Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

Police and Investigative Activity
Reference:

Criminal procedural means of preliminary verification of reports on misuse of budgetary funds

Gritsaev Sergei Ivanovich

PhD in Law

Associate Professor, Department of Criminology, Kuban State Agrarian University named after I.T. Trubilin

350044, Russia, Krasnodar Territory, Krasnodar, Kalinina str., 13

grizaevserg@mail.ru
Other publications by this author
 

 
Meretukov Gaisa Mosovich

ORCID: 0000-0001-8243-0263

Doctor of Law

Professor, Department of Criminalistics, I.T. Trubilin Kuban State Agrarian University

350044, Russia, Krasnodar Territory, Krasnodar, Kalinina str., 13

mosovich@bk.ru

DOI:

10.25136/2409-7810.2023.3.43991

EDN:

YTMZCO

Received:

08-09-2023


Published:

05-10-2023


Abstract: The object of the study is the crimes provided for in Articles 285.1 and Article 285.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as the activities of the subject of the investigation in general and to verify reports of misuse of budgetary funds, in particular. The subject of the study was the regularities of the preparation, commission and concealment of this group of crimes, as well as the regularities of the activities of law enforcement agencies to identify, investigate and disclose them. When forming conclusions, the authors were guided by the analysis of the norms of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, other laws regulating the verification of reports on this group of crimes and the conduct of their investigation, the provisions of general criminalistic theories, materials of investigative and judicial practice (materials of 148 criminal cases considered in the courts of the Southern Federal District of the Russian Federation are summarized). The authors consider in detail the investigator's verification of the report on the misuse of budgetary funds, with special attention being paid to the problems of using the means of its implementation. The study used dialectical, logical, statistical, formal and legal research methods, as well as the method of legal modeling. The authors note that when conducting an audit of a report on the misuse of budgetary funds, the investigator needs to use the full range of means specified in Part 1 of Article 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. The conducted research made it possible to establish that these funds are sufficient for its implementation, at the same time, their insufficiently detailed regulation in the criminal procedure Law creates difficulties when investigating a crime report. The authors offer organizational and tactical recommendations that will avoid negative consequences when receiving explanations, requesting documents, appointing examinations, etc. At the same time, the authors point out that a complete solution to this problem requires fixing a clear and detailed procedure for using means of verifying a crime report in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.


Keywords:

crime report, misappropriation of funds, getting an explanation, reclamation of documents, appointment of forensic examinations, audit, inspection of the scene of the incident, forensic characteristics of a crime, subject of preliminary examination, circumstances to be established

This article is automatically translated.

At the stage of checking a crime report, the investigator must promptly resolve an important issue – by means provided by the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, in a limited period of time, identify the presence or absence of signs of a crime in the act indicated in the message and, based on this, initiate a criminal case, or refuse to initiate it. The quality of the audit determines the effectiveness of law enforcement agencies in detecting and solving crimes. Such well-known scientists of processualists and criminologists as A. K. Gavrilov, B. Ya. Gavrilov, V.P. Lavrov, R. D. Rahunov, L. A. Sergeev, V. V. Stepanov, N. G. Shurukhnov, G. P. Khimicheva and others devoted their scientific works to the problems arising during the verification of reports of crimes. Entered into force in March 2013  Federal Law No. 23-FZ "On Amendments to Articles 62 and 303 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation" has significantly expanded the list of tools that should be used when verifying a crime report. [1] However, there are still many unresolved problems that negatively affect the quality of the verification of a crime report. Thus, the Criminal Procedure Law does not establish a clear procedure for the use of means of procedural verification of a crime report. As a result, investigators are guided by organizational and tactical recommendations, professional experience, and generalized practice, which may be ineffective in the conditions of checking a specific message about a crime. Consequently, certain norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation require clarification, and when developing recommendations for conducting a preliminary check, the specifics of the method, the mechanism of the crime, the signs of which are established, must be taken into account.

