Bringing an Expert to Criminal Responsibility under Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

In the paper, the author analyzes the reasons for the negative attitude of the courts towards such evidence as expert opinions that is applied by both the defense and the investigation. However, the effectiveness of such is currently very low because during pre-trial proceedings and in court they are often recognized as inadmissible. The most common justification for refusal to include an expert opinion is the fact that the expert was not notified of criminal responsibility for giving a willfully false statement. However, this kind of caution is not provided for in the procedural code, and the expert opinion itself is not included in the disposition of Art. 307 «Willfully false statement, expert opinion, specialist or incorrect translation» of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in contrast to Art. 309 «Bribery or coercion to give testimony or avoidance of giving testimony or incorrect translation» of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. According to the author, this is due to the inconsistency of the norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as a result of which the application of Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation against experts for willfully false statement or opinion is virtually impossible to implement. The author proposes to make changes to the current procedural and criminal legislation in order to improve the current situation. Thus, the need to add to Art. 58 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation provisions on notifying experts about criminal responsibility under Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and in Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation — expert opinions.

1. Abdullin R. R. O problemakh i perspektivakh razvitiya negosudarstvennykh sudebno-ekspertnykh organizatsiy v Rossii // Evraziyskaya advokatura. — 2020. — № 6 (49). — S. 101–105.

2. Akopov V. I., Maslov E. N. Pravo v meditsine. — M.: Kniga-servis, 2002. — 352 s.

3. Aminev F. G. O problemakh proizvodstva novykh vidov i rodov sudebnykh ekspertiz negosudarstvennymi sudebno-ekspertnymi organizatsiyami // Aktualnye problemy prava i gosudarstva v XXI veke. — 2019. — T. 11. — № 1. — S. 40–46.

4. Belskiy A. I. Probely pravovoy reglamentatsii ugolovnoy otvetstvennosti spetsialista // Vestnik Belgorodskogo yuridicheskogo instituta MVD Rossii. — 2012. — № 1. — S. 55–57.

5. Bryanskaya E. V., Rukavishnikov P. P. Dopustimost zaklyucheniya i pokazaniy spetsialista v protsesse dokazyvaniya po ugolovnomu delu // Akademicheskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal. — 2019. — № 2. — S. 35–41.

6. Degtyareva N. I. O nekotorykh napravleniyakh sovershenstvovaniya zakonodatelstva ob otvetstvennosti za prestupleniya protiv pravosudiya, svyazannye s sokrytiem i falsifikatsiey dokazatelstv // Rossiyskiy sledovatel. — 2009. — № 22. — S. 13–16.

7. Lobanova L. V. Prestupleniya protiv pravosudiya: teoreticheskie problemy klassifikatsii i zakonodatelnoy reglamentatsii. — Volgograd: Izdatelstvo Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 1999. — 268 s.

8. Rossiyskoe ugolovnoe pravo. Obshchaya i Osobennaya chasti: uchebnik: v 3 t. T. 3. Osobennaya chast. — 2 e izd., ispr. i dop. / pod red. dokt. yurid. nauk, prof. N. A. Lopashenko. — M.: Yurlitinform, 2014. — 664 s.

9. Tarasov A. A., Sharipova A. L. Ugolovno-protsessualnyy aspekt differentsiatsii ugolovnoy otvetstvennosti eksperta i spetsialista za dachu zavedomo lozhnykh pokazaniy i zaklyucheniy // Legal Concept. — 2017. — T. 16. — № 3. — S. 21–25.

10. Tersintseva E. V. O zloupotrebleniyakh so storony ekspertov i spetsialistov kak uchastnikov sudoproizvodstva // Advokatskaya gazeta. — 2019. — № 9 (290). — URL: https://al-cg.com/news/o-zloupotrebleniah-so-storonyekspertov-i-specialistov-kak-ucastnikov-sudoproizvodstva-stata-tersincevoj-ev-v-advokatskoj-gazete (data obrashcheniya: 04.04.2023).

11. Ugolovnoe pravo Rossii. Chasti Obshchaya i Osobennaya: uchebnik / pod red. A. V. Brilliantova. — 2 e izd., pererab. i dop. — M.: Prospekt, 2016. — 1184 s.

12. Shapiro L. G. Problemy pravovogo regulirovaniya instituta zaklyucheniya spetsialista v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve // Vestnik Saratovskoy gosudarstvennoy yuridicheskoy akademii. — 2015. — № 4 (105). — S. 204–208.

13. Shmarev A. I. K voprosu o meste v sisteme dokazatelstv zaklyucheniya spetsialista // Kriminalistika: vchera, segodnya, zavtra. — 2019. — № 4 (12). — S. 67–71.