Motion to Appoint an Expert Examination: Sample and How to Draft It

A well-drafted motion to appoint an expert examination decides half the case. A court, an investigator, or an investigating judge will engage an expert only when the text makes clear which circumstances cannot be established without specialist knowledge, exactly which questions to put to the expert, and which documents the expert will work with. Below is a practical breakdown of how to draft a motion for an expert examination so that it is granted rather than returned: who may file it, what it must contain, to whom and within what deadlines to submit it, and which mistakes to avoid. Special emphasis falls on forensic economic examination — the type most demanding of a documentary evidence base.

When a motion to appoint an examination is needed

A forensic examination is appointed where establishing the facts requires specialist knowledge — economic, accounting, construction, handwriting, merchandise, and so on. A party’s right to initiate such research is enshrined both in the procedural codes and in the Law of Ukraine “On Forensic Expert Examination,” while the procedure for appointment and conduct is detailed in the Instruction approved by Order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine No. 53/5 of 8 October 1998. The motion is the procedural instrument by which a participant asks the body conducting the proceedings to engage an expert.

A court or investigating judge may also appoint an examination on its own initiative, but in practice the party’s key lever remains the motion. This is especially visible in economic cases: when a prosecution is built on tax reassessments by the State Tax Service (DPS), materials from the Bureau of Economic Security (BEB), or the State Financial Monitoring Service (Derzhfinmonitoring), then without independent research of the primary documents the inspectors’ conclusions often go unchallenged. In my practice, most “weak” motions stumble not on the law but on substance: the party knows it wants an examination, yet cannot explain which specific fact the expert should clarify and on which documents.

Who may file the motion

The range of applicants depends on the type of proceedings.

In criminal proceedings

• the defense — the suspect, the accused, and their defense counsel (attorney);
• the victim and their representative;
• the prosecution — the investigator, the detective (including a BEB detective), and the prosecutor.

Here lies a fundamental feature that matters for anyone filing a motion for an examination in criminal proceedings. Under the rules for engaging an expert (Art. 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the KPK), the defense has the right to engage an expert independently, on a contractual basis, without asking permission from the investigator or prosecutor. But when the research requires access to objects or samples the party does not possess, or when the prosecution has not engaged an expert or has posed incomplete questions, the party applies with a motion to the investigating judge (Art. 244 of the KPK). The investigating judge orders the examination by ruling if the applicant proves that grounds exist. In other words, a refusal by the investigator or prosecutor is not a dead end — the route through the investigating judge stays open. Separately, Art. 242 of the KPK defines the cases in which an examination is mandatory.

In commercial, civil, and administrative proceedings

The motion is filed by the participants — the claimant, the respondent, third parties, and their representatives. The court appoints the examination by ruling: in commercial proceedings under Art. 99 of the Commercial Procedure Code (HPK), in civil proceedings under Art. 103 of the Civil Procedure Code (TsPK), and in administrative proceedings under the relevant provision of the Code of Administrative Justice (KASU) on appointing an examination.

What the motion must contain

Whatever the proceedings, the “skeleton” of the motion is the same. A missing element is the most frequent reason a motion is returned or an examination is refused.

1. The addressee (court, investigating judge, investigator, prosecutor), the case or criminal proceedings number, the applicant’s details and procedural status.
2. Justification of the need for specialist knowledge — which circumstances cannot be established by ordinary evidence and why an expert is required.
3. The type and specialty of the examination — for example, a forensic economic examination under specialties 11.1 (accounting and tax records), 11.2 (documents on the economic activity of enterprises), or 11.3 (documents on financial and credit operations).
4. The list of questions for the expert — clear and within the expert’s competence.
5. The list of objects of research — the specific documents and materials to be provided to the expert.
6. The proposed institution or expert — a specific expert institution or the name of an attested forensic expert.

Justification — what the court reads first

This is where the motion’s fate is decided. You must show a logical chain: there is a circumstance material to the case → it cannot be established by the evidence already available → therefore specialist knowledge is required. The wording “I ask the court to appoint an examination for a full and objective review” explains nothing. Specificity works instead: “the parties interpret the amount of debt under the contract differently, and the primary documents require specialist accounting research.”

The questions — the heart of the motion

The questions put to the expert must:

• concern facts, not law (the expert does not decide whether a person is guilty or whether a criminal offense was committed);
• be unambiguous, allowing no double reading;
• follow from the available documents — for each question the expert must have something to answer with;
• specify the research period (“for the period from __ to __”) and be tied to specific documents.