Criminal procedural and criminalistic means of preliminary verification of a report on the type of crime under investigation are provided for in Part 1 of Article 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation – obtaining explanations and samples for comparative research; requesting documents and objects; appointment of forensic examinations; inspection of the scene, documents, objects, corpses; examination.[1] The investigator may also require the production of documentary checks, audits, studies of documents, objects, corpses, involve specialists in these actions, give the body of inquiry a mandatory written order to carry out operational search measures (Part 1 of Article 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation).[2]

Unfortunately, the criminal procedure legislation does not establish the procedure and conditions for obtaining an explanation of a person suspected of committing a crime, a victim and a witness. There is no unambiguous opinion on this issue in the scientific and specialized literature at the moment [1, 2, 3]. Scientific and practical recommendations regarding the use of tactical techniques when receiving an explanation at the stage of preliminary verification of a report on a committed crime have not been fully and sufficiently developed [4]. The analysis of investigative practice allowed us to establish that at the stage of preliminary verification of the crime report – 35% of the explanations received by the investigators were drawn up in free form, 65% were drawn up similarly to the interrogation protocol, but without taking into account the criminal procedural regulation of this investigative action. About 12% of the explanations received were excluded by the courts during the judicial investigation in the court of first instance from the list of admissible evidence (148 criminal cases considered in the courts of the Southern Federal District of the Russian Federation are summarized).

In the opinion of the authors, the following is required to eliminate this gap: 1) introduce the article "Procedure and conditions for obtaining an explanation" into the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; 2) when receiving an explanation at the stage of preliminary verification of a report on a committed crime, follow the methodological recommendations developed by forensic science in compliance with the requirements of criminal procedure legislation.

The protocol for receiving an explanation is drawn up with reference to Part 1 of Article 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. It should provide the following details: the place (locality) and the date of the explanation; the time of the beginning and end of the explanation; the name of the body, the special title and full name of the official; the place (premises) and the grounds for obtaining an explanation;  as whom the person was interviewed (suspected of committing a crime; victim or witness); date, month, year and place of birth of the person giving the explanation; his place of registration and actual residence; phone number and e-mail; citizenship, nationality and native language; education, marital status (family composition); place work, studies, position and official phone number; attitude to military duty and place of registration; criminal record (where, when and by what court, under what article); passport or other identity document with a photo; signature of participants in the procedural action (investigator, person who gave an explanation, other persons involved in obtaining an explanation (for example specialist, translator, etc.). If technical means were used when receiving an explanation, then a note is made about their use and their technical characteristics are indicated.

Before receiving an explanation, the Criminal procedure law prescribes the investigator to explain the rights and obligations to the person from whom the explanation is received (Part 1.1 of Article 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation).[2] In Part 1.1 of Article 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, it is stated that persons participating in procedural actions provided for in Part 1 of Article 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation have the right not to testify against themselves and close relatives, the list of which is specified in paragraph 4 of Article 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.[2] It is obvious that according to the above text, all persons who receive an explanation (victim, witness, suspected person) should be warned about this under the signature in the protocol. As it seems to the authors of the article, the person from whom they receive an explanation (victim, witness, suspected person) is not warned of criminal liability under Articles 307 and 308 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, [3] because formally their procedural status is not defined and is not fixed. Then the investigator proceeds to receive an explanation. We believe that when receiving an explanation, he needs to use tactical techniques and recommendations that are developed and used to obtain testimony during interrogation at the preliminary investigation [5, 6]. After receiving an explanation, a note is made in the protocol: "In essence, I can explain the following" and sets out all the information received related to the subject (goals) of the explanation. In the final part of the protocol, the investigator makes a note of the statements received from the participating persons, or indicates their absence. Further, at the end of the text on each page of the protocol, an entry is made by the person who gave the explanation: "The protocol has been read by me", which is certified by his personal signature. At the end of the protocol, the person who gave the explanation indicates whether or not he has comments on the content of the protocol. After that, the protocol is signed by all persons involved in obtaining an explanation.

