Reviewing a Forensic Economic Expert Report: How to Challenge It

A forensic economic expert’s report often becomes the decisive piece of evidence — in tax disputes, in damages claims, and in criminal proceedings where the pre-trial investigation is run by the Bureau of Economic Security (BEB), drawing on materials from the State Tax Service (DPS) or the State Financial Monitoring Service. That is precisely why the party against whom such a report works has the right to call its quality into question. A formal review (a retsenziya) is the professional tool that shows the court the report’s methodological and computational defects and provides the grounds for a motion to order a repeat or supplementary examination. Below I explain when a review genuinely helps — and when a different route is more effective.

What a review is, and how it differs from repeat and supplementary examinations

A review of an expert’s report is a written analysis by another qualified expert, assessing how well the report meets statutory requirements, the applied methods, and the principles of completeness and scientific soundness. A review does not, by itself, replace the report or establish new facts — it diagnoses the report’s quality.

It is important not to confuse three distinct mechanisms.

The review (retsenziya)

This is not a procedural act within the case but a professional appraisal of an existing report, which a party commissions independently in order to identify defects and support its motion. The procedure for reviewing the reports of forensic experts and of expert studies is set out in the relevant order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine (Minyust).

Supplementary examination

Ordered when a report is insufficiently complete or clear, or when new questions arise regarding the same circumstances. It may be carried out by the same expert. Its purpose is to supplement, not to refute.

Repeat examination

Ordered when there are doubts as to the correctness or soundness of the report, or contradictions with other case materials. It is assigned to a different expert or to a panel of experts. It is toward a repeat examination that a review most often “works.”

Criterion	Review	Supplementary examination	Repeat examination
Purpose	assess report quality	cure incompleteness or ambiguity	verify correctness
Who conducts it	reviewing expert outside the case	same or different expert	different expert or panel
Procedural status	supporting document for a motion	full examination	full examination
Typical basis	a party’s doubts about quality	incompleteness, new questions	doubts about correctness, contradictions

Grounds for reasonable doubt

A review cannot amount to “I disagree.” The court will only take note of specific, evidenced observations. In practice, the grounds for doubt fall into groups:

• Methodological errors. The expert applied a method that does not fit the subject of the study, or violated the sequence of its steps — for example, calculating losses by a simplified logic where a full costing methodology was required.
• Incompleteness of the study. Part of the questions posed was not examined, documents present in the file were ignored, or accounting data was not reconciled against the primary (source) documents.
• Exceeding competence. An economics expert draws conclusions that are the prerogative of the court or the prosecution — regarding intent, guilt, or the elements of an offence.
• Computational errors. Arithmetic mistakes, incorrect periods, double-counting of amounts, errors in applying rates or exchange rates, or calculating tax liabilities without regard to the provisions of the Tax Code of Ukraine.

Every observation in a review must be tied to a specific page of the report, a specific document, and a specific rule or method. Abstract criticism does not persuade a court.

Checking the methods against the Ministry of Justice Register

One of the strongest arguments in a review is verifying whether the method the expert applied is entered in the Register of Forensic Examination Methods (Reyestr metodyk) maintained by the Ministry of Justice. A forensic expert is obliged to work with certified methods and scientific-methodological recommendations that are in force on the date of the study.

What to look at:

1. Whether the name of the applied method matches the current version in the Register.
2. Whether a method has been used whose operation is suspended, or which relates to a different type of examination.
3. Whether the expert fully performed the stages the method prescribes, rather than merely referring to it formally.
4. Whether the chosen approach fits the subject of an economic examination specifically (rather than, say, a commodity or construction-technical one).

If a method was applied selectively or swapped for another, this is no longer subjective disagreement but a formal ground for a motion.

Typical defects seen in practice

Three groups of defects recur most often in expert work.

Disregard of primary documents

The expert builds the calculation on accounting registers or trial balances but does not verify them against primary documents — invoices, acts, bank statements. If the source documents contradict the registers, the report loses its evidentiary footing. The review should point to the specific documents left outside the study.

Substitution of the subject of the study

Instead of the question posed, the expert effectively answers a different one — for instance, studying the enterprise’s overall financial performance rather than documenting the amount of funds not received. Formally a report exists, but it does not answer the question asked.

Legal conclusions by the expert

The most common overreach is when an economist frames conclusions in legal categories — “misappropriation,” “embezzlement,” “seizure,” “misuse” with a juridical colouring. Establishing these circumstances is for the court. Such wording should be flagged separately in a review; it frequently becomes an independent ground for criticising the report.

How a review supports a motion for a repeat or supplementary examination

A review is not an end in itself but the evidentiary basis for a procedural motion. The logic is simple: the review records the defects, and the party asks the court or the pre-trial investigation body to order a repeat or supplementary examination.

The mechanism depends on the type of proceedings:

• In criminal proceedings, the defence may file a motion to involve an expert or to order an examination; the grounds and procedure for ordering supplementary and repeat examinations are set out in the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (KPK). In cases involving economic offences, at the investigation stage the motion is often addressed to a BEB investigator or an investigating judge.
• In commercial, civil, and administrative proceedings (governed by the Commercial, Civil, and Administrative Procedure Codes — HPK, TsPK, KASU), the party files a motion with the court, and the relevant procedural code separately regulates the grounds for ordering supplementary and repeat examinations.

Within the motion, the review serves as the justification: you do not merely assert disagreement — you attach a professional document that specifically proves the report’s incompleteness or unreliability. This materially improves the odds that the court will grant the motion.

The evidentiary status of a review, and the limits of its influence

Here it pays to be realistic. A review does not carry the independent force of an expert’s report and is not a separate type of evidence that automatically “cancels” the contested report. The court assesses all evidence according to its own inner conviction and is not obliged to agree with the reviewer.

What this means in practice:

• A review works as an argument in favour of a motion, not as a substitute for an examination.
• Its influence depends directly on its quality: the more specific the observations and the references to methods and documents, the weightier the review.
• The court makes the final assessment of the evidence; the review only helps it see the report’s weak points.

So do not promise yourself that a review guarantees a repeat examination. It materially raises the probability — no more and no less.

When questioning the expert beats commissioning a review

Not every situation calls for a review and a repeat examination. Sometimes the faster and cheaper route is to summon and question the expert (in criminal proceedings) or to have the expert give explanations at the hearing (in commercial, civil, and administrative proceedings).

Questioning is preferable when:

• the issue concerns clarifying or refining the report rather than its fundamental error;
• there are minor inaccuracies or unclear wording the expert can explain orally;
• you need to surface contradictions directly at the hearing, as the expert answers the parties’ questions;
• time and financial resources are limited, and ordering a new examination would drag the case out.

A review followed by a motion for a repeat examination is warranted when the defects are systemic: the methodology was violated, primary documents were ignored, the subject of the study was substituted. If it is more a matter of explanation, start with questioning.

A short action plan

1. Obtain the full text of the report with all annexes.
2. Commission a review from an independent, qualified expert of the appropriate specialty.
3. Check the applied methods against the Ministry of Justice Register.
4. Record each defect with a reference to pages, documents, and rules.
5. Choose your tool: questioning the expert for ambiguities; a supplementary examination for incompleteness; a repeat examination for doubts about correctness.
6. Attach the review to the motion as justification.

Challenging a report is not about emotional disagreement but about professional, documented work. If you have doubts about the economic examination in your case, reach out for a consultation or a review — together we will determine which procedural step will be most effective in your particular situation.