АКТУАЛЬНІ ПИТАННЯ ВИКОРИСТАННЯ СПЕЦІАЛЬНИХ ЗНАНЬ В ІНФОРМАЦІЙНОМУ ЗАБЕЗПЕЧЕННІ РОЗСЛІДУВАННЯ КРИМІНАЛЬНИХ ПРОСТУПКІВ

The scientific article deals with some aspects of the investigation of crimes against morality. The peculi-arities of the use of special knowledge in the investigation of this category of criminal offenses are con-sidered. The author emphasizes that during criminal proceedings at the stage of both pre-trial investigation and in court, questions may arise, which, due to their narrow specialization and unlawful nature, may not be within the power of the investigator and the court. In such cases, other participants in the criminal process are involved in the process of proving - persons who have special knowledge sufficient to make a qualified solution to the problem. It is noted that special knowledge is a set of theoretical knowledge and practical skills in the field of science, technology, arts, crafts obtained as a result of vocational training and professional education used for the prevention and investigation of criminal offenses. The view is maintained that the following should be attributed to independent forms of the use of specialized knowledge: the direct application of specialized knowledge in science, technology, art and craft by the judge himself; appointment of examinations; appointment of audits; knowledge that is inherent in various types of professional activity, except knowledge that is professional for the investigator and the judge, and is used in the investigation of crimes and criminal proceedings in court in order to facilitate the establishment of the truth of the case in cases, forms and procedures determined by criminal- procedural legislation; consulting assistance of a specialist without involving him personally in court actions; expert's participation in court actions. It is emphasized that specialized knowledge can be used directly and indirectly by an authorized person. Based on the analysis of judicial investigative practice, the following were distinguished among the main forms of use of special knowledge in the investigation of crimes against morality: direct (use of special knowledge by investigators in carrying out individual procedural actions); mediated (appointment of forensic expertise and involvement of relevant specialists in individual procedural actions).

The work of knowledgeable persons involved in legal proceedings by officials conducting legal proceedings is of primary significance. The work of knowledgeable persons is inter-procedural in nature. The use of specialized knowledge is characterized by a special form. The paper presents the opinions of researchers and the author concerning classification of forms and types of the use of specialized knowledge in Russian legal proceedings. The author concludes that classifications are important for the development of academic thought and practice in relation to different types of legal proceedings. The majority of researchers are in favor of distinguishing two forms of using specialized knowledge — procedural and non-procedural forms. Forensic examination is one of the main and common types within the procedural form. In addition, the author focuses on participation of a specialist in production of procedural (including investigative) and judicial actions, consulting an expert and other procedure participant. The types of the use of specialized knowledge within the framework of the nonprocedural form in terms of content, to a certain extent, are compatible with the types identified within the framework of the procedural form. Specific types can also be identified, e.g., medical forensic examination (expertise), revisions, audits, etc. Alternative expertise takes a special place among the types of the use of specialized knowledge in the nonprocedural form. Its normative regulation has not developed, and the use of its results in legal proceedings as evidence is still in question. At the same time, many types within the framework of the procedural form are normatively regulated. However, the shortcomings of normative regulation as well as not fully developed methodological aspects prevent the use of the results of these types of forensic examination (expertise) in legal proceedings. In relation to some types within the framework of the non-procedural form, the results of which are now actively used in legal proceedings, there is neither normative regulation nor theoretical justification based on a unified approach. In this regard, it is especially important to unify not only the forms of using specialized knowledge, but also the types, based on a general theoretical expert approach, as well as ways to use their results in legal proceedings.

