Economic expertise. Theoretical foundations of business planning

1.2 Judicial and non-judicial economic expertise

Economic expertise can be non-judicial and judicial.

Non-judicial economic examination is carried out in a non-procedural form. It can be carried out at the request of a lawyer (defender), or at the request of individuals and legal entities. The final document is drawn up as an act not forensics(act of expert research). Further use of its results can be in different forms: the examination is presented to the other party for the possible conclusion of a settlement agreement - then the case does not reach the court, but can, at the request of the party and the court decision, be attached as other documents. In addition, a written consultation can be drawn up on so-called reference questions, the answer to which does not require expert research, but which relate to the area of ​​special knowledge of an accountant or economist.

Forensic economic examination is procedural in nature and is carried out within the framework of criminal, civil, and arbitration cases. At the same time, its subject, that is, an expert economist specially appointed by the court or investigative authorities, relies on a theoretical basis, the basis of which is a complex of economic and legal knowledge, transformed and integrated for the needs of justice. The final document - the expert's opinion - is an independent type of judicial evidence.

Depending on the direction of the research and the issues being resolved, economic examinations are usually divided into accounting and financial-economic. It should be noted that such a division is quite arbitrary, since the objects being studied are, as a rule, the same, and the first quite often serves as the information basis for the production of the second. In addition, practice shows that in many cases, both accounting and financial and economic issues are resolved within the framework of one expert study. Distortions of economically significant information. Accounting expertise examines the correctness of recording business transactions. Characteristic questions for it are: is it in accordance with the rules of conduct? accounting one or another business transaction is reflected; whether the business transaction was reflected in financial statements enterprises?

The possibilities of accounting expertise are quite wide. As part of its production, facts (signs) of distortion of accounting data using methods specific to accounting can be identified, the detected distortions can be diagnosed, and the degree of their influence on the indicators can be determined. economic activity. If so-called draft records are submitted for research, then their identity or difference with official accounting is established. In a number of cases, missing or distorted economic information can be reconstructed (recreated) on the basis of later or previous records, as well as due to existing natural connections between various accounting and reporting documents. In addition, during the expert study, attention is drawn to the violation by an economic entity of the rules of accounting and reporting, which contributed to the commission of abuses and the veiling of their consequences.

Thus, we can conclude that the main goal of research conducted within the framework of accounting expertise is to establish the presence (absence) of distortions of economically significant information at any stage of the accounting process, the mechanism of their formation, place, time, qualitative and quantitative characteristics, degree influence on the financial performance of an economic entity.

Irregularities in the field of financing

The subject of the study of financial and economic expertise is documented information about financial transactions and financial performance indicators of an economic entity, as well as information characterizing the formation, distribution and use by an enterprise (organization, private entrepreneur) of income, money (funds), negative deviations in these processes that influenced economic performance or contributed to the commission of crimes related to non-compliance with financial discipline.

The need to conduct a financial and credit examination arises in cases where it is necessary to establish facts of deviations and violations in the field of financing and lending, for example, when investigating cases of theft of property, including funds. Based on a study of financial and credit transactions reflected in accounting and expense documents, an expert can establish the validity of the formation of monetary funds and identify signs of violations of the order of their expenditure. Also, as part of the examination, indicators such as the borrower’s creditworthiness, completeness and timeliness of repayment are determined. borrowed money. Issues regarding establishing the direction of spending allocated targeted funds are often resolved.

Expertise related to the determination of the tax base, calculation and payment of taxes and other obligatory contributions and payments to budgets of all levels and extra-budgetary funds, as a rule, are carried out in criminal cases. The study identifies distortions in accounting and tax accounting and reveals their impact on the size of the tax base. If necessary, the expert answers the question about the compliance of the formation of the tax base and the amount of tax deductions with the standards current legislation.

Quite often, within the framework of financial and economic expertise, calculations are made: the share participation of founders (shareholders) in the property of an economic entity, the amount of money due to a company participant upon leaving the company, dividends to shareholders based on the results of the financial year; A study of indicators characterizing the formation of the size (value) of remuneration is carried out.

Research for investigation

One of the most common is examination financial condition economic entity. It can be carried out both during the investigation of crimes related to false entrepreneurship, malicious evasion of repayment of accounts payable, and when resolving the issue of declaring an organization bankrupt.

Within the framework of this examination, it is possible to resolve a wide variety of issues. Thus, the expert conducts a study of indicators of the financial condition and financial and economic activities of an economic entity, including solvency, financial stability, liquidity, characterizes the dynamics of the financial condition of the enterprise, identifies and analyzes, if the submitted documents allow, the factors that caused its change. And, of course, a necessary component of such a study is the study of signs and ways of distorting data on financial indicators that affect financial results and calculations for the obligations of a business entity, determination of economic feasibility financial indicators organization in case of distortion of data on income and expenses.

A few words should be said about what goes beyond the expert’s competence and is not subject to permission when conducting economic examinations by employees of the Russian Federal Center for Economic Examinations under the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation.

By general rules the expert cannot decide legal issues, questions related to the assessment of the actions of other persons, or questions about the qualification of a crime, as this relates to the prerogative of the court and investigative authorities. In our case, these are formulations like the following: whether there was theft of inventory items in the warehouse; whether the head of the organization had the right to sell property at a price below its book value; whether the audit was carried out sufficiently and correctly; whether the conclusions about the damage caused are justified, etc.

Questions about compliance with the rules of accounting (financial, tax) accounting, which are given above, are of a dual nature. They are formulated as legal; when answering them, the expert pays attention to compliance with the requirements of the current legislation. However, in this case, the issue being decided is not whether the responsible person is guilty, but whether any action complies or does not comply with the specified rules.

Complete restoration of accounting or tax accounting does not fall within the scope of activity of an expert economist. He can give his opinion on individual elements of financial and economic activity that are the subject of investigative or judicial proceedings.

A complex and ambiguous question about the admissibility of using methods and techniques professional assessment when drawing up a forensic expert's report. The market value of an organization's property, as a rule, differs significantly from its balance sheet value. But it should be borne in mind that often two qualified specialists, even using the same methods, greatly differ in the conclusion of the final amount, which becomes only the probabilistic market value of the object. That is, existing methods do not provide the possibility of a categorical answer and indisputable calculation, which is unacceptable, especially when conducting examinations in criminal cases. However, if an economic entity exercised its right to revaluate property, formalized it accordingly and reflected the results in official accounting and reporting documents, then the use of estimated data is completely justified.

Forensic examination is a procedural action aimed at establishing the circumstances of a criminal case and consists of conducting research based on special knowledge in science, technology, art or craft and giving an opinion by an expert on behalf of the bodies of inquiry, investigation, prosecutor and court.

Commission forensic examination is carried out by several experts of the same specialty (profile). Experts from the commission entrusted with carrying out the examination conduct joint research, evaluate the results obtained and formulate conclusions on the issues raised.

Comprehensive examination is carried out by experts of various specialties. When conducting a comprehensive examination, each expert conducts research within the limits of his competence.

Criminologists believe that when investigating tax crimes, the following examinations can be carried out:

1. Forensic accounting. Let us note that to date there are disagreements in the interpretation of the term “forensic accounting”. Some experts define forensic accounting as a procedural and legal form of application of expert accounting knowledge in order to obtain a source of evidence in criminal (arbitration) cases, others - as a study of the case material by a specialist accountant and giving them, in accordance with his special knowledge, conclusions on the issues raised. investigator or court on issues that relate to economic life phenomena reflected in accounting.

2. Forensic commodity examination. This examination is carried out with the aim of studying products, resolving issues about their quality, grade and possible cost.

