FORENSIC ISSUES OF CATEGORIZING CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AS PERMANENT STRUCTURES: METHODOLOGICAL GUIDELINES FOR FORENSIC EXAMINERS
https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2018-13-1-41-51
Abstract
The article addresses the issue of subsuming construction projects under the category of permanent (non-permanent) structures. The authors offer detailed criteria for successful resolution of this issue, and present the appropriate course of inquiry for this line of forensic engineering investigation. Special emphasis is placed on the resolution of complex forensic situations. The paper incorporates a systematic overview of primary and secondary indicators for identifying buildings, structures and facilities as permanent or non-permanent. Recommendations draw on extensive regulatory resources, as well as generalization, systematization and analysis of current forensic practices, and are illustrated with specific examples.
About the Authors
Andrei R. Chudievich
The Russian Federal Centre of Forensic Science of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Chudievich Andrei Romanovich –– Master State Forensic Examiner at the Laboratory.
Moscow, 109028
Andrei Yu. Butyrin
The Russian Federal Centre of Forensic Science of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation; The Russian Federal Centre of Forensic Science of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Butyrin Andrei Yur’evich – Doctor of Law, Head of the Laboratory of Construction Forensics of the RFCFS RMJ; Professor at the Department of Construction and Property Management MSUCE.
Moscow, 109028, 129337
Dar'ya V. Khamidova
The Russian Federal Centre of Forensic Science of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Khamidova Dar’ya Viktorovna – State Forensic Examiner at the Laboratory of Construction Forensics.
Moscow, 109028References
1. Makhnin E.L., Fedotov S.V., Galevskii S.O., Kalinin M.A., Koshelev D.M., Suslov S.B., Alekseev I.V., Petrov G.O. Research of automotor-vehicles for determination of cost of recovery repair and assessment. Methodological guidelines for forensic examiners. Moscow: RFCFS, 2013. 128 p. (In Russ.).
2. Butyrin A.Yu., Chudievich A.R., Lukovkina O.V. The definition of types, volumes, quality and cost of construction and installation and special works for the erection, repair (reconstruction) of construction sites. Collection of methodical recommendations for the production of judicial construction and technical expertise. Moscow: RFCFS, 2012. P. 7–54. (In Russ.).
3. Butyrin A.Yu., Stativa E.B. The collection of examples of expert opinions on forensic construction: practical guidelines for forensic examiners. Moscow: RFCFS, 2016. 313 p. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Chudievich A.R., Butyrin A.Yu., Khamidova D.V. FORENSIC ISSUES OF CATEGORIZING CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AS PERMANENT STRUCTURES: METHODOLOGICAL GUIDELINES FOR FORENSIC EXAMINERS. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2018;13(1):41-51. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2018-13-1-41-51
Views:
11983
Email this article 