Search

The article examines the institution of releasing a person from criminal liability as one of the forms of ending the pre-trial investigation. It was established that this form is a specific type of criminal procedural activity, based on the refusal of the state, represented by the prosecutor, to present a public accusation to the suspect on the grounds provided for by the Criminal Code of Ukraine. It has been established that only the prosecutor, as a subject of procedural level and scale, can cede the performance of the criminal procedural function of criminal prosecution in order to petition the court for the release of a person from criminal responsibility. Attention is focused on the fact that it is the prosecutor who must lead the investigator, the inquirer and direct their incriminating activities in such a way that the criminal prosecution is legal and justified, as well as objective enough to adequately take into account the opportunities provided by the law to the defense, in particular to the suspect, the accused. It is substantiated that the debatable issue is the clarification of the person's right to exemption from criminal liability, however, the subject of such clarification has not been formally established, and the content of the provisions that must be clarified has not been determined. At the same time, it was concluded that it is the prosecutor, as the guarantor of the implementation of the principle of legality, who must ensure not only the formal application of legislation, in particular, regarding the familiarization of a person with his rights regarding exemption from criminal liability, but also to ensure the application of legislation in the form of a proper explanation of the rights of the person in order to make sure that the person is aware of all the consequences of such a decision, including the non-rehabilitative nature of such a decision. Analyzing the norm set forth in part. 2 Art. 286 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, it is established that the prosecutor prepares a petition for release from criminal liability and sends it to the court without conducting a full pre-trial investigation, which means a refusal to further search for incriminating evidence, which for the prosecution is a significant step towards the suspect. Attention is drawn to the fact that during the application of the release of a person from criminal responsibility, a certain veiling of recognition of the person guilty of a criminal offense is noted, which sometimes leads to the person not realizing the non-rehabilitative nature and consequences for himself in the event of the application of this type of termination of the pre-trial investigation. It was established that only the prosecutor should prepare the appropriate request for release from criminal liability and determine the further fate of the prosecution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the article, based on the current legislation, new views on models of pre-trial investigation are considered. The article contains theoretical proposals for optimization and rationalization of pre-trial investigation as the main stage of pre-trial investigation in the criminal process of Ukraine based on the changes taking place in the conditions of digital transformation of society. Methodological bases of modeling of pre-trial investigation in criminal cases include the following criteria (elements) of individualization of the model: goals and tasks of pre-trial investigation; his place in the organization of criminal justice; the initial moment of investigation in a criminal case; structural construction of pre-trial investigation; organizational and legal status of bodies and officials who carry out this activity. It is noted that the crisis phenomena in the modern pre-trial investigation in criminal cases are caused by circumstances that, in turn, determine the need for reform: the construction of the pre-trial investigation is not fully correlated with the historical development and the convergence trends of accusatory and adversarial types of criminal proceedings; there is no unified approach of the state and the scientific community to determine the optimal structure of pre-trial investigation in criminal cases, which corresponds not only to the possibility of resisting the modern criminalization of society, but also stimulates further self-improvement; organizational and procedural contradictions between its forms are observed in the pre-trial investigation; confusion of the functions of criminal prosecution, detection and investigation of crimes, resolution of a criminal case and judicial control; competition of investigative and adversarial grounds at this stage of investigation in a criminal case. The pre-trial investigation with its tasks of establishing the circumstances of the committed crime, the written registration of all the evidence collected because of investigative actions, forms the investigative model of the criminal process. The content of the investigative model is related to the fact that the modern pre-trial investigation is based on written document circulation. The investigator plays the leading role. