Expert Questions: Working Templates and Common Mistakes

The list of questions is the technical brief you hand to the expert: they examine exactly what is written in it, not a word more. A single question that is legal in substance, or simply vague, can turn months of work into a dry line — “resolving this question falls outside the expert’s competence.” This guide shows how to draft questions so that the report becomes admissible evidence and closes the disputed issue, rather than spawning new ones.

Why the questions define the scope — and the outcome — of the analysis

A forensic economic expert works within strict limits: they examine only the questions put to them in the document appointing the examination — in a court ruling (ukhvala), and in criminal proceedings, in a party’s request to the expert or in a ruling of the investigating judge (slidchyi suddia). The expert has no right to go beyond those limits, to fill in gaps, or to “guess” what a party meant. That is precisely why the list of questions effectively programs the result: however it is worded, that is how the report will read.

The division of roles is set out in the Law of Ukraine “On Forensic Expert Examination,” in the Instruction on the assignment and conduct of forensic examinations and expert studies (approved by Order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine No. 53/5 of 8 October 1998), and in the procedural codes — the Criminal Procedure Code (KPK), the Commercial Procedure Code (HPK), the Civil Procedure Code (TsPK) and the Code of Administrative Justice (KASU), depending on the type of proceedings. All of these acts share one principle: the expert applies specialized economic knowledge to documents, while the legal conclusions are drawn by the court or the pre-trial investigation body. A question drafted without regard to this division simply will not “work,” even if the examination is ordered.

Rule one: ask about facts, not about law

This is the single most common reason a report loses evidentiary value or fails to answer at all. An economic expert does not establish guilt, the lawfulness of conduct, or the presence of an offence, and does not determine who is personally responsible for the consequences. All of that is the exclusive competence of the court. The expert’s task is different: to show what objectively follows from the documents — whether a transaction is confirmed, in what amount, whether it complies with the established rules of documentation, and how it affected the accounting records and financial indicators.

This rule applies regardless of who initiated the case. In tax disputes arising from audits by the State Tax Service (DPS), in criminal proceedings investigated by detectives of the Bureau of Economic Security (BEB), and in financial-and-credit cases touching on financial monitoring (the State Financial Monitoring Service, Derzhfinmonitoring), the same thing is expected from the economist: documentary confirmation of facts, not legal classification of the act.

In my expert practice, “questions about law” are exactly what most often has to be sent back for rewording. Compare:

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

The right-hand column yields evidence; the left-hand one yields an almost guaranteed refusal. The difference is fundamental: in the first case the expert states a fact drawn from documents; in the second they are asked to classify an act, which they have no right to do.

Rule two: stay within the bounds of specialized knowledge

Forensic economic examination is divided into three specialties. It is worth mentally “attaching” each question to one of them — that immediately shows whether it is economic at all, and whether the particular expert is entitled to resolve it:

• 11.1 — examination of accounting, tax accounting and reporting documents. Shortages and surpluses, correct recording of transactions, completeness of tax accrual, discrepancies between primary documents and reporting.
• 11.2 — examination of documents on the economic activity of enterprises and organizations. Financial results, calculation of losses, justification of expenses, pricing, and the fulfilment of contractual obligations expressed in monetary terms.
• 11.3 — examination of documents on financial and credit operations. The justification for issuing and repaying loans, the movement of funds in accounts, settlement operations, and compliance with the terms of credit agreements.

Before filing the motion, make sure the chosen expert is certified in the exact specialty required — this is visible in the Register of Certified Forensic Experts on the Ministry of Justice website. An expert may not resolve a question “outside their specialty,” even if they personally possess the relevant knowledge. When a case spans several areas at once — for example, both taxes and credit operations — that is fine, but the questions should then be broken out by specialty rather than blended into a single line.

Rule three: the three pillars of every question

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

1. Subject. What exactly is to be established: confirmation of a sum, compliance with documentation rules, impact on an indicator, the presence of discrepancies. A vague “examine the financial condition” is not a subject.
2. Period. “For the period from __ to __.” Without time limits, the expert does not know which body of documents to examine, and the conclusion becomes blurred.
3. Documents. Which sources the analysis should rely on: accounting data, bank statements, tax returns, primary documents, the credit file.

