Investigating Cases by Undercover or Real Identity Investigators and Collaborators

Abstract

"Evidence is the main nerve of the criminal process. They shed light on nebulous issues in the criminal process'', said professor Ioan Tanoviceanu (1913; Boţic, 2016, p. 132). Today, the notion has kept the same metaphorical meaning, as the entire activity of judicial bodies is based on the notion of evidence. The activity of the judicial bodies starts from the moment of initiation of the criminal process. The existence of the criminal process, seen as a report of criminal procedural law, is in turn conditioned by the birth of the legal report of substantive criminal law (Florea et al., 2019; Florea & Galeş, 2020). As is known, the material criminal conflictual report arises from the violation of substantive law norms, or more simply from the commission of a crime (Damian et al., 2021). The purpose of the entire activity of the judicial bodies, especially in the criminal prosecution phase, is to reconstruct the criminal course of action (iter criminis) and to decide on the merits of the case as a result of the administration of the evidence obtained legally and in good faith (Apostu, 2016; Apostu & Petrescu, 2017). Only in such conditions can the "satisfaction" of fairness be offered, which increases the confidence of litigants in the justice system and finally in the educational role of the criminal process (Mateuţ, 2019, p. 28).