For instance, in economic disputes the following are appropriate: “Is the amount of debt under contract No. __ documented as of a given date?” or “Does the recording of business transactions in the accounting records correspond to the primary documents for the period __?” But the question “Did tax evasion take place?” is a legal one — whether the elements of an offense exist is assessed by the court, not the expert. The correct economic formulation is: “Is the understatement of tax liabilities documented, and in what amount?”

Objects of research and choice of institution

Without documents there is no economic examination. So it is worth either attaching to the motion copies of the primary documents, accounting registers, bank statements, and contracts, or clearly stating that they are already in the case file. When proposing an institution or expert, weigh their specialization and attestation for the required specialty (verifiable in the Register of Attested Forensic Experts on the Ministry of Justice website), realistic timelines, and the absence of a conflict of interest.

To whom and within what deadlines to file

Proceedings	Where the motion is filed	Governing provision
Criminal	investigator, detective, prosecutor; if refused or if access to objects is needed — the investigating judge	Arts. 242–244 KPK
Commercial	the commercial court	Art. 99 HPK
Civil	the court	Art. 103 TsPK
Administrative	the administrative court	relevant KASU provision

In criminal proceedings, the investigating judge considers the motion to engage an expert with the applicant’s participation, within the period set by the Criminal Procedure Code. In commercial, civil, and administrative cases, the motion is usually considered within preparatory proceedings — at a hearing where the parties can state their positions.

File the motion as early as possible — as soon as it becomes clear that the circumstance cannot be established without an expert. A late motion, especially one made already at the trial stage, may be rejected by the court as an attempt to delay the process.

The right to supplement the opponent’s questions and to appeal a refusal

An important but often forgotten opportunity: a party may not only propose its own questions but also submit comments on the opponent’s questions — supplementing, refining, or objecting to them. The final set of questions is determined by the body appointing the examination, so an active stance at this stage directly shapes the result. Stay silent, and the expert will answer the opponent’s questions in the wording most convenient for the opponent.

If an examination is refused:

• in judicial proceedings, the refusal is issued as a ruling; objections to it are generally set out in the appeal against the final decision, because a separate appeal of such a ruling is usually not provided for;
• in criminal proceedings, a refusal by the investigator or prosecutor may be appealed to the investigating judge (Art. 244 of the KPK) or the party may reapply, curing the defects of the previous motion.

The practical takeaway: a refusal more often means not “you cannot” but “it was drafted poorly.” So before appealing, reread the stated reasons carefully and fix exactly what the body pointed to.

Common mistakes that make a motion fail

• Legal questions instead of factual ones. Asking the expert to assess “legality,” “guilt,” “the elements of a crime,” or “who is responsible” falls outside the expert’s competence.
• No objects of research. The motion exists, but the documents the expert would work with are not in the case file. Without primary documents, an economic examination is impossible.
• Vague or overly broad questions. A hazy “examine the financial condition” or “conduct a full audit of the activity” will be either declined or interpreted by the expert in their own way.
• Questions outside the relevant specialty. One motion tries to cover accounting, credit, and handwriting all at once.
• No justification of need. It is not explained why the circumstance cannot be established by other evidence — so the court sees no grounds to engage an expert.
• A question requiring assumptions. “How much could the enterprise have earned?” — an examination works with actual data, not hypotheses.

Structure and sample of a motion to appoint an examination

Approximate structure

1. Heading — the body/court, case number, the applicant’s details and procedural status.
2. Title of the document — “Motion to Appoint (Engage) an Expert Examination.”
3. Factual background — the circumstances of the case in brief and the specific fact to be established.
4. Justification of the need for specialist knowledge.
5. Type and specialty of the examination; proposed institution or expert.
6. List of questions.
7. List of documents-objects attached or already in the case file.
8. Operative part, list of annexes, date, signature.

Simplified sample (operative part)

Guided by the relevant provisions of procedural law and the Law of Ukraine “On Forensic Expert Examination,” I ASK THE COURT:

1. To appoint a forensic economic examination in case No. ___.
2. To put the following questions to the expert: (1) …; (2) …
3. To assign the examination to (name of the expert institution / name of the forensic expert).
4. To place the following documents at the expert’s disposal: … .

This is only a framework: in a real document each point is filled with the facts of the specific case, and the questions are formulated around the available evidence.

A competent motion saves months: a poorly posed question can devalue an entire examination, even one that is appointed. If you are preparing a motion for a forensic economic or accounting examination and want the questions to be correct and the conclusion to be evidentially sound, book a consultation — together we will formulate the list of questions and define the objects of research for your situation.