On the Use of Investigative Results as Evidence

The article analyzes the current law enforcement practice in Russia of interpreting and applying the provisions of the legislation on evidence, which is not in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Numerous examples of judicial acts show that the law enforcement practice of interpreting and applying the contested norms of the law allows for accepting materials of investigative actions as written evidence in the arbitration proceedings (explanations of persons interviewed by law enforcement agencies, staff reports, letters of law enforcement agencies) received without compliance with the procedural requirements for fixing evidence, replacing interrogations provided for by the Tax Code of the Russian Federation. At the same time, the paper introduces the opposite jurisprudence as well. The legal position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the status of the results of investigative work is analyzed, in accordance with which, for evidence to be reliable, procedural requirements must be respected. In itself, the results of the operational-search activities are not evidence and cannot be admitted as written evidence in the arbitration process. The author justifies the position according to which subparagraph 12 of part 1 of article 31, part 1 of article 36, part 1, part 5 of article 90 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation and part 1 of article 75 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, in line with the meaning attached to it by law enforcement practice, violate the principle of the supremacy of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The author concludes that evidence provided for by law cannot be substituted for any other information about evidence.