3. Forensic examination of documents. This type examinations include handwriting examinations, graphic examinations, examination of typewritten and printed texts, seal impressions and stamps.

4. Comprehensive (technical and accounting) expertise. This examination is carried out to examine the conformity of specific computer programs accounting and reporting rules.

5. Forensic economic examination. This examination is appointed if it is necessary to use special knowledge in the field of economic theory and practice (science).

Forensic economic examination, being an independent source of evidence related to the subject of proof, uses scientific means economic analysis source data contained in other evidence added to the criminal case.

The subjects of forensic expert activity are the bodies and persons appointing examinations, forensic institutions represented by their leaders who organize the production of forensic examinations, and forensic experts carrying out examinations.

A state forensic institution is an institution or its structural subdivision, created in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation for organizing the production of forensic examinations.

In the federal tax police authorities, the functions of a state forensic institution are performed by the Forensic Economic Expertise Service of the Federal Tax Service of Russia, as well as the corresponding units of forensic economic expertise, including official duties includes the production of forensic economic examinations.

By comparison, the IRS's only forensic research and testing laboratory is located in Chicago. Along with fulfilling its main tasks: identifying persons evading taxes or receiving cash Using false financial documents, the laboratory provides forensic assistance to American law enforcement agencies in the investigation of complex criminal cases. In addition to conducting various examinations, laboratory staff conduct a large research work, associated with the development of new methods of forensic research and the creation of new types of operational and technical equipment.

The basic principles of forensic economic examinations are:

1. Mandatory analysis of facts entrepreneurial activity which is carried out with the aim of determining the actual results of the taxpayer’s business activities and identifying unreliable data in the submitted documentation.

2. Objectivity and completeness of the study of the above facts, which are expressed in the study of all information available in the criminal case materials related to the subject of the examination, strict compliance of the conclusions from the study with the available information.

3. Building logical relationships, consisting in determining the cause-and-effect relationship between the disposal of income, the discrepancy between information in documents, accounting and reporting with the facts and results of entrepreneurial activity and material actions for the owners of income derived from the use of property and the state.

4. Establishing the presence of negative material consequences, which are determined in the form of part of the income from sales of products (works, services), income on capital and income from the sale of property, not used in accordance with the material interests of the owners for the implementation of the activities of organizations and (or) not received to the state in the form of taxes, since the amount of damage caused is one of the consequences of the tax crime committed.

In accordance with the subject of the study, the following questions may be asked to resolve the forensic economic examination:

1. Was there a discrepancy between the primary documents, accounting and reporting of this organization (entrepreneur’s income statement - individual) business transactions, business results and the purposes of their use? If so, which one and what is the mechanism of this discrepancy?

2. Was there any non-payment of taxes due to the mechanism of inconsistency of primary documents, accounting and reporting with business transactions, business results and the purposes of their use? If so, in what amount and for what types of taxes?

3. Do they relate to the entrepreneurial activity of this economic entity ( legal entity or an entrepreneur - an individual) documents that confirm the act of verifying compliance with tax legislation?

The objects of examination include reporting documents (balance sheets with attachments, income statements) containing unreliable information about the results of business activities, and other documents reflecting the administrative activities of the owner or his representative in the economic sphere. For example, primary administrative documents containing false information about the facts of business activity. Such documents are related to the business activities of the business entity under investigation and have the necessary evidentiary force in the materials of the criminal case.

If a criminal case is initiated on the basis of an act of documentary verification of compliance with tax or currency legislation, with the help of an examination the relevance and unreliability of documents as objects of research that confirm the results of the audit are established.

It should be noted that the purpose scientific research materials of a criminal case in a forensic economic examination is to establish material harm (damage) to the owners of income and the state, which presupposes the criminal legal qualification of damage as a consequence of a crime in the economic sphere.

The consequence of a crime in the economic sphere is the infliction of material harm (damage) to the owners of income and the state in the form of unpaid taxes.

From a legal point of view, material damage as a consequence of a crime is expressed in the alienation of part of the income from the owner, including the taxes contained in it, and (or) non-payment of taxes to the state in a cause-and-effect relationship with the inconsistency of legally significant documents with the actual circumstances of business activity.

In order to determine damage as a consequence of a crime in the economic sphere, with the help of an examination, knowingly false information is established in contracts, primary documents, accounting and reporting, and income declarations of an individual entrepreneur.

The production of a forensic economic examination, taking into account the requirements arising from the procedure and terms established by law for preliminary investigation and legal proceedings, must be completed, as a rule, within the terms of the preliminary investigation established by the criminal procedural law (no later than 30 - 45 days) .

After conducting the research, the expert draws up a written conclusion and certifies it with his signature.

An expert’s conclusion is a written conclusion of an expert, in which he, based on the research conducted and in accordance with his special knowledge, gives motivated answers to the questions posed to him.

The expert's conclusion should consist of introductory, research parts and conclusions.

The introductory part reflects the necessary data required to recognize the procedural completeness of the expert’s opinion:

An expert’s signature on liability for giving a knowingly false conclusion;

Time, place and reasons for ordering the examination;

Information about the body or person who appointed the examination;

Information about the expert, if the examination is carried out in the performance of official duties;

Questions posed to the expert summary circumstances of the case reported to the expert;

Persons present during the examination;

Description of research objects;

Indication of the start, production and end time of the examination;

The research part of the conclusion represents the rationale for the conclusions and contains:

Description of production studies indicating the methods used;

Reference data;

Indication of the participation of an expert in investigative actions.

Conclusions represent an assessment of the research results and answers to the questions posed and should be presented in concise, concise formulations.

The conclusion of a forensic expert is evidence in the case and is assessed by the person conducting the inquiry, the investigator, the prosecutor, the judge, the court, from the point of view of its validity, reliability, completeness, and compliance with the procedure and rules established for the examination.

Experts note some shortcomings characteristic of procedural activities related to issues of assessing the results of the examination as evidence. Thus, in some cases, courts consider an expert’s opinion as evidence that has an advantage over other evidence, without subjecting it to careful verification and proper evaluation. Sometimes verdicts are based on the expert's presumptive findings. There are shortcomings associated with the qualifications of experts; sometimes the results of assessing the expert’s conclusion are not fully reflected in the verdict. Thus, the court is obliged to indicate what facts are established by the expert’s opinion, and not limit itself to just referring to his opinion.

External management of the debtor's property is understood as a procedure aimed at continuing the activities of the debtor enterprise, appointed by the arbitration court at the request of the debtor...

Our object belongs to secondary real estate, i.e. these are residential and non-residential premises...

Property Management Basics

Analysis of the actual cash flow for the maintenance of the property (year zero). Converting PVD to net income. Rented apartments 32 - 4=28 pcs. Average monthly rent 286 RUR/m2/month. Then: PVD = (28*0.286*30+120*0.24)*12 months= 3228.48 t.r....

Property Management Basics

The most important aspect technical assessment of a property is to determine the suitability of the building for further operation and reconstruction...

Property Management Basics

Over the course of five years of management, the following activities are planned to be carried out in stages: 1 year. The following activities are planned for the first year of operation of our facility management organization: 1. Reconstruction of the main facility; 2...

System of examination of the investment and construction process using the example of block A of the Fregat residential and commercial complex

To carry out this work, it is necessary to conduct a survey and scope of work for the building project. The main task solved during the examination...

Economic expertise is a study of the real estate market in the area of ​​a specific sector, the level of competition, the degree of risk, discounting, price dynamics...

