LLC. 182 p.

Jianhong, He. (2018). Methodology of Judicial Proof and Presumption. Masterpieces of Contemporary Jurisprudents in China. Singapore: Springer. 280 p.

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (1998). Case of Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal Application no. 44/1997/828/1034. Strasbourg, France. June 9, 1998. Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-58193%22]}

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (2000). Case of Jasper v. the United Kingdom Application no. 27052/95. Strasbourg, France. February 16, 2000. Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-58495%22]}

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (2004). Case of Edwards and Lewis v. the United Kingdom Applications no. 39647/98 and 40461/98. Strasbourg, France. October 27, 2004. Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-67226%22]}

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (2006). Case of Khudobin v. Russia Application no. 59696/00.. Strasbourg, France. October 26, 2006. Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-77692%22]}

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (2008). Case of Miliniene v. Lithuania Application no. 74355/01.. Strasbourg, France. June 24, 2008. Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-87142%22]}

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (2008). Case of Ramanauskas v. Lithuania Application no. 74420/01. Strasbourg, France. February 5, 2008. Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-84935%22]}

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (2014). Case of Nosko and Nefedov v. Russia Applications no. 5753/09 and 11789/10.. Strasbourg, France. October 30, 2014. Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/rus#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-147441%22]}

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (2014). Case of Taraneks v. Latvia Application no. 3082/0.. Strasbourg, France. December 2, 2014. Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-148268%22]}

Koval, A. (2018) Analysis of the current state of observance of human rights during covert investigative (search) actions. Prykarpattya Legal Bulletin. Issue 3 (24). pp.172-176.

Law No. 2341-III. Criminal Code of Ukraine. Statements of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. Kyiv, Ukraine. April 05, 2001.

Law No. 4651-VI. Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine. Statements of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. Kyiv, Ukraine. April 13, 2012.

Moyseenko, I. (2010) Errors in investigative and expert practice. Perm University Bulletin. Legal sciences. Issue 4 (10). pp. 206-212.

Mylevskyi, O. and Vorvykhvost, O. (2016) Transformation of investigative and judicial errors in criminal proceedings. International Legal Bulletin: a collection of scientific papers of the National University of the State Tax Service of Ukraine. Issue 2 (4). pp. 38-44.

Nazarov, A. (2000) Investigative errors in the pre-trial stages of the criminal process. Krasnoyarsk: Krasnoyarsk state university. 256 p.

Orlov, Yu. (2009) Problems of the theory of evidence in criminal proceedings. Moscow: Jurist. 175 p.

Ponomarenko, A., Havryliuk, L., Anheleniuk, A.-M., & Drozd, V. (2020). Inadmissibility of Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in Ukraine. Amazonia Investiga, 9(29), 147-155. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2020.29.05.17

Right No. 1-07 / 07 (2019). Resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of Ukraine. Unified state register of court decisions. Kyiv, Ukraine. November 13, 2019. Retrieved from http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/85869105

Right No. 751/7557/15-k (2019). Resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of Ukraine. Unified state register of court decisions. Kyiv, Ukraine. January 16, 2019. Retrieved from https://zakononline.com.ua/court-decisions/show/79298340

Shymanskyi, F. (2013) Secret investigative actions in the fight against corruption in the new CCP. Scientific Bulletin of the International Humanities University. Series: Jurisprudence. № 5. pp. 253–255.

Tsyliuryk, I. (2018) Regarding the main mistakes of law enforcement officers during the pre-trial investigation. Comparative and analytical law. № 4. pp. 435–437.