Specialist or Expert: Special Knowledge in Investigations

Specialized economic knowledge can enter a criminal case in two very different forms — by engaging a specialist (спеціаліст) or by ordering a forensic examination that produces an expert opinion. These are not synonyms and not interchangeable figures. A specialist assists the investigation in a technical, advisory capacity; an expert opinion is a distinct source of evidence in its own right. Confusing the two is one of the most common reasons that seemingly strong material collapses in court. Below I set out how a specialist differs from a forensic expert, when a consultation is enough, and when there is no substitute for a formal examination.

Two forms of special knowledge: specialist and expert

The Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (KPK) separates these figures into distinct articles. The specialist is defined by Article 71 KPK; the expert by Article 69 KPK. Behind both stand people with professional command of economics, accounting or finance — but the procedural meaning of their participation is fundamentally different.

• A specialist is a helper to a party or to the court, providing consultations, explanations and technical support during procedural actions. They work alongside the investigator, detective or prosecutor.
• A forensic expert (судовий експерт) is an independent procedural figure, engaged to conduct a study and deliver an expert opinion (висновок експерта). The law expressly lists that opinion among the procedural sources of evidence (Article 84 KPK), and its form and content are governed by Articles 101 and 102 KPK.

Put simply: a specialist helps you collect and correctly secure the material, while an expert studies it and answers a question that then becomes evidence. In my expert practice, it is precisely the failure to grasp this boundary that most often nullifies a party’s effort.

Specialist: consultation and technical support

A specialist is best engaged where professional knowledge is needed in the moment, rather than a full-scale study.

What a specialist does

• takes part in a search, inspection, or temporary access to items and documents — pointing out which documents, ledgers and electronic databases actually matter;
• helps seize and describe primary records, accounting databases (1C, BAS, M.E.Doc), servers and storage media correctly, so they cannot later be challenged;
• advises the investigator or defense lawyer on how the accounting is structured, what particular entries mean, and which documents should be demanded;
• helps frame questions for a future examination — so that they stay within the expert’s field of competence.

What a specialist does not do

The key limitation: in proceedings concerning crimes, a specialist’s consultation or technical help does not, by itself, establish a fact that requires special knowledge — for example, the amount of loss or the sum of unpaid tax. For that, the law requires an actual examination. A specialist does not perform an independent study with reproducible calculations and, as a general rule, is not warned of criminal liability for a knowingly false opinion the way an expert is.

A narrow exception concerns criminal misdemeanors (кримінальні проступки): under the simplified procedure the law additionally allows a specialist’s opinion as a source of evidence. But this is a limited case, and it does not extend to “classic” economic crimes (embezzlement, tax evasion, fraud with financial resources). In serious financial cases, therefore, relying on a specialist alone is risky.

Forensic expert: the opinion as a source of evidence

When establishing the circumstances requires special economic knowledge rather than mere consultation, a forensic examination is ordered. Its result is the expert opinion, which under Article 84 KPK is an independent source of evidence alongside testimony, physical evidence and documents. The requirements for the opinion’s content (introductory, research and concluding parts, the methodology applied, verifiable calculations) are set out in Articles 101–102 KPK.

Requirements for the expert

By no means can every economist or auditor produce an opinion the court will accept as evidence. A forensic economic expert must:

• hold the relevant qualification, granted under the Law of Ukraine “On Forensic Expert Activity” and Instruction No. 53/5 of the Ministry of Justice (Мін’юст);
• work within the assigned economic specialties — 11.1 (examination of accounting, tax accounting and reporting documents), 11.2 (examination of documents on the economic activity of enterprises and organizations), and 11.3 (examination of documents on financial and credit operations);
• be entered in the Register of Certified Forensic Experts, maintained by the Ministry of Justice, with a valid (unexpired) certificate.

In practice I advise the defense to verify these details before an examination is ordered: an expired attestation or a mismatched specialty is a ready-made ground to cast the opinion into doubt.