Special knowledge is important in the formation of the evidence base in criminal proceedings. With the help of special knowledge, it is possible to establish facts and reproduce events that cannot always be determined through the testimony of participants in the process or through investigative actions. The use of special knowledge is regulated by law, but in practice there are examples of inappropriate compliance with the procedure for attracting specialists and experts as carriers of special knowledge, assigning and conducting examinations and special studies, and correctly assessing the results obtained. In this connection, the purpose of scientific research is to study the procedural requirements for the use of special knowledge in criminal proceedings and to identify problems that arise in law enforcement practice. The authors used methods of comparative analysis, formal logic and documentary control in the research process. As a result, the authors formed their view on the use of special knowledge in criminal proceedings in order to assist specialists in assessing evidence and their sources at the stage of pre-trial proceedings, presented criteria for analyzing the quality of the use of special knowledge (expert and specialist opinions) and the materials of a criminal case that influence their quality, used in the conclusions of experts and specialists in accordance with the requests of legal practice. The value of the study lies in the fact that the authors proposed independent solutions to overcome problems associated with the use of special knowledge in criminal proceedings.

The use of special knowledge in Russian criminal procedure has a long history, but there are still disputes about what special knowledge is and in what forms it can be used in criminal proceedings. Discussions continue regarding the procedural status of a specialist, his rights, duties and responsibilities. The issue of the correlation between the status of a specialist and an expert has not been resolved, there is no unified position on how a specialist is interrogated, and what criteria should be used to evaluate his opinion. All these issues, which are important to ensure the admissibility of the obtained evidence, in the collection of which special knowledge is used, require resolution. The foregoing indicates the need for further research into the problems of the procedural status of a specialist and his participation in criminal proceedings, which determines the relevance of the chosen topic. Purpose: to analyze the problems of specialist participation in investigative and procedural actions. The methodology of the study is based on general scientific (dialectical, systemic) and specific (formal-legal, system-structural, descriptive-analytical) methods. Results: the article establishes that the specialist participation in criminal proceedings is possible in various procedural and non-procedural forms, with the most in-demand specialist participation in the production of investigative actions. The article reveals significant gaps in the procedural regulation of the status of a specialist, in particular, there are no clear norms regulating the procedure for obtaining a specialist opinion and his interrogation. The author proposes to amend the criminal procedural legislation by including independent articles regulating the receipt of a specialist opinion and the procedure for interrogating this person, which will contribute to increasing the effectiveness of the use of special knowledge in criminal pr oceedings.

Мета статті – обґрунтувати особливості та проаналізувати можливості судової експертизи у сфері інтелектуальної власності під час досудового розслідування. Методологія. Достовірність отриманих результатів і висновків забезпечено використанням методу узагальнення – для формування результатів дослідження наукових джерел інформації про об’єкти права інтелектуальної власності, основні завдання та предмет судової експертизи у сфері інтелектуальної власності та виокремлення актуальних видів експертних досліджень; статистичних методів та методу аналізу, щоб проаналізувати експертну практику у сфері інтелектуальної власності та визначити перелік запитань, які вирішують під час проведення всіх експертних досліджень, притаманних цьому виду експертиз. Наукова новизна. За результатами узагальнення експертної практики сформовано перелік запитань, вирішуваних під час проведення основних видів експертних досліджень у межах судової експертизи у сфері інтелектуальної власності. Висновки. Проаналізовано можливості судової експертизи як однієї з найефективніших форм застосування спеціальних знань, окреслено завдання судового експерта під час дослідження об’єктів права інтелектуальної власності, які формують і ставлять для вирішення судової експертизи, зважаючи на необхідність установлення певних об’єктивних даних, що мають практичне значення для з’ясування істини у справі. Наголошено, що розслідування правопорушень у сфері інтелектуальної власності потребує використання спеціальних знань різних галузей науки і техніки, а відповідно – обов’язкового залучення компетентних, обізнаних осіб (спеціалістів, судових експертів) для отримання професійних консультацій, участі в окремих слідчих діях, дослідження різноманітних об’єктів права інтелектуальної власності в межах судової експертизи – порівняно нового напряму застосування спеціальних знань, що на відміну від інших видів судових експертиз дає змогу встановити фактичні дані про властивості, ознаки, закономірності створення та використання об’єктів.