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is indicated that, during the investigation of corruption crimes, there is usually a need to conduct covert investigative (investigative) actions in view of the specifics of corruption criminal offenses, a significant level of their latency, committed in the context of a conspiracy, as well as the status of the subjects of these crimes, who in certain cases are aware with the methods of work of law enforcement agencies. The article examines the problematic issues of judicial practice of using secret cooperation in criminal proceedings regarding corruption crimes. It has been established that law enforcement officials, when engaging in confidential cooperation in criminal proceedings regarding corruption crimes, face difficulties related to: 1) risks of disclosing information about persons who carry out tacit cooperation; 2) risks of provocation to commit a corruption crime; 3) procedural registration of a person's consent to be involved in tacit cooperation in conducting NSRD and the decision of the authorized body. These problematic issues are solved in different ways in operational, investigative and judicial practice and indicate that there are still challenges in combating corruption crimes that require the efforts of both law enforcement agencies and scientists aimed at solving them. It is extremely important to prevent the provocation of a criminal offense by a person involved in confidential cooperation when countering corruption crimes using the institution of tacit cooperation. Despite the fact that there are grounds for not recognizing the obligation of a person's written consent to involve him in confidential cooperation and conducting NSRD in criminal proceedings regarding corruption crimes, the presence of such consent can still serve as a certain argument in favor of the absence of provocation on the part of the person involved in confidential cooperation and recognition of evidence as admissible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After gaining independence, Ukraine took an active pro-European position, also in the development of legislation. Turning to the historical aspects of the development of the legal system of our state, we know that it belongs to the Romano-Germanic legal family, which determines the fact that domestic legislation has a number of common features with European legal systems, namely: among the main sources of law - normative - legal act, codification of legislation. Studies of foreign law were carried out by a number of scientists, however, the specifics of secret investigative (research) actions in the context of a comparative analysis of foreign and domestic experience require a more thorough study. The article analyzed the main features of the organization and conduct of undercover investigative (search) actions in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and the Criminal Procedure Code of the Federal Republic of Germany. Having studied the separate provisions of the Federal Criminal Code of Germany, we can note that the main functions during the investigation, including secret measures, are assigned to the prosecutor and the court, while the Criminal Code of Ukraine clearly defines the authorities that carry out pre-trial investigations, the first of which is the National Police of Ukraine, and the prosecutor's office, as a body of pre-trial investigation, is absent. At the same time, the authorized person who can make a decision on the NSRD is the investigator, who has the right to apply to the investigating judge with a request, approved by the prosecutor, for permission to conduct secret investigative (search) actions and the prosecutor. Thus, as a result of a comparative analysis of certain secret measures under the Federal Criminal Code of Germany and the NSDR under the Criminal Code of Ukraine, we found that the procedure for their implementation in Germany is not detailed, unlike domestic legislation, in addition, among the features that deserve attention, we can highlight in the paragraphs of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Federal Republic of Germany on specific crimes, in the course of the investigation of which the legislator allows one or another secret measure to be carried out, in the Ukrainian criminal procedural law, such an approach is absent, in Art. 246 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine states only that NSRD may be conducted during the investigation of serious or particularly serious crimes. We think it expedient to consider such specification for implementation in the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine in order to prevent possible abuses in obtaining information that goes beyond the scope of the investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article deals with the issue of proving by the defense the absence of a necessity to extend the pre-trial investigation. The purpose of the article is to identify the possibilities of proving the absence of a need for the pre-trial investigation term extension by the defense and the applicable arguments (based on case law). The article deals with the following issues: general issues of proof; arguments for the defense to object to the pretrial investigation extension; ways of proving the absence of a necessity to extend the pre-trial investigation and violation of the conditions for filing a motion. All issues are covered based on the case law of investigating judges. It is noted that the absence of a rule on serving a copy of the motion reduces the defense's possibilities, since the defense does not always get acquainted with the materials of criminal proceedings in accordance with Article 221 of the CPC of Ukraine. The author proves that the defense can prove that there is no need to extend the pretrial investigation term by denying compliance with the standard of promptness and reasonable speed of investigation and, as a manifestation of this, its effectiveness. In practice, this is done by substantiating the following: proof of the crime event; proof of the suspect's involvement in this event; circumstances indicating the complexity of the proceedings (special complexity, exceptional complexity); the list of procedural actions which require additional time to conduct or complete and the significance of the results of these procedural actions for the trial; the inability to conduct these procedural actions earlier; the