Examination of the real estate object "Republican Oncology Dispensary" radiation conformal therapy

Examination of the real estate object "Republican Oncology Dispensary" radiation conformal therapy

Essence environmental assessment is to study the design documentation for a real estate property, study the actual process of its functioning and draw up on this basis a professional conclusion about the potential or...

Examination of the real estate object "Republican Oncology Dispensary" radiation conformal therapy

The essence of management expertise is the study and analysis of a projected or existing real estate management system and drawing up on this basis a professional opinion on the rationality...

In Art. 25 of the Law on Forensic Expert Activities states that, based on the research carried out and taking into account their results, an expert on his own behalf or a commission of experts gives a written opinion and a signatory. If the forensic examination was carried out in a state or non-state forensic institution, the signatures of the expert or commission of experts are certified by the seal of this institution. The signature of a private expert, at the discretion of the person or body that appointed the forensic examination, may also be certified.

The legislator regulates the content of a forensic expert’s report only in the most general terms. The conclusion of an expert or commission of experts must reflect:

Time and place of forensic examination;

Grounds for conducting forensic examination;

Information about the body or person who ordered the forensic examination;

Information about the forensic institution, about the expert (last name, first name, patronymic, education, specialty, work experience, academic degree and academic title, position held), who are entrusted with the conduct of forensic examination;

A warning to the expert in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation about liability for giving a knowingly false conclusion;

Questions posed to an expert or a commission of experts;

Objects of research and case materials presented to the expert for forensic examination;

Information about the participants in the process who were present during the forensic examination;

Evaluation of research results, substantiation and formulation of conclusions based on questions posed.

Contents of Art. 25 of the Law on Forensic Expert Activities coincides almost verbatim with the content of Art. 86 Code of Civil Procedure and Art. 86 APK. They indicate that the conclusion is given by the expert only in writing, signed by him and must contain a detailed description of the research performed, the conclusions drawn as a result and reasonable answers to the questions posed by the investigation and the court. If, during the examination, the expert establishes circumstances that are significant for the case, about which no questions were raised to him, he has the right to include conclusions about these circumstances in his conclusion.

The forensic report, the form and content of which are practically the same in civil and arbitration proceedings, traditionally has a certain structure and usually consists of several parts.

In introductory part contains:

Number and name of the case for which the examination was appointed;

A brief description of the circumstances of the case relevant to the study;

Information about the body and person who appointed the examination, legal grounds to order an examination (decision or determination);

Name of the expert institution, initial information about the person (or persons) who performed the examination (last name, first name, patronymic, education, expert qualifications, academic degree, title, experience of expert work);

Type and type of examination.

The following lists the materials received for examination, the method of their delivery, and the questions submitted for the expert’s permission. Issues resolved by the expert on his own initiative are also given in the introductory part of the conclusion. If the examination is commission, complex, additional or repeated, this is indicated in the introductory part of the conclusion, which also states when and by whom the previous examinations were carried out, what conclusions the experts came to and what are the grounds for ordering a repeated or additional examination.

Questions submitted for expert approval are given in the introductory part without any changes in their wording. If the expert believes that some of them go (partially or completely) beyond the scope of his special knowledge or that special knowledge is not required to answer these questions, he notes this in the conclusion.

Often the wording of questions does not correspond to generally accepted recommendations, and the expert gives the question in his own wording. As we noted above, this is a rather free interpretation of the expert’s right to go beyond the scope of the expert task and answer questions that were not posed to his resolution. In addition, the formulation of the question given by the expert is often not broader, but narrower than the question initially posed for resolution. Neither the Civil Procedure Code, nor the Arbitration Procedure Code, nor the Law on Forensic Expert Activities grants a forensic expert the right to reformulate issues submitted for his resolution. He can only apply to the court to provide additional materials. But can clarification of questions be considered the provision of additional materials, since the questions are already recorded in the procedural document - the determination on the appointment of a forensic examination?

In practice, this problem arises every day in all categories of cases. For example, when considering a case related to a fire at an industrial facility in an arbitration court, the expert was asked the question: “How does the melting of copper wiring relate to a fire?” In accordance with the methodology for studying metal conductors in short circuit and thermal impact zones1, the expert reformulated the question and gave it as follows: “What is the nature of the melting of copper conductors? If the melting is caused by a short circuit, did it occur before the start of the fire or during its development? ". It is clear that the last two questions are formulated more correctly and allow the expert to give categorical conclusions that have great evidentiary value. But from a formal point of view, the expert went beyond his competence. It seems that the forensic expert must be given the right to reformulate the questions submitted for his resolution, if they are formulated incorrectly from the point of view of the theory and methodology of forensic examination, and to notify the subject who appointed the examination about this within a certain period of time. If the expert is an employee of a forensic institution, then he will agree on the need to change the wording of the questions with the head of the institution, who, in turn, notifies the subject who appointed the examination.

IN research part conclusions are usually described in detail:

Type of packaging of objects submitted for examination, its integrity, details;

Condition of these objects and comparative samples;

The research process in stages with a description of its methodology, conditions for using certain methods.

Based on the research, a scientific explanation of the identified signs is given, and this description must be logically sound and lead to final conclusions.

If the examination was comprehensive or complex research was carried out during it, the research part ends with the so-called the synthesizing part, where experts who are specialists in different types or methods of examination summarize separately obtained information to formulate a general answer to the question posed.

The last part of the conclusion outlines conclusions, those. answers are given to the questions posed to the examination. If it is impossible to resolve any issue, the expert must indicate the reasons for the refusal in the research part of the conclusion. Conclusions about the circumstances for which questions were not raised and which the expert cites as part of the expert initiative are set out at the end of the conclusion.

Expert conclusions are definitely divided into categorical and probable (presumptive).

Categorical a conclusion is a reliable conclusion about a fact, regardless of the conditions of its existence, for example, a categorical positive conclusion would be that the signature in the will was made by Mr. N. A categorical negative could be, for example, a conclusion that the driver did not have the technical ability to avoid hitting a pedestrian .

If the expert finds no basis for a categorical conclusion, the conclusions are likely, those. speculative nature. A probable conclusion is an educated guess (hypothesis) of an expert about an established fact and usually reflects an incomplete internal psychological conviction in the reliability of the arguments, the average statistical evidence of the fact, and the impossibility of achieving complete knowledge. Probable conclusions admit the possibility of the existence of a fact, but do not exclude a completely different (opposite) conclusion. For example, it is most likely that the fire started from a low-calorie heat source - a smoldering tobacco product. The reasons for probable conclusions may be incorrect or incomplete collection of objects to be studied, loss or absence of the most significant, significant signs of traces, insufficient number of comparative materials, undeveloped methods of expert research, etc.

In relation to an established fact, an expert categorical or probable conclusion can be affirmative (positive) and negative, when the existence of a fact about which a certain question is posed to the expert is denied.

According to the nature of the relationship between the inference and its basis, conclusions are divided into conditional (“if.., then...”) and unconditional. An unconditional conclusion is a recognition of a fact, not limited by any conditions. A conditional conclusion means the recognition of a fact depending on certain circumstances, the reliability of previous knowledge, the proof of other facts, for example, the text of a document was not made on a given dot-matrix printer, provided that the printer has not been repaired. Such a conclusion can also be expressed in categorical and probable form.

If, as a result of the expert research, it was not possible to come to a single solution to the issue, the expert formulates alternative a conclusion is a strictly divisive judgment, indicating the possibility of the existence of any of the mutually exclusive facts listed in it, the need for the court to select one of them and recognize it as having actually taken place. Alternative conclusions are permissible when all alternatives without exception are named, each of which must exclude the others (and then from the falsity of one one can logically come to the truth of the other, from the truth of the first to the falsity of the second). For example, titanium wire submitted for examination was manufactured at a metallurgical plant in the city of N. in workshops No. 2 or No. 3.