Метою статті є виявлення недоліків правової регламентації порядку використання спеціальних знань співробітниками оперативних підрозділів за межами кримінального провадження та формування, з урахуванням зарубіжного досвіду, пропозицій щодо їх усунення.
 Наукова новизна полягає у комплексному дослідженні питань удосконалення правової регламентації використання спеціальних знань оперативними підрозділами вітчизняних правоохоронних органів під час здійснення ними діяльності з виявлення, припинення, попередження і розкриття правопорушень за межами кримінального провадження. Автором проаналізовано положення нормативно-правових актів, які регламентують правовий статус того чи іншого правоохоронного органу (державного органу спеціального призначення з правоохоронними функціями), а також актів, що регулюють здійснення їх оперативними підрозділами окремих різновидів оперативної діяльності (оперативно-розшукової, контррозвідувальної тощо). Досліджено досвід правової регламентації використання спеціальних знань в діяльності оперативних підрозділів правоохоронних органів країн, ментально близьких до України.
 Висновки. З урахуванням виявлених недоліків правової регламентації, а також зарубіжного досвіду законодавчого регулювання зазначених питань запропоновано внесення відповідних змін до законів України «Про контррозвідувальну діяльність» та «Про оперативно-розшукову діяльність» в частині доповнення повноважень підрозділів, наділених правом здійснення оперативно-розшукової і контррозвідувальної діяльності, положенням щодо їх права залучати спеціалістів, які володіють науковими, технічними та іншими спеціальними знаннями, під час виконання покладених на них завдань. Крім того, запропоновано здійснити окрему законодавчу регламентацію прав і обов’язків осіб зі спеціальними знаннями, які залучаються до участі в оперативних заходах.

Forensic examination is an important procedural safeguard for the protection of infringed intellectual rights in cases where the use of special knowledge is necessary to resolve a dispute, and at the same time it should not be considered as a procedural safeguard and a means of protection in cases where special knowledge is not required to establish the fact of the use of an object of intellectual rights. At the legislative level, there is no legal regulation of the issue of the need for special knowledge to establish the fact of the use of an object of intellectual rights in disputes about their infringement, it is not complete at the level of clarifications of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, in some aspects it differs from the long-established Rospatent approaches and, therefore, it needs clarification. Due to the similar legal nature of industrial designs, trademarks (service marks) and copyright objects of a visual nature, the paper proposes to clarify and apply uniformly an approach by virtue of which special knowledge is not required but the perception of a narrow circle of buyers/users of the relevant goods/services may be used to assess their identity or similarity, general visual impression and derivative. In such cases, both the conclusion of a forensic examination and non-judicial expert opinions should not be treated as admissible evidence. In other cases, when special knowledge is necessary, it is proposed to consider only those conclusions of forensic examination and extra-judicial examinations that were carried out by persons qualified not only in the field of protection, examination and evaluation of intellectual property rights, but also in the field to which the object under study belongs. Such examinations can also be of a complex nature.

Improving the activities of pre-trial investigation and judicial review largely depends on the increased use of special knowledge in forensic investigative practice and, above all, the involvement of an expert and their analysis. The relevance of the subject matter is explained by the need to introduce new forms and approaches to evaluating the reliability of expert opinions, in particular with the involvement of independent specialists of the corresponding speciality. The purpose of this study was to provide arguments regarding the expediency of attracting knowledgeable persons as reviewers to evaluate the objectivity and completeness of forensic analysis, the correctness of the methods and techniques applied by the expert, and the validity of the opinion. To achieve this purpose, the following general scientific and special research methods were used: Aristotelian, comparative legal, functional, sociological, statistical, system and formal legal analysis, legal modelling, and forecasting. It was established that in the vast majority of countries of the world, except Ukraine, an independent, knowledgeable person with special knowledge in the corresponding field is involved to help evaluate the reliability of an expert opinion. It was proved that contacting knowledgeable persons to evaluate the objectivity, validity, completeness of expert research helps establish the causality between the identified features of the object of analysis and the fact that is subject to establishment, and also gives grounds for determining the affiliation, admissibility, reliability, and sufficiency of the expert opinion. At the same time, a specialist's review cannot serve as a source of evidence, but only has an auxiliary (advisory, technical) nature and can serve as a basis for appointing a second (additional) forensic analysis or a cross-examination of the expert and the reviewer. To exercise the rights of individuals to fair justice, it is proposed to introduce this procedure for evaluating the reliability of expert opinions in Ukraine, with the necessary changes in the current procedural legislation of Ukraine to provide an opportunity for participants in criminal proceedings and the victim to attract knowledgeable persons as reviewers of expert opinions