The last pillar deserves special attention: for each question, the case file must contain a complete set of documents. The expert works only with what is provided — so do not ask about transactions or documents that are not in the file. A simple check: if a question cannot be answered from the available documents for the defined period, it is not yet ready — either the question or the materials.

Do not invent wording from scratch: the Ministry of Justice reference

Standard questions have already been mapped out. The Scientific and Methodological Recommendations on the preparation and assignment of forensic examinations and expert studies (an annex to Instruction No. 53/5) contain indicative lists of questions for economic examination — convenient to take as a starting point and adapt to the specific case. The examination itself is then carried out using methodologies entered into the Register of Forensic Examination Methodologies.

The practical takeaway: if a question is worded so that no suitable methodology exists for it, or it requires assumptions instead of an examination of documents, the expert will not resolve it. So it is worth checking your draft list against these recommendations at the preparation stage — this filters out formulations that are obviously “non-starters.”

The key practical tip: agree the list with the expert before the motion

The most useful thing you can do is show the draft questions to the expert before filing the motion or issuing the ruling. Within a consultation (without conducting the examination itself), the expert can tell you which formulations they will be able to examine, which should be split or combined, and which documents are missing for a particular question. This does not affect the independence of the report: what is agreed is the form of the questions, not the answers to them.

In practice the difference is tangible. A list pre-checked with the expert is almost never sent back for revision and yields a predictable result. A list drafted “blind” often ends in a partial refusal to examine, the need to order an additional examination, and the loss of several weeks — sometimes months. Remember, too, that the final set of questions is fixed by whoever appoints or orders the examination: the court in its ruling, and in criminal proceedings the prosecution or defence in their request to the expert, or the investigating judge in a ruling. But each party has the right to propose its own questions and to submit objections to the opponent’s. An active, prepared stance at this stage directly shapes the report; whoever stays silent gets the opponent’s wording.

How to rewrite an incorrect question into a correct one

The fastest way to learn is to see the rework. The situations below are generalized; specific dates and details are inserted from the case file, and sums, where they are the subject of examination, are established by the expert, not by a party.

• Before: “Are there signs of embezzlement in the director’s actions?” After: “Does the documentation of the enterprise’s expenditure transactions for the period __ comply with the established rules, and is the spending of funds for their intended purpose documentarily confirmed?” The classification (“embezzlement”) is for the investigator; the expert states a fact from the documents.
• Before: “Conduct a full audit of the LLC’s financial and economic activity.” After: “Are the business transactions with counterparty __ for the period __ confirmed by the accounting records and primary documents, and in what amount?” Instead of a boundless inspection — specific transactions against specific documents.
• Before: “Did the taxpayer evade VAT?” After: “Is the completeness of the VAT liabilities determined by taxpayer __ confirmed by the tax accounting data for the period __, and did the discrepancies identified affect the amount of tax declared; if so, by what amount?”

The common thread in all the “correct” versions: the expert answers the question “what do the documents show,” while the legal classification of the act is left to the court or the investigator.

Common mistakes that make a report fail

• Duplication. The same question rewritten in different words. It adds nothing evidentiary but increases the time and cost of the examination.
• Vagueness. “Examine the financial condition,” “conduct a full audit” — with no subject, period or documents. The expert will either reject the question or interpret it their own way.
• Going beyond specialized knowledge. Anything beginning with “is X guilty,” “is it lawful,” “is there an offence,” “who is responsible” is rejected as legal.
• Questions outside the file. A request about documents or transactions that are not in the case. First ensure the materials are complete, then frame the question.
• Mixing specialties in one line. Taxes, credit and losses “all together” have to be split — better to do it yourself in advance.
• Speculative questions. “How much could the enterprise have earned under different conditions.” Examination works with actual accounting data, not hypotheses.

Checklist before submitting the list

1. Each question is economic, not legal, in nature.
2. It is tied to specialty 11.1, 11.2 or 11.3, and the chosen expert is certified in it.
3. It has a subject, a period and a list of documents; the file’s materials are complete for each question.
4. There are no duplications, vague formulations, or questions outside the file.
5. The draft has been checked against the Ministry of Justice’s Scientific and Methodological Recommendations and, where possible, agreed with the expert.

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 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, evidentiary conclusion.