How to Challenge a Forensic Economic Expert's Conclusion

An unfavourable forensic economic expert opinion is not yet a verdict in the case. The law gives a party several legitimate tools: from having the opinion peer-reviewed by another specialist, to petitioning for a repeat examination and questioning the expert in the courtroom. The key is to rely not on emotion but on precise procedural arguments about incompleteness, contradictions, or the methodology of the study. Such opinions frequently appear in criminal proceedings built on materials from the Bureau of Economic Security (BEB) or the tax authorities, as well as in commercial and civil disputes — and it is precisely there that the cost of an expert’s error can be highest.

Why an expert opinion is not “the final word”

In practice, parties often treat the opinion they receive as a settled fact that can no longer be touched. That is a mistake. A forensic expert’s opinion is only one piece of evidence in the case. The court evaluates it under the general rules for assessing evidence, on an equal footing with everything else; it is not binding on the court and has no predetermined weight. This approach is built into all of Ukraine’s procedural codes — commercial, civil, administrative, and criminal.

So the party’s task is not to “cancel” the opinion in the abstract, but to show the court persuasively why this particular evidence is unreliable, incomplete, or obtained in breach of procedure — and to propose a procedural route to fix it. Below are the concrete grounds and instruments.

Grounds for casting doubt on the opinion

Before drafting a petition, you must state clearly what exactly is wrong with the opinion. Abstract disagreement (“the expert got it wrong”) will not persuade a court. Here are the grounds that genuinely work.

1. Incompleteness and vagueness

The expert did not answer all the questions posed, did not examine all the documents provided, or gave an answer so general that no single, definite conclusion can be drawn from it. In practice this is the most common ground for an additional examination.

2. Internal contradictions

The research section conflicts with the final conclusions; the figures in the text do not match the data in the tables; the calculation does not reconcile with the source data cited. Such contradictions are a strong argument, because they are visible from the opinion itself, without any special knowledge.

3. Going beyond the expert’s competence

An economic expert answers questions of economic substance. If they instead offer a legal characterisation — for example, a conclusion about “causing damage”, “the presence of intent”, or “the unlawfulness of the actions” — that goes beyond their competence. Legal questions are decided by the court, not the expert, so such wording is worth challenging separately.

4. An uncertified or improperly applied methodology

Forensic economic studies must be carried out using methods entered into the Ministry of Justice’s Register of Forensic Examination Methods (Reyestr metodyk). If the expert applied a personal, nowhere-validated approach where a registered method already exists, that is a serious defect. One nuance matters: not every economic question has its own dedicated registered method, so the mere absence of one is not always fatal. But substituting an arbitrary approach for a certified method is a weighty argument.

5. Procedural breaches and mishandling of source data

The expert stepped outside the materials provided, collected evidence independently, used documents from outside the case file, or, conversely, ignored key primary documents. The same category covers the expert’s own status: whether they are entered in the State Register of Certified Forensic Experts for the relevant specialty (certification requirements are set by the Law of Ukraine “On Forensic Expert Activity”).

Peer review: an independent second opinion

Before filing a petition, it is almost always worth commissioning a peer review (retsenzuvannia) — an independent assessment of the opinion by another qualified forensic expert of the same specialty. A review does not have the status of a new opinion and does not replace an examination, but it:

• lets an outside specialist show, systematically, the methodological and factual defects;
• turns your disagreement into a reasoned document that can be attached to the petition;
• helps the court see that the doubts are well-founded rather than a delaying tactic.

A well-drafted review answers three questions clearly: is the opinion complete, was the methodology applied correctly, and do the conclusions follow from the research section?

Additional vs repeat examination: do not confuse them

These are two different procedural tools with different grounds. Confusing them is one of the most common mistakes that leads a court to reject the petition.