The opposite of alternatives are unambiguous expert conclusions that have only one meaning - categorical conclusions that affirm or deny a fact. For example, the categorical conclusion of the forensic author's examination is that this anonymous letter was written by Mr. N.

The expert can also draw a conclusion about impossibility resolving an issue put to its resolution by an authorized person or body, for example due to the lack of research methods, incompleteness (poor quality) of objects and other materials provided at its disposal, etc.

Only categorical conclusions can form the basis for a judicial decision in a case. Therefore, only they have evidentiary value. A probable conclusion cannot be such a source, but only allows one to obtain orienting, search information, and suggest versions that need to be verified.

The expert opinion can be illustrated with photographs, designed in the form of photo tables, diagrams, diagrams, drawings and other visual materials, which are considered as component conclusions. A certificate of the costs of the examination is also attached to include them in legal costs. The text of the conclusion, conclusions and illustrative materials (each page) are signed by the expert who performed the study.

As is known, the evaluation of a forensic expert’s conclusion is understood as the process of establishing the reliability, relevance and admissibility of the conclusion, determining the forms and ways of its use in evidence1. The court hearing the case, guided by the law, evaluates the conclusion according to its inner conviction, based on a comprehensive, complete and objective consideration of all the circumstances of the case in their totality. The expert's conclusion is not special evidence and is assessed according to the general rules for assessing evidence (Article 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Article 71 of the Arbitration Procedure Code). However, its assessment requires a specific approach, since this evidence is based on the use of special knowledge that the court does not have to obtain. In addition, the procedural procedure for obtaining this evidence after the appointment of a forensic examination is not carried out by the entity that appointed it, and therefore the responsibility of the latter is to verify compliance with this procedure.

Evaluation process expert opinion consists of several successive stages.

1. Checking compliance with legal requirements when ordering an examination, which consists in finding out the answer to the following questions:

1. Is the expert competent in solving the tasks assigned to him and has he not gone beyond the limits of his competence? When conducting an examination by a private expert, his choice is made by the court, and the issue of the competence of the forensic expert is decided upon his appointment. True, in this case, the expert’s competence, which did not raise doubts when ordering the examination, may raise doubts when reading the conclusion. We have already indicated above that it is more difficult to establish the level of competence of private experts. The situation becomes easier when the expert has higher education in the specialty "Forensic Expertise" and the qualification "Forensic Expert" or a departmental qualification certificate for the right to conduct examinations of one kind or another. When performing an examination in a forensic institution, the choice of expert is made by the head of the institution, so it is necessary to ensure the expert’s competence in assessing the conclusion.

2. Was the examination carried out by the person subject to challenge on the grounds listed in the procedural law (Article 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Article 23 of the Arbitration Procedure Code)?

3. Are the rights of the participants in the process respected when appointing and conducting an examination (Article 79,84,327,358 of the Code of Civil Procedure; Article 82,83,86,268 of the Arbitration Procedure Code)?

4. Was the procedural order violated when obtaining samples for comparative research and recording them in the appropriate protocol (Article 81 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Article 66 of the Arbitration Procedure Code)?

5. Has the procedural form of the expert’s opinion been observed and are all the required details available (Article 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Article 86 of the Arbitration Procedure Code)?

2. Verification of the authenticity and sufficiency of the examined material evidence and samples, in which the authenticity of physical evidence and samples, their suitability for research and sufficiency to give a conclusion are subject to assessment. The suitability and sufficiency of samples for research are determined from the point of view of the expert research techniques used. Let us clarify this situation with an example.

In a case of disputed paternity, 1 ml of liquid blood of the child, mother and putative father were applied to sterile gauze wipes to conduct a genetic examination. The samples were then air dried, packaged in paper envelopes, sealed with signatures of responsible persons, seals and provided with explanatory notes, and sent for examination. Such removal of samples does not raise doubts about their authenticity, and from the point of view of research methodology makes them quite suitable and sufficient for examination.

3. Assessing the scientific validity of the expert methodology and the legality of its application in this particular case is very complex, since the judge, as a rule, is not an expert in the field of knowledge to which the research relates. He receives information about the method recommended in given conditions and the possible results of its application from numerous reference and methodological literature. The literature is constantly updated, and the development and improvement of scientific and methodological support for expert practice leads to the fact that new methods often contradict previously published ones. Methodological guidelines concerning the conduct of examinations and issued by different services are often poorly consistent. The testing and implementation of methods is not yet carried out frequently enough at the interdepartmental level. All these circumstances significantly complicate the assessment of the scientific validity and legality of the use of expert methodology. The situation, however, is changing for the better as more and more existing standard forensic techniques are unified and standardized, and atlases of techniques approved by the Federal Interdepartmental Coordination and Methodology Council on Expert Research are created.

Usually, a second commission examination is appointed to resolve doubts. However, the same difficulties may arise when assessing it. Some doubts can be resolved during the interrogation of an expert. Here, the help of other experts who can be questioned as specialists and explain to the court the features and scientific validity of a particular technique can be very valuable.

When assessing complex examinations and research, the results of using one expert methodology serve as the starting point for further research. The direction of subsequent work to complete the expert task and, ultimately, the final conclusions of the expert depend on their correct interpretation. Let's illustrate this with an example.

In the case of a fire in a department store, melted copper wires were examined during a comprehensive examination. The metal expert concluded that the cause of the melting of the wires was a short circuit that occurred before the fire started. Based on this, the fire technical expert concluded that the fire was caused by a short circuit in the electrical wiring. When assessing the expert’s conclusion, the court found that the results of the metallurgist’s research were interpreted incorrectly, with a deviation from the forensic fire-technical examination methodology, according to which it was necessary to identify the presence of a cause-and-effect relationship between a short circuit in the electrical wiring and the occurrence of a fire. In particular, through calculations it was necessary to establish the possibility of fire from drops of molten metal of objects located directly under the wire.

4. Checking and assessing the completeness and comprehensiveness of the conclusion allows us to judge that:

All objects submitted for examination were examined, and all necessary and sufficient diagnostic and identification signs were identified to formulate answers to the questions posed;

The expert gave reasoned answers to all questions posed to him or justified his refusal to answer one of the questions;

The expert report fully and comprehensively describes the progress and results of the study and attaches relevant illustrative material.

Incompleteness of the expert study is the basis for ordering an additional examination or interrogation of the expert.

5. Assessing the logical validity of the progress and results of the expert study is carried out by analyzing the sequence of stages of expert research, the logical conditionality of this sequence, the logical validity of expert conclusions by intermediate results. The literature provides formal logical errors found in expert opinions1, such as:

The conclusion is not a logical consequence of the expert’s research:

Conflicting expert conclusions have been given on the same subject;

The conclusion is internally contradictory;

The expert's conclusions are not sufficiently motivated. Other logical errors may also be identified.

6. Checking the relevance of the results of the expert study to this civil case (i.e. their evidentiary value), which is understood as the connection with the subject of proof and with other circumstances of the case, the establishment of which is necessary to achieve the goals of the proceedings. Checking the relevance of the results of an expert study when assessing it consists of finding out whether the fact established by the expert is included in the subject of proof or among other circumstances essential to the case and whether the conclusions made by the expert allow this fact to be established and proven.

7. Checking the compliance of the expert’s conclusions with the evidence available in the case, those. assessment of the expert opinion in conjunction with other evidence.