The Criminal Procedure Law also allows, at the stage of preliminary verification, the investigator's ability to demand documents and objects and seize them in accordance with the procedure established by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Part 1 of Article 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).[2] At the same time, it should be noted that the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation does not define the procedure, conditions and mechanism for requesting, presenting, as well as accepting objects and documents by the investigator and involving them in criminal proceedings. This allows a fairly broad interpretation of the content of this action. For example, the following conditions are specified under which the investigator must make a claim for items and documents: a) the person conducting the investigation knows exactly what items and documents he needs, where and with whom they are; b) there is no danger of non-fulfillment by persons who have items and documents of the requirement to transfer them to the investigator, and it is not so much about the elementary non-presentation of documents and objects, and about the possibility of their concealment or destruction [7, p. 65, 8, p. 105]. These recommendations should be accepted and taken into account in the investigation process. But that's not the problem. In investigative practice, the demand for documents and objects is implemented mainly in the form of a written request made in a free form with reference to Part 4 of Article 21 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, which states that the requirements, instructions and requests of the investigator are mandatory for all institutions, enterprises, organizations, officials and citizens.[2] S. B. Rossinsky rightly points out that those that by virtue of the law (Part 3 of Article 183 of the CPC[2]) require mandatory seizure on the basis of a court decision should be excluded from the volume of the requested documents [9, p. 84]. These are documents containing state or other secrets protected by law (commercial; audit; individual information in the procurement of goods, works, services for state and municipal needs, etc.).  The list of such documents is very extensive. [4] Accordingly, when investigating the targeted expenditure of budgetary funds, the probability that the requested document contains a secret protected by law is very high. Accordingly, the refusal to provide the investigator with the requested document will be justified. In addition, investigative practice is often faced with the fact that the investigator's requirement is not fulfilled within the time specified by him, is partially fulfilled or is not fulfilled at all. Moreover, the Criminal Procedure law does not contain any procedural guarantees of mandatory fulfillment of the investigator's requirement, i.e. this instruction is declarative in nature [10, p. 56]. The need to create a mechanism of procedural coercion against persons who do not comply with the investigator's requirements is a long-standing problem [11, p. 56, 12, p. 158-162] and has not yet been resolved.          

The next procedural action is the appointment of a forensic examination at the stage of preliminary verification of the report of the crime committed. At first glance, this procedural action is not complicated and only requires the investigator to draw up a resolution on the appointment of a forensic examination. However, at the time of preliminary verification of a crime statement, there is often a shortage of sufficient criminally significant information and objects subject to expert research [13, 14, pp. 21-22]. According to 95% of the received applications, as a rule, an inspection of the scene of the incident is carried out immediately, an integral element of which is the inspection and seizure of objects and documents found at the same time. Therefore, if traces of a crime, objects and documents are found and seized at the scene of the incident, the investigator has the opportunity to make a procedural decision on issuing a resolution on the appointment of a forensic examination and provide the seized objects to the expert for research.

Thus, due to the fact that the criminal procedure legislation does not regulate in detail the procedure and conditions for obtaining samples for comparative research, requesting documents and objects and their seizure, conducting documentary checks, at the stage of preliminary verification of a crime report, these procedural actions should, if possible, be carried out during the inspection of the scene of the incident (discovered objects or examine the documents, withdraw them and attach them to the protocol of the investigative action).

In cases of misuse of funds (budgetary and extra-budgetary) at the stage of initiation of a criminal case (the stage of preliminary verification of a crime report), as a rule, first of all, the office office of the head, the chief accountant, as well as the premises of the accounting department, computer and other equipment located in them, are examined and examined accounting and financial and administrative and economic documents, their removal from the scene of the incident is carried out. Samples are obtained for comparative research (experimental samples of signatures of officials, experimental samples made on printing equipment, etc.), documents and items related to the case are requested (financial documents; acts of inventory, audit, audit; orders, orders, job descriptions, etc.). In this case, it is necessary to appoint and to carry out a documentary check, audit and forensic examinations (accounting, economic, financial, credit, tax, valuation and other, depending on the specifics of the current investigative situation). It is important to involve relevant specialists in these actions [15, 16, p. 326]. Also a significant source of information is the materials of operational investigative activities. In this regard, the investigator, within the framework of Part 1 of Article 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation[2], must give the body of inquiry a mandatory written order to carry out operational investigative measures, in particular such as obtaining computer information; removing information from technical communication channels; listening to telephone conversations, etc. Each procedural action should be aimed at obtaining initial information confirming or refuting the specified facts about the misuse of budgetary funds and funds of state extra-budgetary funds.