Feature	Additional examination	Repeat examination
Ground	incompleteness or vagueness of the opinion	lack of substantiation, conflict with other materials, doubts about correctness
What is studied	the same objects, but more deeply / broadly	the same questions afresh
Who is assigned	the same or a different expert	necessarily a different expert (or panel)

The legal basis for the petition depends on the type of proceedings:

• Commercial proceedings — Article 107 of the Commercial Procedure Code (HPK), “Additional or repeat examination”;
• Civil proceedings — Article 113 of the Civil Procedure Code (TsPK), “Additional and repeat examination”;
• Administrative proceedings — Article 111 of the Code of Administrative Procedure (KAS), “Additional and repeat examinations”;
• Criminal proceedings — during the trial the court orders an examination, including an additional or repeat one, by its ruling.

The practical takeaway is simple: if the opinion is incomplete, ask for an additional examination; if you doubt its correctness or substantiation, or you see contradictions, ask for a repeat examination and insist that it be assigned to a different expert or panel.

Questioning the expert in court

Often the fastest way to “open up” a weak opinion is to call the expert to court. In criminal proceedings, questioning the expert at trial is provided for by Article 356 of the Criminal Procedure Code (KPK); a comparable opportunity to obtain clarifications and put questions to the expert exists in the other types of proceedings as well.

For the questioning, prepare a list of pointed questions that expose the defects:

• exactly which methodology was used for the study, and whether it is entered in the register;
• which documents were used and which were not, and why;
• how to explain a specific discrepancy between the figures in the text and in the calculation;
• what assumptions the conclusion rests on, and what changes if a different assumption is used.

In practice it is precisely during questioning that it most often becomes clear the opinion rests on unverified assumptions — and that opens the path to a repeat examination.

Checking the methodology against the Ministry of Justice Register

One step that parties routinely underrate deserves separate emphasis. Take the name of the applied method from the opinion (it must appear in the research section) and check it against the Register of Forensic Examination Methods maintained by the Ministry of Justice. Assess:

• whether the method is entered in the register at all;
• whether it matches the subject of the study and the expert specialty (for economic examination these include, in particular, 11.1 — examination of accounting, tax accounting and reporting documents; 11.2 — documents on the economic activity of enterprises; 11.3 — documents of financial and credit operations);
• whether a method from a different field has been applied “by analogy”.

The procedure for ordering and conducting examinations is also governed by the Instruction on Ordering and Conducting Forensic Examinations and Expert Studies (Ministry of Justice Order No. 53/5) — a useful reference when arguing procedural breaches.

Written objections: how to frame them

Oral statements made in a hearing get lost. Fix your position in writing — as a petition or objections attached to the case file. A working structure for the document:

1. What you are challenging — the opinion’s details (date, number, expert, institution).
2. The specific defects — point by point: incompleteness, contradiction, methodology, going beyond competence. Support each defect with a reference to the relevant page of the opinion.
3. Evidence for your position — the peer review by another expert, primary sources, calculations.
4. The procedural demand — what you are asking for: to question the expert, to order an additional or repeat examination, or to disregard the opinion.
5. The legal basis — the relevant article of the procedural code.

The more concrete and substantive it is, the harder it is for the court to refuse.

Case-law from the Unified Register as a guide

Before filing, it is worth checking the Unified State Register of Court Decisions (YeDRSR). Searching for similar categories of cases shows which arguments courts accepted and which they rejected, and how they worded their reasoning on ordering a repeat examination. This is no guarantee of an outcome, but it is a real benchmark: you will see how thoroughly the doubts must be substantiated for the petition to succeed. Use the case-law as a model of argumentation, not as a “template that works automatically”.

Common mistakes that sink strong arguments

• General disagreement without specifics. “The opinion is wrong” is not a ground. You need concrete points and page references.
• Confusing additional and repeat examinations. The wrong type chosen means a quick refusal.
• Missing the window. File the petition on time, at the appropriate stage of the proceedings, not after the examination of evidence has closed.
• Betting on emotion and attacks on the expert personally. The court assesses methodology and completeness, not tone.
• Skipping the peer review. Without an independent professional assessment, your doubts look unsupported.

Challenging an opinion is methodical work, not a single filing. If you have received an unfavourable forensic economic expert opinion and are unsure what to “grab onto”, seek a consultation or a peer review from a qualified forensic economic expert — a professional assessment at an early stage often decides the fate of the case.