Amendments may be made to the conclusion evaluation scheme:

If the expert refuses to answer all or part of the questions put to him, the validity of the refusal is assessed. If the refusal is found to be justified, the court either refuses to conduct the examination, or reformulates the expert task, or entrusts the examination to another expert (expert institution), or provides the necessary additional materials;

If the expert has reformulated the expert task, it is necessary to assess whether the change in the wording of the questions is legal, and to determine whether the meaning of the questions has changed, and whether this is justified from a scientific and editorial point of view;

If the expert has gone beyond the scope of the expert task (according to Article 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Article 68 of the Arbitration Procedure Code), the legality of expanding the expert task is assessed from the point of view of the expert’s qualifications, the admissibility and relevance of the results obtained;

If the expert who performed the re-examination critically analyzed the conclusion of the primary examination, both of these conclusions must be assessed together. In particular, it is necessary to analyze the validity of the criticism of the first examination contained in the conclusion of the re-examination, especially if there is a discrepancy in the conclusions. Note that criticism can only concern the essence of the expert research conducted and the methods used. An expert does not have the right to replace the court and evaluate the evidentiary value of conclusions, subjective or legal grounds for giving an erroneous primary conclusion.

A competent and thoughtful assessment of the forensic report and the involvement of specialists for consultation allows us to identify the most common expert errors. However, an analysis of judicial and expert practice, including interviewing judges of both courts of general jurisdiction and arbitration courts, shows that in the overwhelming majority of cases, judges are only interested in the expert’s conclusions from the entire expert opinion. In fact, their assessment of the expert’s conclusion usually comes down only to checking the completeness of the conclusions and their consistency with other evidence in the case. And this is understandable, since, in our deep conviction, the judge is not able to assess either the scientific validity of the conclusions, or the correctness of the choice and application of research methods, or the compliance of this method with modern achievements in this field of scientific knowledge, since for such an assessment they must have the same knowledge , as the expert.

It is difficult to assess the level of competence of the forensic expert who performed the examination. The conclusion indicates education, specialty, work experience, academic degree and academic title, position held, but all this, even the academic degree and title, does not yet indicate the expert’s competence in matters of specific expert research. Of course, not every expert opinion is so complex that it is inaccessible for evaluation by the entity that appointed the examination. But the increasingly complex tasks of forensic examination, the emergence of new types and types of examinations based on the most modern technologies, the development and complication of forensic techniques leads to a steady increase in difficulties in assessing the scientific validity of expert research.

In our opinion, the only way to verify the scientific validity and reliability of an expert opinion is the real competition of experts, to achieve which it is necessary to grant the right to appoint forensic examinations to the parties in civil and arbitration proceedings. In addition, the time has come, avoiding lifeless, ephemeral formulations, to clearly define in the law simple and publicly accessible criteria that the entities that commissioned the forensic examination should be guided by when assessing expert opinions.

The introduction of the institution of a specialist in civil proceedings, which strengthens the real competitiveness of the parties and contributes to the objectification of the process of proof, demonstrates that the legislator, although indirectly, recognizes that assessing the conclusions of a forensic examination from the point of view of scientific validity, reliability and sufficiency is a very difficult task for the court, the solution of which impossible without real competition among knowledgeable persons in court.

Let us now dwell on consequences of assessing the conclusion of a forensic expert. If the assessment results are positive, the expert’s opinion as evidence can be used in evidence to obtain new and verify existing evidence, to recognize the proof of a particular fact, to determine the direction of further proceedings in the case.

The consequences of a negative assessment of an expert opinion may vary depending on what served as the basis for such an assessment. If this was the result of procedural violations committed during the appointment or conduct of a forensic examination, the expert’s incompetence, his unreasonable refusal to give an opinion, or doubts about the reliability of the results obtained and the conclusions drawn, then a repeat examination may be ordered. A re-examination can also be ordered in cases where the expert’s conclusion contradicts other evidence collected in the case, since, as we indicated above, the expert’s conclusion is not some kind of special evidence and a priori it is impossible to give preference to expert conclusions.

An expert's opinion in civil and arbitration proceedings can be assessed by all participants in the trial. The court may agree with the assessment of any of them, but may also reject their considerations. When considering a case in appeal, cassation and supervisory procedures, a higher court has the opportunity to evaluate the expert’s opinion in full.

Having familiarized itself with the expert’s opinion or a message about the impossibility of giving an opinion, the court has the right to interrogate the expert (Article 187 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Article 86 of the Arbitration Procedure Code).

The interrogation of the expert is carried out to clarify the expert’s competence and his attitude to the given case, as well as to clarify this conclusion, when in his testimony the expert:

Explains the essence of special terms and formulations;

Justifies the need to use the chosen research methodology, instruments and equipment;

Explains how the identified signs allowed him to draw certain conclusions, and to what extent the conclusions are based on the materials of the civil case.

If the members of the expert commission come to different conclusions, during the interrogation the reasons for these discrepancies are clarified.

The interrogation of an expert should not be confused with an additional examination (Article 87 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Article 87 of the Arbitration Procedure Code), the grounds for the appointment of which coincide with some of the grounds for the interrogation: insufficient clarity or incompleteness of the expert’s conclusion. The criterion for distinguishing between the grounds for questioning an expert and ordering an additional examination is the need for additional research. If such research is not required to clarify the expert’s conclusions or clarify the content of the conclusion, the expert is interrogated. Otherwise, an additional examination is assigned.

The expert is questioned only after he has given his conclusion. In GP K and AP K, expert testimony is not included in the list of evidence (Article 55 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Article 64 of the Arbitration Procedure Code). However, they are, as it were, a continuation of the conclusion and therefore have evidentiary value.

IN civil process The expert's conclusion is announced at the court hearing. In order to clarify and supplement the conclusion, questions may be asked to the expert. The first to ask questions is the person at whose request the examination was appointed, his representative, and then the other persons participating in the case and their representatives ask questions. If the examination is appointed on the initiative of the court, the plaintiff and his representative are the first to ask questions of the expert. Judges have the right to ask questions to the expert at any time during his interrogation (Part 1 of Article 187 of the Code of Civil Procedure).

When considering cases arbitration court at the request of a person participating in the case, or at the initiative of the arbitration court, an expert may be summoned to a court hearing. After the conclusion is announced, the expert has the right to give the necessary explanations on it, and is also obliged to answer additional questions from the persons participating in the case and the court. The expert's answers to additional questions are recorded in the minutes of the court session. The procedure for raising questions by persons participating in the case is not regulated by the APC, however, within the meaning of Art. 153 of the APC it follows that this procedure is established by the court.

As a rule, questions are first asked by the person (or his representative) at whose request the expert was appointed, and then by other persons. The arbitration court has the right to reject with reason the questions proposed by the above-mentioned persons and put forward new questions on its own initiative.

Questions asked of the expert and his answers are recorded in the minutes of the court session (Article 229 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Article 155 of the Arbitration Procedure Code). In the Code of Civil Procedure and the Arbitration Procedure Code, the expert is not named among the participants in the process, who, after familiarizing themselves with the protocol of the court session, can submit their comments on it. However, the expert may petition the court to familiarize himself with the recording of the questions posed to him during the interrogation and the answers given to them, and, if necessary, to make additions and clarifications to the protocol of the court session. Based on the results of consideration of the comments, the court issues a ruling to certify their correctness or to reject them (Article 232 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Part 7 of Article 155 of the Arbitration Procedure Code), which is attached to the minutes of the court session.