time required to conduct or complete procedural actions (in full or at the request of the defense). The author emphasizes that the CPC of Ukraine needs to be amended to enhance the defense's capabilities by providing a copy of the motion to the defense and by requiring investigating judges to indicate and assess the defense's position if it is submitted in the form of written objections or other documents or expressed in court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The presented article is made within the scope of the research subject of the science of the criminal process. It highlights the problematic issues of determining the content and mechanism of proper implementation of the principle of equality before the law and the court in criminal proceedings. The publication puts forward proposals for improving the conceptual apparatus regarding the issues under consideration and some provisions of the current legislation. The relevance of the publication is due to the need to improve scientific developments devoted to the general principles of criminal proceedings, bringing the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine into line with the requirements of international legal acts on the problem of combating discrimination. The purpose of preparing the article was to reveal the main issues of the socio-legal content of the principle of equality before the law, defined in Art. 10 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, as well as some relevant issues that are directly related to this. The prerequisites for the formation of this goal were the modern problems that arise during pre-trial investigation and trial in criminal proceedings. The author used general scientific and special methods of scientific knowledge. Thus, from the general scientific methods, in particular, the system-structural method, the method of functional analysis, from the special ones - formallegal, logical-procedural methods, the method of comparative jurisprudence were used. The main legislative norms related to the topic of the publication have been analyzed. The publication proves that the requirements that determine the grounds and procedure for choosing some preventive measures have certain defects that can directly affect the behavior of participants in criminal proceedings, prompting them to violate the principle of equality before the law and the court. It is proposed to enshrine certain provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, thanks to which it would be possible to avoid violations of individual rights and freedoms. Further scientific research on the selected issue identified the following issues: guarantees of equality of rights and freedoms of citizens, introduction of legal expertise of the CPC of Ukraine and current regulatory and legal acts related to the field of criminal justice, with a view to identifying provisions in them that encourage discriminatory manifestations, normative -legal consolidation of ideas on optimizing the situation of materially indigent participants in criminal proceedings, developing an effective mechanism for bringing to legal responsibility subjects of criminal proceedings for non-compliance with the principle of equality before the law and the court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is indicated that the problem of violence is the most acute in modern Ukrainian society. Violent criminal offenses are not only a collection of violent crimes, but also pose a threat to the national security of the state and the constitutional rights of citizens who fear more and more for their lives and health. The Constitution of Ukraine declares the right of every citizen to life, health care, personal dignity, freedom and personal integrity, as well as the inviolability of private life (Articles 3, 27, 29 of the Constitution). The article examines the problem of violence committed by law enforcement officers, which endangers citizens' trust in law enforcement structures and violates basic human rights. In particular, the causes of violence among law enforcement officers are considered and strategies to prevent these crimes are proposed. The article analyzes the legislative framework of Ukraine, defining the concept of violence in the context of criminal law and legal literature. The study of sociological data on the perception of police violence by both citizens and law enforcement officers provides an opportunity to assess the scale of the problem. In addition, the main causes of violence are analyzed, including insufficient training and psychological training of employees, stress factors and corruption in the law enforcement system. Proposed strategies to prevent violence include improving professional training, strengthening the system of control and internal supervision, as well as paying attention to the psychological state of employees and implementing a system of psychological support. To prevent violence among law enforcement officers, it is necessary to take a set of measures, including psychological support and training on ethics, human rights and professional conduct. It is also important to ensure an effective mechanism of internal control and discipline, thoroughly vet candidates for positions in law enforcement agencies, and conduct regular audits of the security and control system. The overall goal of such strategies is to create a safe and trusting environment for both citizens and law enforcement officers. It is important to take into account that the fight against violence begins with familiarizing employees with human rights and instilling in them respect for these rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on the analysis of scientific sources and law enforcement practice, the article examines the activities of law enforcement and other state bodies