Agricultural production and processing are among the most criminogenic spheres of economic relations. It should be noted that the works devoted to the study of the totality of social relations aimed at the use of special knowledge in the identification and documentation of fraud committed in the agro-industrial complex are not enough. The analysis of statistical data on the state of economic crime in agriculture indicates that among the criminal encroachments in agriculture, most of them account for fraud, and the territorial distribution of crime indicates the need to intensify the fight against these criminal acts in the most developed agricultural regions of the country. The specificity of the organization and methods of accounting in agriculture has a huge impact on the ways of veiling illegal activities, which necessitates the development of further research in the field of methodology of documentary research. There is a great practical importance and the need for a comprehensive scientific analysis and study of the use of special accounting knowledge in the identification and documentation of fraud in agriculture.

Provision of Immediate Conduction of a Medical Examination of a Person as a General Duty of a Judge for the Protection of Human Rights in Aspect of Article 206 of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine

In modern legal proceedings, the use of various forms of forensic expert exami-nation is important. The article analyzes the current state of forensic computer-technical expert examination and the cur-rent forensic expert practice in this area, considers the issue of the need for spe-cial knowledge to conduct this type of examinations. It is substantiated that fo-rensic computer-technical expert exami-nation is an independent type of forensic expert examination and belongs to the class of engineering and technical exam-ination. The definitions of the object, the subject of computer-technical examina-tion are presented, typical tasks are for-mulated. The issues, faced by the experts when assigning forensic computer-technical examinations for the study of new computer objects are considered. Determination of the expert’s assignment and the formulation of questions are considered as an important stage in the planning of an examination, on which the correct choice of research methodol-ogy depends. With the development of information technologies, investigators are interested in new objects for which it is necessary to prepare individual meth-odological recommendations, manuals for determining the sequence of conduct-ing various types of examinations. It has been substantiated that the conclusions of forensic experts on computer-technical examination are of great evi-dentiary value. They make it possible to: decipher the encoded information; find information that was considered missing, lost or destroyed; restore the mecha¬nism of a criminal event based on information traces.

Based on the analysis of statistical data, only every third or fourth criminal proceeding concerning the misappropriation, embezzlement of property, or seizure of it through abuse of office is annually forwarded to court with an indictment. This substantiates the relevance and necessity of broader use of special knowledge and the involvement of specialists for the purpose of detecting and documenting the facts of such offenses. The state of elaboration of the problem under consideration in criminal procedural and criminalistic literature is demonstrated. Attention is drawn to the lack of unity among scholars regarding the concept of special knowledge, as well as the forms, methods, and subjects of its application. A criminal offense, as a certain type of unlawful activity, is reflected in the surrounding environment in the form of certain changes, which are called traces in criminalistics. The investigator’s task is to find such traces, examine them, and interpret them correctly. Given the diversity of methods for committing such offenses, including those using the capabilities of modern information technologies, their detection and documentation are difficult to imagine without the use of special knowledge in various fields of production, economics, accounting, and so on.

