Specifics of Classifying Typical Forms for Counteracting Investigations

Abstract

It is emphasised that crime is currently undergoing a transformation, accompanied not only by quantitative growth but also by a complication of qualitative characteristics, and therefore there is a need to study typical forms of countering investigation. It is stated that despite the existence of individual scientific developments, the issues of classification of forms and methods of countering crime remain insufficiently organised and considered fragmentarily.

The study distinguishes between the definitions of the concepts of “form” and “method” of countering investigations, where form is defined as a generic concept that reflects a typical model of countering behaviour, while method is defined as a specific manifestation of this model that specifies the technique for implementing actions. Examples of forms of counteraction (falsification of evidence, influencing witnesses, concealing a crime) and methods of their implementation (destruction of documents, bribery, psychological pressure) are given. The multi-level nature of the classification of forms of counteraction is proven, reflecting its complex nature and multi-vector manifestations. The scientific positions of scholars are systematised, which allows counteraction to be interpreted as a system of planned actions, as a social phenomenon or as an element of criminal activity, and the universal features of this phenomenon are identified.

The controversial aspects of the issue are analysed, including the relationship between counteraction and inaction, the distinction between lawful actions as the realisation of the right to protection and unlawful forms of influence, as well as the relationship between counteraction and concealment of a crime. Classification approaches are systematised according to various criteria: legal nature (legal and illegal forms), time criterion, subject composition, number of subjects and objects of influence, nature of interaction with carriers of evidence, method of implementation, level of organisation, and territorial feature. The practical significance of the division into legal and illegal forms of counteraction is substantiated, which ensures the separation of permissible procedural actions from criminally punishable manifestations. It is argued that the systematisation of forms of counteraction creates the basis for the development of criminalistic methods aimed at overcoming illegal influence.