A deliberately false conclusion: the appeal and the responsibility of the expert. When is the expert's opinion considered false?

The expert's conclusion is one of the most important evidences in court. Regardless of whether a criminal, arbitration or civil case is being considered, trust in the knowledge and experience of experts is the cornerstone of the process.

That is why in those cases when the expert goes to forgery and gives a deliberately false conclusion - it is always an occasion for the state to intervene and bring the offender to justice.

What conclusion is false?

Based on the content of Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which describes this category of crimes, both the courts and the theoreticians of law make always one conclusion: the expert's giving of knowingly false imprisonment is a crime only if committed with direct intent. This means that the expert not only knew that the data contained in his imprisonment did not correspond to reality, but also wanted to deceive the court or investigation.

Thus, such a crime can not be committed inadvertently. If the expert has hacked and, having neglected to carry out the examination, was mistaken - he will not be responsible. However, this conclusion does not mean that a malicious expert can always make a mistake. From the moment the expert signed the conclusion, which contains lies, the crime is committed. When the investigation begins, he will have to work hard, proving that he did not know and could not know that the conclusion is untrue.

Does the reason for the lie matter?

The reasons for which the expert intentionally falsified the data, are important only for the purpose of punishment. Whatever the reason, the deliberate lie of an expert is always a crime. However, if, in the consideration of a criminal case initiated against the expert himself, the court concludes that the former expert deserves indulgence, he will simply be given a softer punishment.

What is the responsibility for the false conclusion?

In the event that the court establishes that the expert involved in the case intentionally falsified his conclusion, he will be punished. Its specific size is stipulated art. 307 of the Criminal Code. Depending on the specific circumstances of the case, the following types of punishment may be applied to the expert:

• Fine - within 80 thousand rubles or income for half a year;
• Compulsory work up to 480 hours;
• Correctional labor - up to 2 years;
• Arrest up to 3 months.

Penalty and arrest - it's not all

In the event that the expert was involved in a criminal case involving a grave (that is, one in which a sentence of up to 10 years of imprisonment may be imposed) or a particularly serious one (where the term is already over 10 years, or life imprisonment, or formally so Time, not abolished, although not applicable capital punishment) - the expert will be punished harder. In this case, there can be no talk of fines or penalties. Punishment will be either forced labor, or imprisonment for up to 5 years.

It should be remembered that the expert's responsibility for false conclusion does not require that on the basis of his conclusion the court make an erroneous decision. It is enough already the fact that the expert was not just mistaken (which is possible in any profession), but gave a deliberately false conclusion, fully aware of what exactly he is doing.

In which cases can an expert liar avoid liability?

Russian criminal law in some cases is fairly lenient. With regard to experts who falsify their conclusions, this also manifests itself. Note to Art. 307 of the Criminal Code states that if an expert before being sentenced or a court decision on the case, to which he was involved, voluntarily confesses to a lie, he may be released from punishment.

When does the expert-auditor answer?

With respect to the work of auditors, the auditor's report is admittedly false if it was either made without any verification at all, or if the content of the documents that were examined during the audit contradicts the conclusions made by the expert-auditor in his conclusion. It is not so important who made the false conclusion - an individual auditor or a member of an audit organization.

With reference to the audit report, the same rules apply as for the rest of the experts: a knowingly false audit report can be called such only if the court decision on this fact is accepted.

The consequences for the auditor will be the same as for all other experts. First, the auditor will be deprived of the license to engage in his professional activities. Secondly, he can be held accountable in accordance with the current criminal legislation. Regarding auditors, in addition to general rules concerning all experts, there is also a separate article - art. 202 of the Criminal Code.

Thus, if it is found that the auditor involved in the litigation deliberately distorted the audit data, he can be held accountable both as an expert and as an auditor. The punishment for the auditor is much more severe - up to imprisonment for three years. In the same case, if a child or an incapable person has suffered from the actions of the auditor, the upper threshold of punishment is raised up to five years. At the same time, in any case, the auditor will be deprived of the right to engage in his professional activity for up to three years.

Who else is brought to justice for lying in court or on investigation?

In addition to false opinion experts, some other persons are also involved in the same responsibility. These include:

• The witness - for knowingly false testimony;
• Translator - for intentionally incorrect translation;
• Specialist - also for a false conclusion. From the standpoint of procedural law, the difference between an expert and a specialist is available, but in this case it can be neglected. A specialist is also a person who has special knowledge, and if he uses them to the detriment of justice and the establishment of truth, he will answer according to the law.

Oddly enough, even a victim can be brought to justice for perjury. But there is no analogous norm in respect of the defendant. This is due to the fact that the defendant is already in an unequal position with the other participants in the process. The police and investigation are working against him, his rights need special protection.

To some extent, an analogue can serve as a norm, according to which the defendant is not obliged to give evidence. Again, unlike a witness or even a victim, he can calmly refuse to speak and bear no responsibility for it. Here the same principle of additional protection of rights applies.