Review

Domestic legislature included in the authority of the investigating judge the consideration of applications by investigators or prosecutor on conducting covert investigative (search) actions and the adoption of the relevant decisions. One of such actions is the control over the commission of a crime (Article 271 of the CPC of Ukraine). However, unlike other covert investigative (search) actions, there is no unequivocal requirement of the legislator regarding the issuance by the investigating judge of the relevant decision in relation to this action. So, the CPC of Ukraine allows for the control of a crime without the order of an investigating judge. Subject of the initiative to monitor the commission of a crime ‒ the prosecutor decides whether such a decision is necessary. At the same time, the legislator does not define the concept or the content of the control over the commission of a crime. Consequently, this issue is subject to a clear legal regulation, for the implementation of which requires appropriate scientific research.

The purpose of this article is to form the theoretical idea of an optimal legal structure, which should establish the powers of an investigating judge to ensure the legality of the control over the commission of a crime.

The legal structure, which should establish the powers of an investigating judge to ensure the legality of the control over the commission of a crime, should be based on the updating of legislative regulation of content of the control over the commission of a crime.

It needs to be normalized as a complex of covert investigative (search) actions, with the possibility of staging actions, events, situations (with the use of material imitation means, or without them ‒ at the expense of oral disinformation) that should be perceived by the person as signs of implementation (or the possibility of realization) of his/her criminal plan.

The norm is that the investigating judge when considering a request for control over the commission of a crime must verify the availability of: 1) factual data giving reason to believe that the most serious or particularly serious crime is being prepared or committed; 2) factual data indicating that it is impossible to obtain information about the crime and the person who prepares it in a different way; 3) possibilities under the control of the crime of obtaining evidence, which alone or in combination with other evidence may be essential to clarify the circumstances of the preparation of the crime or the establishment of persons involved in its preparation; 4) the presence of appropriate powers in the subject of the petition; 5) factual data indicating the absence during the control of the commission of a crime of provoking a person to commit it; 6) for carrying out tasks of control over the commission of a crime, the necessity of carrying out of each of the actions specified in the petition, as well as the use of imitation actions and means.

According to the results of consideration of the petition, the investigating judge must not only be able to satisfy him or refuse to satisfy him, but also to satisfy such a request in part ‒ regarding the conduct of certain actions that are planned to be carried out within the control of the commission of a crime.

Keywords: legality, investigating judge, control over the commission of a crime, judicial control, secret investigative (search) actions, provocation.