The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
36
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
TYPE
Original Research
PAGE NO.
36-44
10.37547/tajpslc/Volume07Issue03-06
OPEN ACCESS
SUBMITED
24 January 2025
ACCEPTED
23 February 2025
PUBLISHED
25 March 2025
VOLUME
Vol.07 Issue03 2025
CITATION
Barakayev Lazizjon Otaqulovich. (2025). Analysis of problems related to
conducting audit as an investigative action. The American Journal of
Political Science Law and Criminology, 7(03), 36
–
44.
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume07Issue03-06
COPYRIGHT
© 2025 Original content from this work may be used under the terms
of the creative commons attributes 4.0 License.
Analysis of problems
related to conducting
audit as an investigative
action
Barakayev Lazizjon Otaqulovich
PhD, Law Enforcement Academy of the Republic of Uzbekistan, Tashkent,
Uzbekistan
Abstract:
The article comprehensively analyzes the
problems associated with conducting audit as an
investigative action. The study examines the procedural
order of conducting audits, timelines, and issues of
documenting audit results. The article also analyzes the
relationship between investigators and auditors during
the audit process, the rights and obligations of auditors,
and the procedural status of audit reports. The paper
puts forward proposals regarding the procedure for
extending audit deadlines, recognition of audit reports
as evidence, grounds for bringing auditors to criminal
liability, and improving audit methodology. The
research thoroughly examines practical problems
encountered during audits, including unjustified
extension of audit periods, preparation of interim
reports, and deficiencies in documenting audit results.
As a result of the research, specific proposals have been
developed to improve legislation regulating the audit
procedure. The research results serve to improve the
practice of investigating economic crimes.
Keywords:
Audit, investigative action, audit period,
auditor, audit report, procedural order.
Introduction:
The audit process is recognized as an
important stage in gathering evidence. Detailed
information about the significance of this stage is
provided in numerous literature sources [1, pp. 116-
141]. The proper and quality implementation of this
process serves as an effective tool in solving crimes.
Quality organization of the audit process allows for
collecting reliable evidence in criminal cases. This helps
in quick and effective crime solving, identifying guilty
parties, and ensuring their accountability. The
effectiveness of an audit largely depends on its proper
organization
and
professional
implementation.
Therefore, proper organization of the audit process,
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
37
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
careful planning of all its stages, and involvement of
qualified specialists are of crucial importance. This
serves to increase the effectiveness of the criminal
investigation process and ensure justice.
The decision or ruling on appointing an audit should
clearly indicate which authorized div's specialists will
examine the specified issues. In this case, the
authorized bodies that may participate in the audit can
conduct inspections in the following areas:
1.
The Department for Combating Economic
Crimes under the Prosecutor General's Office of the
Republic of Uzbekistan conducts inspections regarding
compliance with tax and currency legislation;
2.
The State Tax Service bodies conduct
inspections regarding compliance with tax and
currency legislation within their competence;
3.
Specialists from the Ministry of Finance and its
territorial bodies examine the formation and execution
of local and Republican budgets, targeted fund
budgets, and extra-budgetary funds of budget
organizations;
4.
Specialists from other state bodies and
organizations may conduct inspections based on their
tasks and authorities established by legislation.
Besides the Criminal Procedure Code, the conduct of
audits by the State Tax Service is also regulated by
Resolution No. 1 of the Cabinet of Ministers of the
Republic of Uzbekistan dated 07.01.2021 "On
Managing Tax Risk, Identifying Taxpayers (Tax Agents)
with Tax Risk, and Organizing and Conducting Tax
Inspections."
According to the Regulations "On the State Financial
Control Inspection under the Ministry of Finance of the
Republic of Uzbekistan," approved by Resolution No.
431 of the Cabinet of Ministers dated 05.08.2022,
control over the targeted spending of budget system
funds and compliance with budget legislation, as well
as budget and estimate-staff discipline by financial
control objects, is carried out by the State Financial
Control Inspection under the Ministry of Finance of the
Republic of Uzbekistan and its territorial departments
[2].
However, neither these resolutions of the Cabinet of
Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan nor other
normative documents have established a general
methodology for conducting audits, formalizing
documents, registration, record-keeping, and audit
procedures.
It should be specifically noted that according to Article
171 of the Budget Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan,
the Chamber of Accounts of the Republic of Uzbekistan
is also designated as a financial control div along with
the Ministry of Finance and its territorially authorized
bodies. However, Article 1873 of the Criminal Procedure
Code does not include the Chamber of Accounts of the
Republic of Uzbekistan in the scope of state bodies
appointed to conduct audits. Article 174 of the Budget
Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan specifies the powers
of the Chamber of Accounts of the Republic of
Uzbekistan as the main state financial control div for
the expenditure of budget and special fund resources.