We noted earlier that to assist in assessing an expert's opinion, a specialist may be engaged to provide explanations based on his or her specialized knowledge, either in writing or orally. These clarifications may include:

1. An indication that it is impossible to resolve this issue, for example due to the lack of expert methodology. The expert could have already pointed out this circumstance in his conclusion, but it seems necessary for the court to listen to the opinion of another specialist. Otherwise, the appointment of a new examination will only delay the proceedings.

2. An indication of the unsuitability of objects for expert research, which is obvious only to a person with special knowledge.

3. Indication of errors in the detection, recording, and seizure of objects that could subsequently become physical evidence.

4. Determination of the type or type of forensic examination, which is directly related to the choice of an expert institution or candidacy of an expert, determining his competence in resolving the issues posed. Often, judges do not know the subtleties of the generic division within various classes of examinations and can appoint, for example, a forensic financial and economic examination and entrust its implementation to a forensic accounting expert. But the diversified nature of economic science in modern market conditions has led to the identification of several types of examinations in the class of forensic economic examinations. An expert who is competent in solving the problems of forensic accounting may not know the methods of financial and economic examination.

5. An indication of the materials that must be made available to the expert, for example, protocols for examining the scene of the incident and some material evidence, diagrams, plans, documents, etc. According to procedural legislation, the expert has the right to familiarize himself with the case materials, but this right is limited by the subject of the examination. The expert should not collect evidence and choose what to examine, for example, analyze witness testimony, otherwise doubts may arise about the objectivity and validity of the conclusion.

Let's explain this with an example. In a civil case, a system unit was provided at the disposal of experts for conducting a forensic accounting examination personal computer from the accounting department of LLC "I". The expert in his conclusion indicates that the conclusions were made on the basis of “analysis of 1C accounting data (the program through which accounting was carried out in the organization).” However, software and database research is not the subject of forensic accounting. For this purpose, a forensic computer-technical examination should have been appointed:

Computer software - to establish what software available on this computer device and whether it works in normal mode;

Information and computer forensics (of data), during which it would be possible to establish which databases are available on the hard drive of the system unit.

The court's ruling on the appointment of a forensic accounting examination and the materials made available to experts did not even mention what kind of software was in the system unit, or whether it functioned normally. From the conclusion it followed that the accounting experts themselves discovered this software and analyzed its operation. At the same time, databases containing a number of accounting documents were identified. In fact, by analyzing the contents of the system unit’s hard drive, experts collected evidence and chose what to examine and thereby replaced the subject who ordered the examination. The expert report did not contain information about how the system unit was connected, what manipulations were performed with it. This is not surprising, since expert accountants do not have the necessary special knowledge for this. As a result, doubts about the objectivity and validity of the conclusion led to its exclusion from the evidence. The arbitration court considered it inappropriate to order a forensic computer-technical examination after unknown manipulations by expert accountants with the system unit, during which irreversible changes to the information stored in it could have occurred.

If a specialist is engaged by the court to provide advice on a forensic examination that has already been carried out1, he, in addition to the above issues, considers:

1) sufficiency of objects and samples for comparative research to give a conclusion, which is determined from the point of view of the expert techniques used;

For example, during a forensic food examination of minced sausage, a sample of minced meat was taken from the boiler. However, according to the research methodology, it is necessary to take not one sample, but an average sample obtained by taking several samples from different parts of the mass of the substance, which are then mixed and a certain part is taken from this mixture, representing the average sample.

Or another example, during a forensic phonoscopic examination in a non-state institution, a phonogram of a conversation between several individuals with male voices, including brothers with similar characteristics of the speech-producing tract, speaking the Georgian language, was examined. However, the experts did not have comparative samples of both brothers' voices. Therefore, the specialist who testified in court concluded that it was impossible to reliably and accurately establish the threshold for interindividual and interindividual variability in the speech characteristics of each of the brothers.

2) methods used in the forensic examination, equipment with which these methods are implemented (accuracy and reproducibility of the method, whether metrological control and verification of equipment, its adjustment and calibration are provided);

3) the scientific validity of the expert methodology, the boundary conditions of its application, the admissibility of using the chosen methodology in this particular case. For example, when performing a forensic metallurgical examination of a copper cable with traces of melting laid in a metal hose, the expert used a technique intended for wires with copper conductors laid openly, which is unacceptable. Therefore, the results of such an examination are unreliable;

4) the validity of the expert’s conclusions, the relationship and interdependence of the conclusions and the research part of the expert opinion.

A very common situation is when the expert’s conclusions are unfounded and are not based on the research carried out. This is especially true for engineering and technical forensic examinations.

For example, having received fragments of electrical wiring with traces of melting as an object of study during a fire-technical examination, the expert does not analyze the melting. It is limited to stating the fact of the presence of melting, which presumably could have been caused by a short circuit. The following is a quote from a physics textbook, which states that during a short circuit, a high temperature is reached and the insulation can ignite. Based on these assumptions, a categorical, unsubstantiated conclusion is made about the mechanism of the occurrence and development of a fire.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Similar documents

Conclusion of forensic accounting examination. Establishment by an expert accountant of the amount of material damage and the circle of responsible persons. Evaluation of the expert accountant's report by the investigator and the court. Certificate of an expert accountant stating the impossibility of giving an opinion.

abstract, added 05/08/2010


Forensic accounting as research conflict situations in the economic activities of the enterprise according to accounting data. The techniques used are general and specific techniques. Use of an expert accountant's opinion by an investigator or a court.

test, added 11/25/2015


Expertise and grounds for its appointment. The concept of an expert opinion. Contents and structure of the expert's opinion. Tasks of assessing an expert's opinion. Evidentiary value of an expert's opinion. The role of expert objectivity in the process of proof.

course work, added 03/16/2008


Use of accounting expertise in implementation financial control. Principles of designing the primary medium of information about completed transactions in accumulative statements and order journals. Evaluation of the expert's conclusion by the investigator and the court.

course work, added 08/07/2011


Criminal procedural aspects of forensic medical examination of material evidence of a crime against a person’s sexual integrity. The role of forensic science in murder investigations; procedure for conducting and evaluating the expert’s opinion by the court.

thesis, added 05/16/2017


Theoretical, procedural and organizational foundations of forensic examination. Procedural status of a forensic expert and competence. Appointment of the examination and evaluation of the expert opinion, the procedure for evaluation by the court according to the norms of Russian legislation.

course work, added 02/20/2012


The concept of traceological examination, its subject, tasks, objects. Types of trace examinations (fingerprint, mechanoscopic, examination of dental marks). General provisions methods of conducting traceological examinations. Structure of the expert's report.

course work, added 06/01/2015

4. RELATIONSHIP OF DOCUMENTARY CHECK

AND FORENSIC ECONOMIC EXAMINATION

Forensic economic examination is the activity of a competent specialist in studying the case materials presented to him to resolve issues posed to him by the investigator or the court, which ends with the drawing up of a written expert opinion.

The investigator is authorized to order a forensic economic examination if special knowledge is needed in the field of accounting, monetary relations and finance, which form the scientific competence of an expert economist.

One should agree with the position of the Investigative Directorate of the Federal Tax Service of Russia that one of the most important grounds for ordering a forensic economic examination is the investigator’s reasonable doubts about the correctness of the tax audit findings, on the basis of which a criminal case was initiated. However, it is necessary to recall that the doubts themselves should concern individual conclusions formulated in the tax audit report and not require the appointment of a new (control) audit in order to complete the materials of the criminal case.

The possibility of a procedural error - assigning the function of an auditor to an expert - arises from the undoubted similarity of the two forms of using special economic knowledge for a number of reasons.

Both a specialist in the tax audit department and an expert economist have special knowledge in the same areas of economic science.

