THE OBLIGATION OF THE PROSECUTOR TO STOP THE CONDUCT OF COVERT INVESTIGATIVE (SEARCH) ACTIONS IN CORRUPTION CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: THEORETICAL GROUND AND PRACTICE OF IMPLEMENTATION

Abstract

The proposed article is devoted to the theoretical and practical problems of the implementation of the prosecutor’s power to stop the further conduct of covert investigative (search) actions in the presence of certain conditions. The author emphasizes the extreme importance of covert procedural measures of conducting pre-trial investigation of corruption criminal proceedings for the prosecution, which leads to cases of numerous abuses by law enforcement officers who try to obtain evidence of a person’s guilt by any means. The scientist states the fact of an inadequate level legal regulation in the current Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine on the procedure for making a decision on the termination of further covert investigative (search) actions. In addition, the scientific article notes that granting relevant powers only to the prosecutor without any control by other participants in the criminal proceedings (judicial control by the investigating judge) leads to negative consequences for the criminal proceedings in the form of non-fulfillment of his tasks, because the prosecutor, as a representative of the prosecution, is not interested in stopping the covert measures of pre-trial investigation. The author confirms these conclusions with statistical information about the number of permits obtained by investigators and prosecutors to conduct covert investigative (search) actions and the number of decisions taken by the prosecutor to stop their further conduct. The article also provides examples of current judicial practice in corruption criminal proceedings, where the court established the inadmissibility of evidence due to the fact of provocation against the accused as a result of the prosecutor’s inaction regarding the non-stopping of covert investigative (search) actions. Considering the experience of foreign countries, the author proposes to introduce judicial control over the results of secret investigative (search) actions and to give the investigative judge the authority to make a decision to stop their further conduct, taking into account the evidence obtained (or not obtained) by the prosecution, which will contribute to ensuring compliance with the interests of all participants in criminal proceedings.