The number of cybercrimes has grown considerably in recent years and now poses a serious threat for the national security of states, information systems and personal data of citizens. The reasons for this considerable increase in cybercrime are the change of global policy, the special military operation, and the restrictions connected with the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors examine the importance of using special knowledge and artificial intelligence (AI) in the investigation of cybercrimes. They research the concept of a cybercrime, and analyze the ideas of scholars on strengthening the counteraction to such criminal activities, which have been spreading rapidly in recent years. The authors conclude that cybercrimes are understood as socially dangerous unlawful behavior, carried out with the use of information technologies and inflicting considerable damage on the economic and reputational interests of people, organizations and the state. They present a classification of the most common types of cybercrimes and key methods of carrying them out. They also analyze the research discussion on the contents of special knowledge, which allows the authors to conclude that in modern legal conditions AI, being a new form of special knowledge, requires a new understanding in view of the use of this knowledge in criminal proceedings. Taking into consideration that this format includes machine self-learning, neural networks, evolutionary algorithms, etc., the authors attempt to outline how they can be used for solving complex criminalistic tasks that require a preliminary analysis of large volumes of forensically relevant information, identification of images and regularities, and argumentation of making organizational-procedural decisions. The authors examine the cyberspheres where special technical knowledge is used, such as cybersecurity, computer architecture, reverse engineering, digital forensics, system administration. AI has a tremendous potential for the modern criminal process, its use will make it possible to enhance the effectiveness of investigatory work as it will considerably improve the speed and effectiveness of procedural actions and pre-court proceedings for criminal cases in general. It is, however, necessary to take into account the existing risks and limitations connected with its use in court-investigative practice. The authors conclude that in order to ensure the adequate use of opportunities offered by AI in the criminal process, it is necessary to develop ethical and legal principles of its inclusion in the sphere of special knowledge used in criminal court proceedings for acquiring forensic evidence on criminal cases.

The scientific article pays attention to the consideration of the concepts of “criminal offense”, “criminal offense”, “crime” andtheir implementation in criminal and criminal procedure legislation. Amendments to the legislation that came into force in connectionwith the adoption of the Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine on Simplification of Pre-trial Inves -tigation of Certain Categories of Criminal Offenses” are considered. The issue devoted to the new subject of criminal procedure – thecoroner and the head of the inquiry body is investigated.The article considers the types of evidence that are taken into account in the investigation of criminal offenses. Such evidenceshould include: explanations of persons, results of medical examination, expert opinion, testimony of technical devices and technicalmeans that have the functions of photography and filming, video recording, or means of photography and filming, video recording. Thepossibility of using evidence in the investigation of crimes is considered.During the criminal proceedings, a new entity is identified, which is actually engaged in the investigation of criminal offenses,such an entity is the investigator. Inquiry is a new unit that investigates criminal offenses. Inquiries are carried out by inquiry subdivisionsor authorized persons of other subdivisions.A criminal offense is an act (action or omission) provided by the Criminal Code, for which the main penalty is a fine of not morethan three thousand non-taxable minimum incomes or other punishment not related to imprisonment. Procedural sources of evidencein criminal proceedings on criminal offenses, in addition to certain Art. 84 of the CPC, there are also explanations of persons, the resultsof medical examinations, expert opinion, indications of technical devices and technical means that have the functions of photographyand filming, video recording, or means of photography and filming, video recording.The legislator does not rule out that the sources of evidence are testimony, physical evidence, documents, expert opinions, but infact the explanations of persons, the results of medical examinations, expert opinion, indications of technical devices and equipmentthat have the functions of photography and filming, video or photo – and filming, video recordings are also identified as sources of evidence.The purpose of such a division is to distinguish between sources of evidence that can be used to prove crimes and criminal offenses.In addition, there is a misunderstanding – what exactly can we use to form the evidence base in criminal proceedings.

Forensic expertology distinguishes between different types of use of special knowledge that are expressed in legal proceedings, each of which has its own characteristic features. Despite the problems associated with determining the type of forensic examination, the competence of the expert, etc., in general, an approach to checking and evaluating the conclusion of a forensic expert has been established. One of the important issues when conducting an assessment is checking the correctness of the methodology chosen by the expert, the compliance of the methods with the established criteria: scientificity, verifiability, accuracy, efficiency, safety and ethics. The methodology of various types (kinds) of forensic examinations is developed on a strictly scientific basis, using general theoretical achievements of forensic expertology and the theory of the relevant scientific field, such as linguistics, art history, etc. However, fairly new «forensic examinations» in the humanities have appeared in forensic investigative practice. Among them are cultural studies, religious studies, political science, ethics, etc. Most of these «examinations» are conducted without proper methodological support, with a high level of subjectivity, which cannot be hidden behind the very lengthy explanations given in the conclusion of forensic activities, which is especially evident in the absence of a research section in the conclusion of the forensic expert. In a number of cases, they try to justify the theoretical basis of such «examination» by a non-existent area of scientific knowledge.