and legal institutions to minimize criminal offenses in the field of insurance, which is aimed at timely detection, elimination or neutralization of threats and dangers in the insurance market, averting harmful consequences, as well as bringing the culprits to justice and providing a mechanism for compensation for damage caused by criminal offenses, which is carried out with the help of criminological means. It is emphasized that criminal offenses in the field of insurance have an increased public danger, as they complicate or block the performance of the main tasks related to the formation, at the expense of monetary contributions, of a target insurance fund intended for the compensation of a possible loss, the equalization of losses in connection with the consequences insurance cases. In addition, the criminalization of this market prevents insurance from performing such important functions as increasing the stability of business entities, limiting economic risks, and stimulating entrepreneurial initiative. It is noted that the prevention of criminal offenses in this area should be a complex continuous process that takes into account the changes that occur in modern society and that affect the market of service provision. Attention is drawn to the fact that the very system of entities providing security in the insurance market includes a wide range of entities of both state and non-state ownership, which in one way or another participate in the relevant process. However, their activities must correspond to a single, purposeful state policy, and require coordination in the fight against crime, which currently requires improvement, as it does not fully meet the requirements of the times and challenges in the security sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article, in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, discloses the content of the propriety of evidence as a factor that must be taken into account during the evaluation of evidence in criminal proceedings. The relationship between the evidence's propriety and some legal categories of the institution of proof is indicated. Proposals have been put forward that can be useful during the improvement of the conceptual apparatus of the theory of evidence and the provisions of the current legislation. The relevance of the publication is due to the need to improve the process of proof during the pre-trial investigation and trial, to develop effective mechanisms for the successful performance of the tasks of criminal proceedings, which are defined in Art. 2 of the CCP of Ukraine. The purpose of preparing the article was to reveal the main issues of the legal nature of the ownership of evidence, in accordance with the definition given in Art. 85 of the CPC of Ukraine. The prerequisites for the formation of the specified goal were the modern problems that arise during the pre-trial investigation in criminal proceedings. During the preparation of the publication, general scientific and special methods of scientific knowledge were used. Thus, from the general scientific methods, in particular, the systemstructural method, the method of functional analysis, from the special ones - formal-legal, logical-procedural methods, the method of comparative jurisprudence were used. The main legislative norms related to the topic of the publication have been analyzed. The publication proves that the improvement of the conceptual apparatus, the correct formulation of the legal features of evidence and the implementation of the norms of international conventions into domestic legislation will contribute to the perfection of the procedural law and provide a unified approach to the proper protection of the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of the participants in criminal proceedings. At the same time, the authors took into account that the requirements for the propriety of the evidence have not acquired an imperative character in the legislation, and therefore they are decided individually by the investigator, the prosecutor and the court in each individual case. Knowing the circumstances to be proven in criminal proceedings is the purpose of proof, and propriety is a feature that not only characterizes the evidence, but also acts as a means of achieving the specified goal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines certain aspects of the criminological dimension of law enforcement officers' activities. It is noted that the term "law enforcement officer" is studied through the system of law enforcement agencies and the circle of their employees; it is based on the analysis of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, decisions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and other legal acts. It is substantiated that by the nature of their official powers, law enforcement officers are active participants in criminal legal relations, since they act as authorized officials entrusted with the performance of law enforcement functions. It is this function which is aimed at ensuring law and order, protecting the rights and freedoms of subjects of legal relations from criminal encroachments and is realized through detection, investigation, suppression and prevention of criminal offenses. It is emphasized that participation of law enforcement officers in criminal legal relations as subjects of a criminal offense or victims of a criminal offense is not excluded. It is substantiated that crime among law enforcement officers is particularly dangerous due to a number of factors and may be caused by a number of certain determinants. The authors emphasizes that among the stable trends in criminal offenses committed by law enforcement officers are the following: the level of criminal offenses committed by law enforcement officers corresponds to the general trends