They base their conclusions on the study of documents, entries in accounting registers, and other accounting documentation.

Similar methods are used to study accounting documents.

Hence, in order to avoid mistakes, it is necessary to remember the significant differences between audit (documentary verification of compliance with tax legislation) and forensic economic examination, which are usually divided into two groups.

1.Procedural differences.

A . A forensic economic examination is carried out only in a criminal case initiated on the basis of a decision of the investigator. The basis for conducting a documentary audit is an order sent to the tax audit department from the head (or deputy) of the relevant body. An inspection can also be ordered at the request of the investigator, including before the initiation of a criminal case.

B . With regard to an audit (documentary check), the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR regulates only the investigator’s right to demand its implementation. The procedural regulation of forensic economic examination in order to ensure guarantees of legality is determined by many norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR. Legal basis the appointment and conduct of a forensic examination is regulated by Articles 78, 79, 81, 184 - 194, 288, 290 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the legal status, rights and obligations of the expert are regulated by Articles 67, 82, 106, 192, 275, 289 of the Code of Criminal Procedure RSFSR. The legal basis for the expert's conclusion is regulated by Articles 80, 191 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR. Thus, assigning the functions of an expert economist to the auditor (including during repeated audits) turns a tax audit into an examination devoid of its procedural form, which is an indisputable basis for returning the case for further investigation. The expert's performance of auditing actions also casts reasonable doubt on his conclusions.

2. Methodological differences.

A. According to the content of the activity. An audit is a review of business activities for a certain (usually reporting) period of time. The verification is carried out on the basis of documents located in the relevant organization. The examination does not carry out an audit of economic activities, but examines documents attached to the criminal case.

B . On the subject of research and verification. A documentary audit covers all financial and economic activities of an enterprise for a certain period of time in order to identify facts of non-compliance with tax legislation. Forensic economic examination examines, on the basis of accounting documents, only those circumstances of financial and economic activity that are important for the correct resolution of the case. These specific circumstances are determined each time when questions are posed to the expert by the investigation and the court.

IN . By objects of research. During the audit process, a specialist from the tax audit department himself selects the documents he needs, and, if necessary, independently seizes individual documents (or requests copies of them). A forensic expert-economist bases his conclusions on the documents attached by the investigator to the criminal case. The expert-economist is not granted the right to independently seize documents. If necessary, at his request, additional documents are seized by the investigator.

One of the objects of research by an expert economist can be a document verification act. This is possible in situations where the investigator has doubts about the correctness of the methodology used during the audit for calculating and justifying the amounts of income and the cost of other taxable items. In this case, the expert economist does not repeat the audit work, but only analyzes the scientific validity of the calculation methods used by the audit.

There are a number of other methodological differences (in the subject of the inspection and examination, in the presentation of research results, etc.). However, even a reference to the main differences shows the mutual indispensability of documentary verification and forensic economic examination.

An inspection is ordered at the initiative of an operative officer or investigator in situations where it is necessary for the first time, through official control measures, to identify documents and other accounting materials that can serve as evidence in a criminal case. A forensic economic examination is assigned to examine already identified documentary evidence. The purpose of its appointment is to eliminate the contradictions that have arisen in the case materials by obtaining new evidence - the conclusion of an expert economist.

It should be remembered that the conclusion of an economic expert does not have pre-established evidentiary value and is assessed by the investigator and the court along with other evidence collected in the case. Naturally, in the course of studying the materials presented to him, an expert economist can establish new facts of violations of tax legislation, previously unknown to the investigation. However, a forensic economic examination is not assigned just to identify such previously unknown facts.

5. Organization of appointment of judicial and economic

examinations

When ordering a forensic economic examination, the investigator sets a specific goal. As a rule, the goal is to obtain the judgment of an independent specialist in the field of economic science and practice, and as a special case - specifically in the field of accounting and taxation, on issues such as:

the correctness of calculation of the amounts of taxes payable to the budget;

identification of persons responsible for violation of tax laws;

determination of the amount of under-accrued and under-paid taxes to the budget;

establishing a method for concealing taxes from payment to the budget.

In each particular case, the questions raised for resolution by the examination can be specified.

For example, during a criminal investigation against the president of an open joint-stock company, it was established that during 1995 - 1996 open Joint-Stock Company"ABOUT." acquired from the joint-stock company "X." margarine and peasant butter. In violation of current legislation, OJSC "O." accrued value added tax (VAT) in accounting on received products at rates twice as high as established. Then the inflated VAT accrued on the products received was written off in accounting as a reduction of the VAT due from OJSC "O." in budget revenues and, accordingly, in VAT returns, the amount of tax due to the budget was underestimated. Thus, OJSC O. evaded paying value added tax to the budget in the amounts established by law.

Feeling the need for special economic knowledge when investigating a criminal case and guided by Art. Art. 78, 184, 187 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR, the investigator decided to appoint a forensic accounting examination in this criminal case (Appendix No. 3).

The following questions were raised for approval of the examination:

Does the amount of VAT received by OJSC "O" have an impact? from buyers of products previously supplied by JSC "X." for the amount of VAT claimed for reimbursement from the budget on the same products when they are paid to the supplier?

What is the amount of VAT on products received by OJSC "O." from JSC "X." could be presented for reimbursement from the budget, and what amount was actually presented for reimbursement from the budget?

If an unreasonably inflated amount of VAT was presented for reimbursement from the budget, was JSC “O.” subsequently compensated? damage to the budget?

What amount of VAT to be reimbursed from the budget should have been indicated in tax returns? Chief Accountant based on those available in the period under study at OJSC "O." primary documents?

The expert's opinion on this case is given in Appendix No. 4.

Based on the circumstances to be established in a specific criminal case, other questions can be formulated for resolution by the examination.

For example, during the investigation of a criminal case against the director of a limited liability partnership “Zh.” gr. K. was established that Zh. LLP, while engaged in commercial activities, received income, part of which, in order to evade taxes, the director of the LLP deliberately concealed. For this purpose, according to her instructions, the indicators were underestimated gross income in the report “On financial results” and their use for the 2nd and 3rd quarters of 1996, which led to the concealment of profit in the amount of 864,155.8 thousand rubles and non-payment of tax on it in the amount of 302,454.5 thousand rubles.

In this case, the following questions were posed to the examination:

1. What amount of income from the sale of securities was received by Zh. LLP? for the period from January 1 to October 1, 1996 and is it correctly reflected in the balance sheet accounts?

2. Is the amount of income from the sale of securities correctly reflected in the f. report? No. 2 “Report on financial results” LLP “Zh.” for the period from January 1, 1996 to October 1, 1996?

3. What impact did the amount of income actually received from the sale of securities have on the amount of taxable profit of Zh. LLP? for the period from January 1, 1996 to October 1, 1996?

4. What amount of income tax should be due to the budget from Zh. LLP? for 9 months of 1996 and what amount of income tax was actually accrued to Zh. LLP for this period?

From what source of funds does Zh. LLP? acquired securities, sold from the LLP for the period from January 1, 1996 to October 1, 1996, and which balance sheet accounts reflect the movement of proceeds from the sale of securities?

It is unacceptable to raise issues that are not within the competence of an expert in this specialty for resolution by a forensic economic examination. So, for example, sometimes in order to resolve a forensic accounting examination, the investigator suggests asking questions such as:

1. Authenticity of documents submitted for examination.

The expert's conclusion is subject to evaluation by the investigator, inquiry officer, prosecutor, court, person or body considering the case of an administrative offense.

The conclusion for the trial and investigation is not mandatory and is assessed according to the general rules and requirements for assessing evidence, i.e. the expert accountant's opinion is equal to other evidence in the case. It is assessed in the same way as other evidence.