Specialist and expert: a comparison

Criterion	Specialist (Art. 71 KPK)	Forensic expert (Art. 69 KPK)
Form of participation	Consultation, explanation, technical support	Independent study of the material provided
Result	Explanations, help with actions, draft questions	Expert opinion
Evidentiary status	As a rule, not a separate source of evidence	Separate source of evidence (Arts. 84, 101–102 KPK)
Professional requirements	Special knowledge and skills	Ministry of Justice qualification (spec. 11.1–11.3), Register entry
Liability	Limited	Criminal liability for a knowingly false opinion
When to engage	Inspection, seizure, consultation, drafting questions	To establish a fact or figure as evidence

When a specialist is enough, and when an examination is required

The guiding rule is simple. If you need to do something correctly, here and now — that is a specialist. If you need to establish a fact that will underpin the accusation or the defense — that is an examination.

A specialist is enough when:

• a search, inspection or temporary access is underway and documents and electronic data must be properly selected and secured;
• the investigator or lawyer wants to understand the economic logic of transactions before formulating a position;
• questions for a future examination are being prepared and it matters that they not exceed the expert’s competence.

An examination is specifically required when:

• you must document or refute the amount of loss, the sum of unpaid taxes, or the fact and size of a shortfall;
• you must establish whether accounting entries match the primary documents, and whether a transaction was genuine;
• the opinion is to become evidence in the case, not a working consultation for a party.

That said, the mandatory nature of examination is not absolute. To establish the amount of material loss, Article 242 KPK requires an examination when the victim cannot determine it independently and has not provided a document confirming the size of the damage. Conversely, where the amount of loss can be reliably established without special knowledge — through simple, commonly accessible arithmetic — or where the object of the offense is money or securities with a monetary equivalent, a separate examination is not ordered. So the question “specialist or expert?” is always resolved on the merits, against the specific fact that has to be proven.

Ordering an examination and the defense’s right

The procedure for engaging an expert is set by Articles 242–243 KPK. Article 242 fixes the grounds and reasons for an examination; Article 243 governs the procedure for engaging the expert. In the pre-trial investigation an examination is, as a rule, initiated by the prosecution — yet the law does not leave the defense disarmed.

The defense has the right to engage an expert independently, on a contractual basis — including for a mandatory examination — and to obtain its own opinion. This is expressly provided by Article 243 KPK. In practice it is a powerful tool: if the “prosecution’s” opinion rests on incomplete data or a flawed methodology, an alternative opinion from a qualified expert can expose that.

What weight does a party-commissioned opinion carry

A common myth holds that an opinion commissioned by the defense is “weaker” than one ordered by the investigator or the court. It is not. Criminal procedure proceeds from the principle that no evidence has predetermined force (Article 94 KPK): the court assesses each opinion by its own inner conviction, together with the other evidence. What matters is not who initiated the examination, but how far the opinion is:

• complete and scientifically grounded;
• built on reliable, lawfully obtained material;
• transparent in methodology and verifiable in its calculations;
• given by an expert with a valid qualification in the relevant specialty.

It is by these criteria that an opinion either withstands scrutiny or is rejected — regardless of who commissioned it.

The typical mistake: confusing the roles devalues the evidence

The costliest error I see in cases is conflating the two forms of special knowledge. The most typical manifestations:

1. A specialist’s consultation is passed off as an expert opinion. The investigator attaches a “note” or a specialist’s explanation about the amount of loss — and at trial it emerges that no study with the corresponding procedural guarantees was ever conducted, so the material carries none of the force of an expert opinion.
2. The expert is asked for legal conclusions. Questions such as “is there a corpus delicti,” “is the person guilty,” or “were the tax authority’s actions lawful” fall outside economic competence. An expert answers questions about accounting facts and figures, not about law or guilt; blurring the two planes weakens the opinion.
3. The examination is entrusted to an “economist” without forensic-expert status. A capable accountant or auditor lacking a Ministry of Justice qualification and a Register entry cannot produce an opinion the court will accept as evidence.
4. A specialist is engaged where an examination is needed, “to save time.” The result is the opposite: an examination has to be ordered later anyway, and the haste at the outset creates grounds to challenge the material already gathered.

To avoid this, it is worth answering one honest question at the very start: do I need to correctly collect and understand the material (then, a specialist) or to establish a fact that will become evidence (then, an examination)? In complex financial cases the two forms are often combined sequentially — the specialist helps select the documents properly, and only then does the expert study them and deliver an opinion.

---

If you are a lawyer, an investigator, or a business owner, and you are unsure which form of special knowledge your situation calls for, it is wise to settle that before the procedural actions, not after. I would be glad to advise on the choice between engaging a specialist and ordering an examination, and to prepare a well-grounded forensic economic expert opinion within the bounds of the law.