in crime, official crimes prevail over general criminal offenses, and the largest number of them are unlawful benefits, abuse of office, abuse of power, torture, etc. That is why the legislator created a new law enforcement agency, the State Bureau of Investigation, which began its operations in 2018. Creation of the State Bureau of Investigation as a pre-trial investigation body was a worthy response by the legislator to numerous public criticisms that the prosecution should be deprived of the pre-trial investigation function, and also in line with the experience of many countries, an effective mechanism for the prevention, detection, termination, disclosure and pre-trial investigation of criminal offenses within its jurisdiction in accordance with the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. These are criminal offenses committed by senior officials, judges and law enforcement officers. Criminal offenses that are undoubtedly under the jurisdiction of the State Bureau of Investigation include torture (Article 127 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) committed by law enforcement officers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is indicated that the tasks of criminal proceedings are to protect the person, society and the state from criminal offenses, to protect the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of the participants in criminal proceedings, as well as to ensure a quick, complete and impartial pre-trial investigation and trial, so that everyone who has committed a criminal offense, was prosecuted to the extent of his guilt, no innocent person was charged or convicted, no person was subjected to unreasonable procedural coercion, and that due process of law was applied to each participant in the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, the article is devoted to the coverage of one of the most complex and strict investigative (search) actions in criminal proceedings, namely, the theoretical and practical issues of conducting a search and the role of participants in this procedural action during its conduct. The current legislation, which regulates the search, was analyzed, some changes and additions to the current Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine were proposed. The need for criminal procedural clarification of the circle of subjects who have the right to be present during the search was emphasized, it was noted that the application of the proper legal procedure will contribute to the protection of human rights and freedoms in criminal proceedings. Summing up, the article notes that during the search, the prosecution is empowered with broad powers provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. Due to the fact that some procedural issues are not clearly regulated by the legislator, the person conducting the search uses procedural loopholes to his advantage. Precisely in order to specify the powers of the prosecuting party during the search, we propose to supplement Part 2 of Art. 235 of the CCP of Ukraine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reveals the problematic issues of admissibility of evidence, as well as the types and criteria of admissibility defined in the provisions of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Proposals for improving the conceptual apparatus regarding the considered issues and provisions of the current legislation have been put forward. The relevance of the publication is determined by the need to improve the process of proof in the field of criminal justice and the development of effective mechanisms for the investigation of criminal offenses. The purpose of preparing the article was to reveal the main provisions of the content of admissibility of evidence in the criminal justice system of Ukraine, as well as some relevant issues that are directly related to this. The prerequisites for the formation of the specified goal were the modern problems that arise during the pre-trial investigation in criminal proceedings. The author used general scientific and special methods of scientific knowledge. Thus, from the general scientific methods, in particular, the system-structural method, the method of functional analysis, from the special ones - formallegal, logical-procedural methods, the method of comparative jurisprudence were used. The main legislative norms related to the topic of the publication have been analyzed. The publication proves that the requirements that determine the procedure for obtaining evidence in relation to the possibility of their further use are conventionally divided into those that have a negative or positive content. Such a classification makes it possible to predict the behavior of an investigator, prosecutor or judge in implementing the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. It is also proven that in part 1 of Art. 86 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, it is advisable to establish the provision that the evidence is recognized as admissible if it is obtained in the manner established by the criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine, and not only the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also noted that in Art. Art. 87 and 88 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine recognize certain conditions of inadmissibility of evidence related to a significant violation of human rights and freedoms and groundless use of evidence and information related to the identity of the suspect or accused. At the same time, any other violations of the provisions of the Criminal Code of Ukraine can be considered relatively inadmissible, if only because of the insignificant nature of the legal consequences that arise and the real possibility of their elimination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]