EXPERT'S CONCLUSIONS IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS OF CONSTRUCTION FRAUD
https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2018-13-1-71-75
Abstract
The paper analyzes various forms of conclusions presented in forensic construction audit reports. Representative examples from forensic casework are included to demonstrate the circumstances warranting the use of categorical assertions, categorical exclusions, conditional, alternative, or probable conclusions in a forensic construction audit report. The issues of expert report evaluation are examined in terms of assessing the probative value of expert opinions presented in different logical forms in a forensic construction audit report. Arguments are offered in support of using construction audit reports with probabilistic conclusions as a source of evidence in criminal investigations.
About the Authors
Andrei Yu. Butyrin
The Russian Federal Centre of Forensic Science of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation; National Research Moscow State University of Civil Engineering
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
Igor' A. Danilkin
Forensic Science and Criminalistics Center of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for Moscow; Dmitry Mendeleev University of Chemical Technology of Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Danilkin Igor’ Anatol’evich – Candidate of Law, Deputy Head of the FSCC MDMIAM, Head of the Construction Forensics Department; associate professor at the Criminalistics and Criminal Law Department, MUChT.
Moscow, 127051, 125047
References
1. Orlov Yu.K. The expert’s opinion and its assessment (in criminal cases). Moscow: Yurist, 1995. 64 p. (In Russ.).
2. Orlov Yu.K. Modern problems of proof and use of special knowledge in criminal proceedings: scientific and practical manual. Moscow: Prospekt, 2016. 213 p. (In Russ.).
3. Strogovich M.S. The course of the Soviet criminal process. Moscow: Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1958. 703 p. (In Russ.).
4. Rakhunov R.D. Theory and practice of examination in the Soviet criminal process. 2nd ed. Moscow: Gosyurizdat, 1963. 262 p. (In Russ.)
5. Vinberg A.I., Kocharov G.I., Min’kovskii G.М. Topical issues of the theory of forensic evidence in the criminal process. Sotsialisticheskaya zakonnost’ = Socialist legality. 1963. No 3. P. 19–27. (In Russ.).
6. Vander M.B. Tactics of criminalistic examination of materials, substances and products. St. Petersburg: Institute of professional development of prosecutors and investigators, 1993. 73 p. (In Russ.)
7. Treushnikov M.K. Judicial evidence. Moscow: Gorodets, 1997. 317 p. (In Russ.).
8. Filippov P.M., Mokhov A.A. Use of special knowledge in the legal proceedings of Russia. Volgograd: Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 2003. 156 p. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Butyrin A.Yu., Danilkin I.A. EXPERT'S CONCLUSIONS IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS OF CONSTRUCTION FRAUD. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2018;13(1):71-75. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2018-13-1-71-75
Views:
1689
Email this article 