ON TYPICAL SHORTCOMINGS OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS OF EMBEZZLEMENT IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

Abstract

The article considers the most common shortcomings of the investigation of criminal cases of embezzlement in the public sector. Examples of law enforcement practice illustrating these shortcomings and the reasons why they are made are given. Special attention is paid to the typical shortcomings associated with the illegal release, or the lack of prosecutions of persons whose actions clearly show signs of complicity in embezzlement, including the misguided practice of the type: ‘we terminate the case against the accused in order to make them a reliable witness’. The reasons for such shortcomings are as follows. Low quality of preliminary checks: One of the main reasons is the low level of professional training of investigators and operatives, which leads to incomplete verification of facts and shortcomings in the collection of evidence. Duration of investigations: The protracted nature of the investigation process often leads to the loss of evidence and the impossibility of bringing the perpetrators to justice. This is also due to the long periods of time required to conduct examinations and checks. Complexity of regulatory framework: The complex and constantly changing regulatory framework in the field of public procurement creates additional difficulties for investigative bodies, which makes it difficult to identify and investigate crimes.