To determine the subject of a preliminary check of this category of crimes, the investigator needs to have knowledge about the methods of preparation, commission and concealment of crimes of this group, the mechanism of trace formation and the mechanism of the crime, as well as information about the persons who committed them, i.e. to know the criminalistic characteristics of this group of crimes. According to the method of commission, this act is an intellectual crime, its traces remain in financial documents and objects (computer hard disk, various databases, other digital media, etc.). Persons committing the group of crimes under study can only be responsible officials who are charged on a permanent or temporary basis to lead state, commercial organizations or a municipality, while performing organizational and managerial functions. Thus, the subjects of the crime can be: the head of the administration of any level;  deputy head of the administration; Minister of Finance or head of the financial department of a constituent entity of the federation; general director or director, chief accountant, commercial director of a state or municipal organization of the recipient of budgetary funds implementing various socially significant functions; chief physician of a state medical institution; head of an educational institution; head of the education department; head of a state environmental organization and other persons.

At the stage of preliminary verification of the message about the investigated category of crimes, the investigator needs to create his heuristic model and, based on it, determine the goals of obtaining the necessary initial criminalistically significant information [17, 18, pp. 38-43]. To do this, he must first understand the criminal-legal characteristics, and determine the signs that fall under the crimes of Articles 285.1 and 285.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.[3] Without a doubt, the analysis of the composition of these crimes will allow the investigator to determine the most informative for him, in the situation that has arisen, elements of criminalistic characteristics (method of preparation, commission and concealment, mechanism trace formation and the identity of the guilty person) of the category of crimes under consideration and to realize this knowledge: to form a model of the mechanism of the crime, to determine the subject of preliminary verification, possible traces of the crime and their location, as well as to build versions [19, 20].

In addition, the investigator's knowledge of the mechanism of the investigated group of crimes will allow him to fully determine the circumstances to be established and proved at the stage of preliminary verification of the crime report. At this stage of the stage of pre-trial proceedings, the investigator is obliged to establish the event of the crime, in particular: to determine according to which regulations budgetary funds were received; the exact time (date, month and year) of receipt of budgetary funds; the specific amount and for what purpose it was received; the timing of development; in what period of time the funds were not spent according to the purpose and what is the damage; what normative legal acts were formed to write off funds from the account where the budget funds were located and for what purposes, not provided for by the conditions of their appointment, they were spent. It is important here who made the decision on the misuse of funds and signed the relevant documents. It is also necessary to establish the legal status of a legal entity, who is the founder, obtain the constituent documents (charter, regulations, etc.), when and where it is registered, TIN, personal account numbers in a bank or credit institutions, sources of financing, who was the head and chief accountant for the period of the financial year. In addition, other circumstances may be established, such as: who is the guarantor of the allocation of budgetary funds, what real motives and goals were pursued by the heads of the organization at the time of receipt of budgetary funds, the presence of the organized nature of the crime committed and the presence of prior collusion, etc. It should be noted that the mechanism of misuse of budgetary funds is multidimensional and list the entire the scope of the circumstances to be established is quite problematic, they must be determined by the investigator carrying out a specific investigation. 