The expert's opinion is not necessary for the court and is assessed by the court according to the rules established for evaluating evidence. The court's disagreement with the conclusion must be motivated in the court's decision or ruling. The expert's opinion is announced at the court hearing and examined along with other evidence in the case. The rules for evaluating the conclusion of a forensic examination are given in the articles of the Code of Criminal Procedure “Rules for the Evaluation of Evidence” and the Code of Civil Procedure “Evaluation of Evidence”.

In accordance with the norms of procedural law, each evidence is subject to assessment from the point of view of relevance, admissibility, reliability, and all collected evidence in the aggregate - sufficiency to resolve the case. Consequently, the expert’s opinion in a criminal case must be assessed by the investigative authorities from four positions:

1) relevance to the case under investigation;

2) admissibility in comparison with other evidence;

3) reliability for compliance with reality;

4) sufficiency from the standpoint of resolving the case.

In civil and arbitration procedural legislation, the opinion of an expert accountant is assessed in a similar way. The court can evaluate it according to its inner conviction, based on a comprehensive, complete, objective and direct examination of the conclusion and the evidence available in the case.

Several fundamental criteria can be identified

assessments of expert opinions, which are given in the codes. In the process of assessing the expert’s opinion, it is necessary to:

Make sure that it is prepared by an expert institution or person who is authorized to provide a forensic accounting report;

Make sure that it is signed by the person (persons) who has the right to affix a signature to the document and contains all other essential details of this type of evidence;

Check the quality of the materials provided to the expert.

Taking into account the procedural requirements, several areas for assessing the expert accountant’s opinion can be identified:

1. Compliance with the procedural order of preparation, appointment and conduct of the examination: the expert’s conclusion must meet procedural requirements. Its structure and content must comply with the procedural rules for drawing up an opinion. When conducting an examination, all procedural norms must be observed.

2. Compliance of the conclusion with the questions formulated in the determination (resolution) on the appointment of the examination: it is necessary to check the wording of the questions in the conclusion and the resolution (decree) of law enforcement agencies. The expert must check the identity of the questions.

3. The presence of logic and consistency in the presentation of facts, evidence and conclusions: the expert must comply with the sequence of consideration of the case materials, i.e. Each question should be addressed in order. The expert's conclusions must be interconnected with the processes of economic activity reflected in accounting. The content of the conclusion should not contradict reliable facts that are reflected in primary documents, accounting registers, and reporting.

4. Objectivity of the conclusion: the expert’s conclusions must be confirmed by the facts and documents established by him and based on accounting and reporting data. An expert may rely on other information provided to him if it has legal force, is documented and does not contradict the expert’s conclusions.

5. Conclusions should be supported by appropriate comments to regulatory documents on the case under investigation and support it with references to laws, regulations, orders, etc. The absence of references allows, when assessing the examination, to doubt the objectivity of the expert’s conclusions.

6. Determining the completeness of the expert’s conclusion: the conclusion must contain information about the study of the object of examination from all possible sides. In this case, you should use a variety of information base or accounting documents. The expert can apply several traditional verification techniques. The presence of several options for studying the issue will allow us to assess the completeness of the examination results.

7. Scientific validity: the expert must rely on special research methods. In this case, the method, technique or procedure that was used during the examination should be indicated. Unconventional and questionable techniques should be avoided. Also, conclusions can be justified by analytical calculations. The value of the conclusion increases with the parallel use of analytical and documentary verification techniques.

8. Specificity of the conclusion: it should not contain different interpretations of the issues. It is necessary to give an unambiguous answer to the question posed, supported by evidence. Answers should sound clear, precise, concise, and specific.

9. Nature of presentation and style: the conclusion should be understandable. If it is unclear, complex terms are used and their interpretation is not given, the expert may be called in for questioning.

The expert accountant's conclusions may conflict with other evidence collected in the case. The discrepancies are associated with two reasons: the presence of possible errors in the expert accountant’s conclusion; unreliability of other evidence while the expert’s conclusions are true. In these cases, the subjects who appointed the examination evaluate the conclusion according to their inner conviction in connection with all available evidence in the case.

The result of evaluating the expert accountant’s opinion may be its recognition:

Complete, scientifically sound and suitable for use in proof in full;

Insufficiently clear or incomplete, requiring additional research of some objects. In this case, an additional examination is assigned;

Unfounded, raising doubts about its correctness. In this case, a re-examination is ordered by a reasoned determination or resolution.

The court or investigator may disagree with the expert’s conclusions and, without ordering a re-examination, decide the case on the basis of other evidence, if taken together they allow a true conclusion to be drawn about the actual factual circumstances of the case.

Law enforcement agencies are required to reflect the results of the evaluation of the conclusion in their decision. In this case, the decision provides:

The reasons for which the expert’s conclusion was rejected and other evidence was accepted as a means of substantiating the conclusions of the court (investigation). Another situation may arise when the expert’s opinion is the main evidence in the case, and other evidence is not accepted for consideration;

The reasons why some evidence is given preference over an expert’s opinion, and vice versa.

The reasoned part of the decision must contain a convincing analysis of the shortcomings of the expert opinion and reasons why it is rejected.

Planning the process of forensic economic examination.

Procedural norms provide for the time limits for consideration of criminal and civil cases.

Definitions and resolutions on the appointment of a forensic accounting examination, among other tasks, provide for the period for conducting the examination, i.e. start date and end date, and submission of an expert accountant's report. The head of a state or non-state forensic expert institution, when issuing a task to an expert or group of experts, adheres to the deadlines established in the resolution or determination.

In order to complete the task of conducting the examination on time and in full, the organizing expert, who is the leader of a group of expert accountants (if the examination is carried out by several experts), or the expert himself draws up a schedule for conducting the forensic accounting examination.

The requirements for drawing up a plan for conducting a forensic accounting examination are not regulated by procedural legislation. The need for planning is due to objective reasons.

Planning your work by an expert allows you to:

Comply with the deadlines for expert proceedings;

Pay the necessary attention to all aspects of the case;

Complete the work at optimal cost, efficiently and in a timely manner;

Effectively distribute work among members of the group of experts participating in the review;

Coordinate the work of experts;

Identify events, transactions, documents, information that can have a significant impact on the expert’s conclusions and the outcome of the case.

Planning of the forensic accounting expert process can be carried out on the basis of the planning principles used in auditing practice, but taking into account the requirements of procedural legislation. Such planning is regulated by Federal Rule (Standard) No. 3 “Audit Planning”.

Planning is the initial stage of conducting a forensic accounting examination. Based on the schedule, a forensic accounting program is being developed, which can determine the volume, types and sequence of expert procedures necessary to form an objective and informed opinion among expert accountants about the organization of accounting of an economic entity.

The examination program is a set of instructions for the expert performing the examination, as well as a means of monitoring and verifying the proper performance of the work. In the process of developing the program, the expert should take into account the directions of research of the questions posed law enforcement agencies. The study of issues can be independently detailed by the expert depending on the subject of the examination (for example, the question involves conducting a documentary examination and arithmetic verification of data).

Planning of a forensic accounting examination must be carried out by an expert accountant in accordance with general principles conducting an expert study, as well as taking into account the following specific planning requirements:

Comprehensiveness – ensuring interconnectedness and consistency of all stages of expert research;

Efficiency – linking all stages of planning according to deadlines, the range of issues being analyzed, according to the list of objects under study;

Optimality – providing planning options to select the optimal plan, allowing to reduce the examination time and optimize the efficiency of the expert result.