Specialių žinių panaudojimo finansinių nusikaltimų tyrime objektyvumo užtikrinimo prielaidos Lietuvoje, teisės į gynybą užtikrinimo aspektu

LTFinansinių nusikaltimų tyrimo tarnyba prie Lietuvos Respublikos vidaus reikalų ministerijos arba FNTT (toliau – Tarnyba) yra įstaiga prie Lietuvos Respublikos vidaus reikalų ministerijos (toliau – VRM), kurios paskirtis – tirti ir atskleisti nusikaltimus, kitus teisės pažeidimus finansų sistemai ir su jais susijusius nusikaltimus, kitus teisės pažeidimus. Tarnybos veiklą reglamentuoja Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės 2002 m. balandžio 5 d. nutarimu Nr. 481 (Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės 2016 m. sausio 14 d. nutarimo Nr. 23 redakcija)11 patvirtinti Finansinių nusikaltimų tyrimo tarnybos prie Lietuvos Respublikos vidaus reikalų ministerijos nuostatai. Kurių 2 punkte yra įstatymo leidėjo nustatyta, kad tarnyba savo veikloje vadovaujasi Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucija, Lietuvos Respublikos tarptautinėmis sutartimis, Europos Sąjungos teisės aktais, Lietuvos Respublikos Finansinių nusikaltimų tyrimo tarnybos įstatymu, Lietuvos Respublikos vidaus tarnybos statutu (toliau – Vidaus tarnybos statutas), kitais Lietuvos Respublikos įstatymais ir Lietuvos Respublikos Seimo priimtais teisės aktais, Respublikos Prezidento dekretais, Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės nutarimais, Ministro Pirmininko potvarkiais, vidaus reikalų ministro įsakymais, šiais nuostatais. O tai reiškia, kad pirmiausia šiuo Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės nutarimu, valstybės biudžetinė teisėsaugos įstaiga įsipareigoja savo kasdieninėje veikloje vadovautis Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucija bei įstatymais ir kitais teisės aktais.Tad kyla pagristos abejonės, kad Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamojo proceso kodeksas (toliau – BPK) tiesiogiai nenustato būtinųjų ekspertinių tyrimų ikiteisminio tyrimo ir bylų nagrinėjimo teisme metu atvejų, taip pat neįvardija konkrečių ekspertinių įstaigų, kuriose tokie tyrimai privalėtų būti atliekami. Raktiniai žodžiai: specialios žinios, tyrimas, finansiniai nusikaltimai, specialisto išvada, ekspertiniai tyrimai. [Iš leidinio]

ENThe Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania does not directly determine the necessary places for conducting expert investigations during pre-trial investigations and court hearings, nor does it name specific research facilities where such investigations should be conducted. The non-regulation by the law of the investigation function of the Financial Crimes Investigation Service (hereinafter – the Service) as objects that require special knowledge, as well as the factual situation that has arisen, when the drawing up of a specialist’s conclusion is regulated by a by-law act, there is reason to believe that it contradicts the provisions of the Forensic Expertise Law of the Republic of Lithuania, raises reasonable doubts regarding the impartiality of the conclusions drawn up by the service specialist and the objectivity and validity of the specialist’s conclusion. The so-called cooperation of the specialist of the relevant unit of the Service conducting the investigation, with the officer directly conducting the pre-trial investigation, both by obtaining additional information necessary for conducting the investigation, and by providing the specialist with new data revealed during the pre-trial investigation about the circumstances related to the investigation conducted by the specialist, and by the latter directly participating in the interviews of the participants in the process, although it is usually identified by officials as fully complying with the principles of speed and economy of the process, but their mutual official subordination and hierarchy of positions, instructions of superiors, etc. determines the subjectivity of the process and the collection of only incriminating data. In this way, forming a biased, and sometimes even not corresponding to the context of the circumstances that happened in reality, research direction in advance.It is not possible to recognize the above-mentioned specialists’ conclusions as meeting the requirements of Article 20 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as objective, also due to the fact that the Service carries out the so-called quality assurance supervision of the specialists’ research conclusions – the formulation of conclusions is constantly controlled by the heads of the Service’s economic and financial activity investigation units. Which, among other things, are given the right to submit comments and suggestions regarding the scope, direction, completeness, reasonableness of the circumstances, and the formulation of conclusions or explanations of the investigation. And this basically means interfering in the specialist’s area of competence and it is not excluded, in necessary cases, to direct the direction of the investigation not according to the objective research data. Similar instructions of the heads of the relevant departments, readings of the specialist’s conclusion, and coordination with the heads of the departments that control the activities of the specialist who conducted the investigation obviously negatively affect the reliability of the specialist’s conclusion, and in addition, make this conclusion illegal and because it and its authors do not comply with the 2002 October 29 Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Forensic Expertise No. IX-1161 requirements, specifically the provisions of its Article 41. Which state that the activities of forensic experts must be based on the principles of independence, professionalism, transparency of professional decisions, honesty, impartiality, respect for legal acts and the rights of individuals, confidentiality, justice, and thoroughness of the investigation. Keywords: special knowledge, investigation, financial crimes, expert opinion, expert investigations. [From the publication]