Thus, based on the analysis of scientific and specialized literature, judicial and investigative practice, the authors believe that the means specified in Part 1 of Article 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation [2] for preliminary verification of a report on the misuse of budgetary funds are sufficient for its implementation. However, the absence of provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation that regulate in detail the procedure and conditions for their application, create difficulties in their practical use during the preliminary inspection. The scientific and practical recommendations proposed by the authors on the organization and conduct of obtaining explanations, requesting documents, etc. minimize the procedural and tactical miscalculations of investigators, but will not solve the problem. To completely eliminate it, it is necessary to introduce a new chapter in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation: "Chapter 19.1. Production of preliminary verification of a crime report." In this chapter, the following articles should be provided: "Article 145.1. Procedure for obtaining an explanation", "Article 145.2. Protocol for obtaining an explanation", "Article 145.3. Obtaining samples for comparative research during verification of a crime report", "Article 145.4. The procedure for the reclamation of documents and objects", "Article 145.5. The procedure for the appointment of a documentary audit", "Article 145.6. The procedure for the appointment of an audit". The authors of this article are aware that the inclusion of such a large number of norms in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation requires painstaking scientific research by specialists in the field of criminal procedure law.

 

1. On Amendments to Articles 62 and 303 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation: Federal Law No. 23-FZ of 04.03.2013 (ed. of 28.12.2013) [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_142908/

2. The Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation No. 174-FZ of 18.12.2001 (as amended on 04.08.2023) (with amendments and additions, intro. effective from 08/11/2023) [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_34481/a3d0f7ee6816ad8ac5a3a3975cf93b26a443c4f8/

3. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of 13.06.1996 No. 63-FZ (ed. of 04.08.2023) [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_10699/c011ede44f5f7d2a4fc5c202f70bcd87c8bf36aa/

4. The list of regulations relating information to the category of restricted access: reference information [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_93980/

References
1. Davydov, S.I. & Pinchuk, A.P. (2020). Obtaining an explanation as a verification action at the stage of initiation of a criminal case: problems of legal regulation. Siberian Legal Bulletin, 3, 96-102.
2. Popov, A.A. (2015). Obtaining explanations and testimony in the criminal process of the Russian Federation: results of a comparative study of pre-trial proceedings: dis. ... cand. jurid. sciences'. Moscow.
3. Kuliy, L.A. & Sukhatsky, A.A. (2018). Some problematic issues of obtaining explanations when checking a crime report. Interactive science, 5, 85–87.
4. Melnikova, O.A. & Chernova, S.S. (2021). Obtaining explanations during the verification of a crime report: problems of legal regulation. Legal science and law enforcement practice, 2(56), 53-64.
5. Zelensky, V.D., Vlezko, D.A., Gritsaev, S.I. & Kuemzhieva, E.G. (2021). Problems of investigative tactics. Krasnodar: KubGAU.
6. Gritsaev, S.I., Vlezko, D.A. & Shevel, D.V. (2013). The use of psychological knowledge in the investigation of crimes: textbook. stipend. Krasnodar: KubGAU.
7. Yakimovich, Yu.K. & Pan, T.D. (2003). Pre-trial proceedings under the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (participants in pre-trial proceedings, evidence and proof, initiation of criminal proceedings, inquiry and preliminary investigation). St. Petersburg.
8. Sementsov, V.A. (2017). Investigative actions in pre-trial proceedings. Moscow.
9. Rosinsky, S.B. (2021). The method of obtaining evidence in the preliminary proceedings of the enlarged case. legal Journal of the Samar University, 1, 82–88.
10. Gritsaev, S.I. (2016). Organizational functions of the investigator: forensic aspect. Krasnodar: KubGAU.
11. Strogovich, M.S. (1968). Course of Soviet criminal procedure. Moscow.
12. Dubinsky, A. Ya. (1984). Execution of procedural decisions of the investigator. Legal and organizational problems. Kiev.
13. Konin, V.V. & Maryina, E.V. (2020.). Tactical and forensic support for preliminary verification of statements and messages within the framework of the initiation of a criminal case. Forensic science: yesterday, today, tomorrow, 2(14), 116–130.
14. Zelensky, V.D. (2005). Organizational functions of subjects of crime investigation. Krasnodar: KubGAU.
15. Kuemzhieva, E.G. (2016). Forensic support for the investigation of falsification of the unified state register of legal entities, the register of securities owners or the depository accounting system: abstract. dis. ...cand. legal Sciences. Krasnodar.
16. Zelensky, V.D. & Meretukov G.M. (Eds.). (2015). Forensics. St. Petersburg.
17. Bakhteev, D.V. (2018). Forensic thinking and investigation programming. Bulletin of the Baltic Federal University. I. Kant. Ser.: Humanities and social sciences, 3, 13–20.
18. Ishchenko, E.P. (2007). Forensics. Moscow.
19. Meretukov, G.M. (2019). The mechanism of crime in the structure of criminalistic characteristics of crime. Modern problems of domestic criminology and prospects for its development, 97–102. Krasnodar: KubGAU
20. Meretukov, G.M. (2020). The mechanism of criminal activity in the sphere of misuse of budgetary funds and funds of state extra-budgetary funds. Institutional transformations of the Russian agro-industrial complex in the context of global challenges, 103. Krasnodar: KubGAU.

First Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The subject of the research in the article submitted for review is, as follows from its name, criminal procedural means of preliminary verification of reports on misuse of budgetary funds. The stated boundaries of the study are fully respected by the authors. The methodology of the research is not disclosed in the text of the article, but it is obvious that scientists used universal dialectical, logical, formal legal research methods, as well as the method of legal modeling. The relevance of the research topic chosen by the authors is not justified. Additionally, scientists need to list the names of leading specialists who have been engaged in the study of the problems raised in the article, as well as reveal the degree of their study. The scientific novelty of the work is manifested in a number of conclusions and recommendations of the authors: "... the following is required: 1) introduce the article "Procedure and conditions for obtaining an explanation" into the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation; 2) when receiving an explanation at the stage of preliminary verification of a report on a committed crime, follow the methodological recommendations developed by criminalistic science in compliance with the requirements of criminal procedure legislation"; "The need to create a mechanism of procedural coercion against persons who do not comply with the requirements of the investigator, the problem long-standing [11, p. 56, 12, p. 158-162] and has not yet been resolved"; "... due to the fact that the criminal procedure legislation does not regulate in detail the procedure and conditions for obtaining samples for comparative research, requesting documents and objects and their seizure, conducting documentary checks, at the stage of preliminary verification of the message If possible, these procedural actions should be carried out during the inspection of the place (the discovered objects or documents should be examined, seized and attached to the protocol of the inspection of the scene)," etc. Thus, the article has theoretical and practical significance, makes a certain contribution to the development of domestic legal science and deserves the attention of the readership. The scientific style of the study is fully sustained by the authors. The structure of the work is not entirely logical. The introductory part of the article is missing as such. In the main part of the article, the authors identify the problems that arise during the preliminary verification of reports of inappropriate spending of budgetary funds, and suggest ways to solve them. The final part of the work contains conclusions based on the results of the study. The content of the article fully corresponds to its title and does not cause any particular complaints. The bibliography of the study is presented by 20 sources, not counting normative legal acts (dissertations, monographs, textbooks and teaching aids, scientific articles). The empirical basis of the work was made up of generalizations made as a result of studying the materials of 148 criminal cases considered in the courts of the Southern Federal District of the Russian Federation. From a formal and factual point of view, this is quite enough. The nature and number of sources used by the authors when writing the article made it possible to reveal the research topic with the necessary depth and completeness. There is an appeal to opponents, both general and private (S. I. Davydov, A. A. Popov, L. A. Kuliy, etc.), and it is quite sufficient. The scientific discussion is conducted by the authors correctly. The provisions of the work are justified to the necessary extent. There are conclusions based on the results of the study ("Thus, based on the analysis of scientific and specialized literature, judicial and investigative practice, the authors believe that the means specified in Part 1 of Article 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation [1] for preliminary verification of reports on misuse of budgetary funds are sufficient for its implementation. However, the absence of provisions in the CPC of the Russian Federation regulating in detail the procedure and conditions for their application creates difficulties in their practical use during preliminary verification. The scientific and practical recommendations proposed by the authors on the organization and conduct of obtaining explanations, requesting documents, etc. minimize the procedural and tactical miscalculations of investigators, but will not solve the problem. To completely eliminate it, it is necessary to introduce a new chapter in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation: "Chapter 19.1. Production of preliminary verification of a crime report." In this chapter, the following articles should be provided: "Article 145.1. Procedure for obtaining an explanation", "Article 145.2. Protocol for obtaining an explanation", "Article 145.3. Obtaining samples for comparative research during verification of a crime report", "Article 145.4. The procedure for requesting documents and objects", "Article 145.5. The procedure for appointing a documentary audit", "Article 145.6. The procedure for appointing an audit". The authors of this article realize that the inclusion of such a large number of norms in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation requires painstaking scientific research by specialists in the field of criminal procedure law"), summarize the results of the study, have the properties of reliability, validity and scientific novelty, and certainly deserve the attention of potential readers. The article needs additional proofreading. It contains typos and punctuation errors. The interest of the readership in the article submitted for review can be shown primarily by specialists in the field of criminal law, criminal procedure and criminalistics, provided that it is finalized: disclosure of the research methodology, substantiation of the relevance of the chosen topic of the article, clarification of the structure of the work, elimination of violations in its design.

