How to Frame Questions for a Forensic Economic Expert

Whether a forensic economic expert’s opinion becomes solid evidence or comes back as a dry note that “the question falls outside the expert’s competence” is decided by the precision of a single paragraph: the list of questions. The questions must stay within the economic domain, rest on specific documents and a defined period, and match the specialisation the expert is actually entitled to work in. Below is how to build such a list step by step — with examples of correct wording, an explanation of the limits of an expert’s competence, and the typical mistakes worth avoiding before you ever file your motion.

Why the wording decides the fate of the opinion

A forensic economic expert examines exactly the questions set out in the court’s ruling (ukhvala) or in the resolution of the investigator or detective (postanova). The expert has no right to go beyond those questions, nor to guess what a party “really meant.” As a result, a vague, over-broad, or legally framed question almost always produces one of two unwanted outcomes. Either the expert declines part of the study, with the standard formula that the question posed lies outside the scope of their competence. Or the expert reframes it at their own discretion, and the answer turns out to be not the one the party was counting on.

The appointment and conduct of an examination are governed by the Law of Ukraine “On Forensic Expert Activity,” the Instruction on the Appointment and Conduct of Forensic Examinations approved by Order No. 53/5 of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, and the procedural codes — the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (KPK), the Commercial Procedure Code (HPK), the Civil Procedure Code (TsPK), and the Code of Administrative Procedure (KAS), depending on the type of proceedings. All of these instruments follow the same logic: the expert applies special economic knowledge, while legal questions are decided by the court or the pre-trial investigation body.

The golden rule: an economic question, not a legal one

This is the single most common reason for refusals. An economic expert does not establish guilt, the lawfulness of conduct, the presence of the elements of an offence, or who is personally responsible for the consequences. All of that is the exclusive province of the court and the prosecution. The expert’s task is different: to examine the documents and show what objectively follows from them — whether a transaction is confirmed, in what amount, whether it complies with the established rules for its documentation, and how it affected the accounts and the financial results.

In my expert practice, the questions I most often have to send back for rewording are precisely the “questions of law.” Compare the two columns.

Do not ask this way (a legal question)	Ask it this way (an economic question)
Is the chief accountant guilty of the shortage?	Is the shortage of inventory for the period from __ to __ confirmed by the accounting records, and in what amount?
Was the loan issued lawfully?	Did the issuance of the loan comply with the documents provided and the bank’s internal lending regulations?
Who is responsible for the company’s losses?	Did the transactions recorded in the accounts affect the financial result, and by what amount?
Did tax evasion take place?	Is the completeness of the VAT liabilities confirmed by the accounting data for the period __?

The right column yields evidence; the left column all but guarantees a refusal. The difference is not cosmetic: in the first case the expert states a fact drawn from the documents, whereas in the second the expert is asked for a legal qualification that they are not entitled to give.

Three specialisations: which one does your question fall under

Forensic economic examination is divided into three specialisations, and every question should be mentally “attached” to one of them. This immediately shows whether the question is economic at all and whether the particular expert is entitled to answer it:

• 11.1 — documents of accounting, tax accounting and reporting. Shortages and surpluses, correctness of how transactions are recorded, completeness of tax calculation, discrepancies between primary documents and reporting.
• 11.2 — documents on the economic activity of enterprises and organisations. Financial results, calculation of losses, justification of costs, performance of contractual obligations in monetary terms, pricing.
• 11.3 — documents of financial and credit operations. Justification of the issuance and repayment of loans, the movement of funds on accounts, settlement operations, compliance with the terms of loan agreements.

Before filing your motion, confirm that the chosen expert is certified in the specialisation you actually need — this can be checked in the Register of Certified Forensic Experts on the Ministry of Justice website. An expert has no right to answer a question “outside their specialisation,” even if they possess the relevant knowledge. If a case spans several areas at once — say, both taxes and credit operations — that is fine, but the questions are then split by specialisation rather than mixed into a single line.

Your reference points: the Ministry of Justice recommendations and Register of methodologies

You do not need to invent the wording from scratch. The Scientific and Methodological Recommendations on the preparation and appointment of forensic examinations (an annex to Instruction No. 53/5) contain indicative lists of typical questions for economic examinations — convenient to take as a starting point and adapt to your particular case. Beyond that, the study itself is carried out using methodologies entered into the Register of Forensic Examination Methodologies.

