Evidentiary problems in the investigation of corruption crimes in Ukraine

The fight against corruption in Ukraine is one of the main tasks of law enforcement agencies. However, the process of proving corruption crimes in criminal cases is accompanied by problems that negatively affect the quality of the pre-trial investigation. The purpose of the article is to identify and study typical investigative errors and develop recommendations on the proper use of means and methods of proof in criminal cases of corruption crimes, taking into account the norms of national legislation and international criteria for ensuring human rights in criminal proceedings. To achieve this goal, a comparative and systemic structural analysis of international and domestic regulatory legal acts and court decisions, a selective study of materials from criminal cases on corruption crimes were made. It has been established that the process of proving in cases of corruption crimes in Ukraine will fully comply with international standards for ensuring human rights, provided that operational officers, investigators, and prosecutors comply with the admissibility criterion of evidence, especially when using secret measures. Investigative errors that take place at the stage of pre-trial investigation in this category of criminal cases lead to the restriction of human rights and freedoms and consist in significant violations of the criminal procedural law when collecting, checking, and evaluating evidence, as well as when opening the collected materials to the defense. Preventing such violations requires strict adherence to the general requirements for conducting undercover activities, formulated in the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and domestic courts. The proof must take into account the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine of the inadmissibility of evidence derived from materials collected in violation of the law. The defense side should be provided with timely access to the materials of covert events, including the documents that served as the basis for their implementation. It is important not to allow actions that are regarded as a provocation (incitement) of the suspect to commit a corruption offense.