Second Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

A REVIEW of an article on the topic "Criminal procedural means of preliminary verification of reports on misuse of budgetary funds." The subject of the study. The article proposed for review is devoted to topical issues of investigating crimes related to misuse of budgetary funds. The author of the article considers the problems of determining the criminal procedural means of preliminary verification of a report on the misuse of budgetary funds. The opinions of scientists, materials of law enforcement practice, and legal norms were used as a specific subject of research. Research methodology. The purpose of the study is not stated directly in the article. At the same time, it can be clearly understood from the title and content of the work. The purpose can be designated as the consideration and resolution of certain problematic aspects of the issue of determining the criminal procedural means of preliminary verification of a report on the misuse of budgetary funds. Based on the set goals and objectives, the author has chosen the methodological basis of the study. In particular, the author uses a set of general scientific methods of cognition: analysis, synthesis, analogy, deduction, induction, and others. In particular, the methods of analysis and synthesis made it possible to summarize and share the conclusions of various scientific approaches to the proposed topic, as well as draw specific conclusions from the materials of judicial practice. The most important role was played by special legal methods. In particular, the author actively applied the formal legal method, which made it possible to analyze and interpret the norms of current legislation (first of all, the norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation). For example, the following conclusion of the author: "The Criminal Procedure Law also allows, at the stage of preliminary verification, the investigator's ability to demand documents and objects and seize them in accordance with the procedure established by the CPC of the Russian Federation (Part 1 of Article 144 of the CPC of the Russian Federation).[2] At the same time, it should be noted that the CPC of the Russian Federation does not define the procedure, conditions and mechanism for requesting, presenting, and accepting objects and documents by the investigator and their involvement in criminal proceedings. This allows for a fairly broad interpretation of the content of this action." The possibilities of an empirical research method related to the study of judicial practice materials, as well as empirical data, should be positively assessed. In particular, the following author's conclusion was made: "The analysis of investigative practice allowed us to establish that at the stage of preliminary verification of the crime report – 35% of the explanations received by investigators were drawn up in free form, 65% were drawn up similarly to the interrogation protocol, but without taking into account the criminal procedural regulation of this investigative action. About 12% of the explanations received were excluded by the courts during the judicial investigation in the court of first instance from the list of admissible evidence (148 criminal cases considered in the courts of the Southern Federal District of the Russian Federation are summarized)." Thus, the methodology chosen by the author is fully adequate to the purpose of the study, allows you to study all aspects of the topic in its entirety. Relevance. The relevance of the stated issues is beyond doubt. There are both theoretical and practical aspects of the significance of the proposed topic. From the point of view of theory, the topic of investigating crimes related to misuse of budget funds is complex and ambiguous. It is difficult to argue with the author that "there are still many unresolved problems that negatively affect the quality of verification of a crime report. Thus, the Criminal Procedure law does not establish a clear procedure for the use of means of procedural verification of a crime report. As a result, investigators are guided by organizational and tactical recommendations, professional experience, and generalized practice, which may be ineffective in the context of checking a specific crime report. Consequently, certain norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation require clarification, and when developing recommendations for conducting a preliminary check, the specifics of the method and mechanism of the crime, the signs of which are being established, must be taken into