Peculiarities of the investigation of frauds disguised as civil legal relations

Abstract

The materials of judicial and investigative practice were analyzed, as a result of which shortcomings in the process of proof have been identified, to eliminate which it is appropriate to distinguish three stages in the fraud investigation methodology: 1) features of receiving and checking fraud reports and working with the victim; 2) collecting evidence of the use of deception or abuse of trust by a specific person before his or her detention; 3) collection of evidence after arrest and notification of suspicion to a person involved in committing fraud. It has been noted that each of the stages is characterized by a feature in relation to tactical tasks and means of solving them and is acceptable and understandable to employees of practical units, as it is related to specific procedural features of their work.
 It has been determined that the peculiarities of the stage of receiving and checking fraud reports and the procedure of the investigator’s work with the victim are the need to record the initiative of the victim (in person or through a representative) to prosecute the guilty person and demand compensation for the damage caused. A set of actions aimed at solving typical tactical tasks solved at this stage has been presented.
 It has been noted that the courts recognize as a legal basis for the detention of a person suspected of committing fraud, only collected evidence of the use of deception or abuse of trust during the acquisition of property or the right to it. Therefore, at the stage of collecting evidence of involvement in fraud of a specific person before his or her arrest, the investigator must solve quite specific tactical tasks, taking into account this, it has been recommended to carry out a set of measures and procedural actions.
 The specifics of evidence collection after the arrest and notification of suspicion to a person involved in fraud were revealed through the implementation of a complex of investigative actions (presentation for identification; interrogations, obtaining temporary access to things and documents, etc.).
 The need to simplify the procedure of proof in proceedings on simple, minor criminal offenses related to fraud and more active use of the institution of concluding agreements provided for in Art. 468 of the CCP of Ukraine.