The practical takeaway is this: if a question is framed so that no suitable methodology exists for it, or so that it demands assumptions instead of an examination of documents, the expert will not be able to answer it. So, at the preparation stage, it is worth checking your draft list against these recommendations — that filters out wording that is a non-starter from the outset.

Anatomy of a correct question: period, documents, subject

Every workable question rests on three supports. If even one is missing, it cannot be examined:

1. The period. “For the period from __ to __.” Without time boundaries, the expert does not know which body of documents to examine, and the opinion becomes blurred.
2. The object and the documents. Which documents the study is based on: accounting data, bank statements, tax returns, primary documents, the loan file. The expert works only with what is provided in the case materials — so do not ask about documents that are not in the file.
3. The subject. What exactly to establish: confirmation of an amount, compliance with the rules for documentation, effect on an indicator, the presence of discrepancies.

A simple test: if a question cannot be answered on the basis of the documents in the file for the defined period, it is not yet ready.

Sample formulations for specific situations

Below are generalised templates. The specific dates, numbers and details are inserted from the case materials; the amounts themselves, where they are the subject of the study, are established by the expert, not by the party.

Shortage

Is the shortage of inventory (goods and materials) in the warehouse of LLC ”__” for the period from __ to __ confirmed by the accounting data and primary documents, and if so, in what amount?

Misappropriation (misuse of funds)

Does the documentation of the company’s cash disbursement operations for the period __ comply with the established rules, and is the expenditure of funds for their intended purpose, in the amount stated in the case materials, confirmed by documents?

Justification of a loan

Did the issuance of the loan to borrower __ comply with the documents provided on the assessment of the borrower’s financial condition and with the bank’s internal lending regulations as of the date the loan agreement was concluded?

VAT understatement

Is the completeness of the VAT liabilities of taxpayer __ for the period __ confirmed by the tax accounting data and primary documents, and did the discrepancies identified affect the amount of the declared tax; if so, by what amount?

Note what all the examples share: the expert answers the question “what do the documents show,” while the qualification of the act — whether it is a shortage or an ordinary loss, evasion or an accounting error — is given by the investigator or the court.

Common mistakes that make an opinion fail

• A question that is too general. “Conduct a full audit of the financial and economic activity.” An expert is neither an inspector nor an auditor; they examine specific transactions on the basis of specific documents, not “everything at once.”
• A legal formulation. Anything beginning with “is X guilty,” “is it lawful,” “are the elements present,” or “who is responsible” will be rejected as falling outside the expert’s competence.
• Duplication. The same question rewritten in other words. This adds nothing evidentially, but it increases the time and cost of the examination.
• A question outside the materials provided. A request about documents or transactions that are not in the file. First ensure the materials are complete, and only then frame the questions.
• Mixing specialisations in one question. Taxes, credit and losses “in a single line” have to be broken apart — better to do it yourself in advance.
• A question that requires assumptions. “How much could the company have earned under different conditions.” An examination works with the actual accounting data, not with hypotheses.

Who frames the questions — and how to submit your own list

The final set of questions is determined by the court (in its ruling) or by the investigator or detective (in the resolution) — depending on whether the proceedings are criminal, commercial, civil or administrative. An examination can be initiated by a party as well as by the pre-trial investigation body, including detectives of the Bureau of Economic Security (BEB); the grounds for a study are often materials from the State Tax Service (DPS) or the State Financial Monitoring Service (Derzhfinmonitoring).

At the same time, a party is not deprived of the right to propose its own questions: the procedural codes allow a participant to file a motion to appoint an examination with a list of questions, and also to submit comments on the opponent’s questions — to supplement, refine or object to them. In practice, it is the party that has prepared a well-thought-out, correct list that most often receives an opinion working in its favour: the court usually takes the proposed wording as its basis. If you stay silent, the expert will answer the opponent’s questions in the edition convenient to the opponent. To check which formulations have already worked in similar cases, it is useful to review rulings and opinions in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions.

A short checklist before filing

1. Every question is in the economic, not the legal, domain.
2. Each is tied to specialisation 11.1, 11.2 or 11.3, and the chosen expert is certified in it.
3. Each has a period, a list of documents and a clear subject of study.
4. There are no duplications and no questions outside the case materials.
5. The wording has been checked against the Ministry of Justice’s Scientific and Methodological Recommendations.

If you are preparing a motion to appoint an economic examination and want the list of questions to be correct the first time, it is worth agreeing on it with the expert before filing — this saves weeks and guards against refusals. I would be glad to help frame the questions for your specific situation and to assess whether the available documents are sufficient for a complete and probative opinion.