account." Thus, scientific research in the proposed field should only be welcomed. Scientific novelty. The scientific novelty of the proposed article is beyond doubt. Firstly, it is expressed in the author's specific conclusions. Among them, for example, is the following conclusion: "it is necessary to establish the legal status of a legal entity, who is the founder, obtain constituent documents (articles of association, regulations, etc.), when and where it is registered, TIN, personal account numbers in a bank or credit institutions, sources of financing, who was the head and chief accountant for the period the fiscal year. In addition, other circumstances may be established, such as: who is the guarantor of the allocation of budgetary funds, what real motives and goals were pursued by the heads of the organization at the time of receipt of budgetary funds, the presence of the organized nature of the crime committed and the presence of prior collusion, etc. It should be noted that the mechanism of misuse of budgetary funds is multidimensional and it is quite problematic to list the entire volume of circumstances to be established, they must be determined by the investigator conducting a specific investigation." These and other theoretical conclusions can be used in further scientific research. Secondly, the author suggests ideas for improving the current legislation. In particular, "In order to completely eliminate it, it is necessary to introduce a new chapter in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation: "Chapter 19.1. Production of preliminary verification of a crime report." In this chapter, the following articles should be provided: "Article 145.1. Procedure for obtaining an explanation", "Article 145.2. Protocol for obtaining an explanation", "Article 145.3. Obtaining samples for comparative research during verification of a crime report", "Article 145.4. The procedure for requesting documents and objects", "Article 145.5. The procedure for appointing a documentary audit", "Article 145.6. The procedure for appointing an audit". The authors of this article are aware that the inclusion of such a large number of norms in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation requires painstaking scientific research by specialists in the field of criminal procedure law." The above conclusion may be relevant and useful for law-making activities. Thus, the materials of the article may be of particular interest to the scientific community in terms of contributing to the development of science. Style, structure, content. The subject of the article corresponds to the specialization of the journal "Police and Investigative Activities", as it is devoted to legal problems related to the investigation of crimes related to misuse of budgetary funds. The content of the article fully corresponds to the title, since the author considered the stated problems and achieved the research goal. The quality of the presentation of the study and its results should be recognized as fully positive. The subject, objectives, methodology and main results of the study follow directly from the text of the article. The design of the work generally meets the requirements for this kind of work. No significant violations of these requirements were found. Bibliography. The quality of the literature used should be highly appreciated. The author actively uses the literature presented by authors from Russia (Davydov S.I., Pinchuk A.P., Melnikova O.A., Chernova S.S., Zelensky V.D., Vlezko D.A., Gritsaev S.I., Kuemzhieva E.G. and others). Many of the cited scientists are recognized scientists in the field of criminology. Thus, the works of the above authors correspond to the research topic, have a sign of sufficiency, and contribute to the disclosure of various aspects of the topic. Appeal to opponents. The author conducted a serious analysis of the current state of the problem under study. All quotes from scientists are accompanied by author's comments. That is, the author shows different points of view on the problem and tries to argue for a more correct one in his opinion. Conclusions, the interest of the readership.
The conclusions are fully logical, as they are obtained using a generally accepted methodology. The article may be of interest to the readership in terms of the presence in it of the author's systematic positions in relation to the issues of determining criminal procedural means of preliminary verification of reports on misuse of budgetary funds. Based on the above, summing up all the positive and negative sides of the article, "I recommend publishing"