Therefore, it is advisable to amend Article 1873 of the
Criminal Procedure Code to include the Chamber of
Accounts of the Republic of Uzbekistan in the category
of persons appointed to conduct audits within their
competence.
If the audit is to be conducted by employees and
specialists from several authorized bodies, then it
should be indicated which authorized div is
responsible for summarizing the audit results and to
whom the audit materials should be submitted. Usually,
the div responsible for summarization is listed first.
According to B.A. Muminov, "during the preparatory
stage of the audit, general information about the
business entity to be audited is collected, the head of
the business entity is familiarized with the decision on
appointing the audit and their rights and obligations are
explained, documents relevant to the audit subject are
requested, the scope of the audit and specialists to be
involved, and control measures to be conducted are
determined" [3, p. 70].
There are differences between conducting audits in
state enterprises and auditing business entities, with
the latter imposing additional responsibilities on the
auditor. Auditing business entities has its specific
characteristics, particularly the mandatory participation
of legal service representatives. Business entities may
also involve lawyers in the audit. Business entities have
the right to waive the services of a legal advisor and/or
lawyer during the audit. However, this does not deprive
them of the right to use such services during the audit.
According to the requirements of the Criminal
Procedure Code, the auditor is obligated to explain in
writing to the head of the business entity or other
authorized persons their rights regarding the use of
legal services or waiving their participation before the
audit begins.
If the officials or other authorized persons of business
entities indicate that they will not use such rights, the
auditor should provide sufficient opportunity for the
arrival of the company's legal advisor and/or hired
lawyer, postponing the start of the audit for up to 24
hours. If the involved lawyer and/or legal service
representative does not arrive during this time, the
auditor may begin the audit.
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
38
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
According to Article 1874 of the Criminal Procedure
Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan, "the mandatory
condition for auditing a business entity is the presence
of the following documents serving as the basis for
conducting the audit: decision or ruling on appointing
the audit; order of the authorized div on conducting
the audit; service identification of the person
conducting the audit; special certificate authorizing the
audit" [4].
The order of the authorized div "On Conducting (or
participating in) an Audit" must be issued within two
working days from the receipt of the decision or ruling,
indicating the persons designated to conduct the audit.
The order should appropriately indicate: grounds for
conducting or participating in the audit, such as the
communication letter or decision or ruling of the state
div authorized to appoint the audit, and the date and
specific number of the criminal case; full name and
organizational-legal form of the business entity to be
examined, or for individual entrepreneurs - surname,
first name, patronymic, TIN; full names and positions
of persons conducting (participating in) the audit;
scope of issues to be studied during the audit; audit
duration; period to be audited.
The persons conducting the audit must familiarize the
head or other authorized employee of the business
entity designated for audit with the documents serving
as the basis for conducting the audit before its
commencement and make a relevant entry about the
audit in the inspection registration book.
Determining the period necessary for conducting the
inspection creates certain difficulties, as it is influenced
by many factors: the state of accounting in the
organization being inspected, the need for counter-
checks, and others. Despite these circumstances, one
cannot agree with the position that setting a deadline
for completing the audit is unreasonable in practice.
Therefore, the investigator must monitor compliance
with the implementation deadlines provided for in
departmental documents by the head of the
organization that requested the inspection [5, pp. 13,
43].
On the contrary, setting a deadline for the audit
completion "requires the institution head to organize
the audit as quickly as possible, allocate the necessary
number of auditors, auxiliary forces and means, create
normal conditions for inspection work, and on the
other hand, discipline the auditors" [6, p. 110].
Furthermore, questions may be posed to the inspector
that allow completing the audit well before the
deadline provided for in departmental documents.
Based on the above position, although the audit could
actually be completed earlier, the organization head
(control div) has the right to submit materials within
the regulatory deadlines.
One cannot disagree with Z.P. Klimova's opinion that
"correct appointment and control of inspection
deadlines appointed at the investigator's request during
the investigation process are important issues on which
the effectiveness of this activity depends" [7, p. 223].
In our national legislation, the start and end times of the
audit are clearly defined, which prevents various
disputed situations from arising.
The audit is considered to have begun from the time
when copies of the investigator's decision on appointing
the audit or court's ruling and an excerpt from the order
"On Conducting (or participating in) an Audit" by the
head of the authorized audit div are handed over with
signature acknowledgment to the head or other
representative of the entity being examined, and they
are familiarized with the auditor's service identification
and special certificate.
If the representatives of the entity being examined
refuse to receive or sign these documents, the auditor
makes a relevant note about this in the protocol. If the
representatives of the entity being examined also refuse
to sign this protocol, a relevant entry is made and signed
only by the auditor, and the time of signing the protocol
is considered the start time of the audit. It should also
be noted that such refusal by an official or other
authorized employee of the entity being examined does
not lead to cancellation of the audit at this enterprise.
Before starting the audit, one should familiarize oneself
with the availability and sufficiency of accounting
documents and other materials provided for the
organization being inspected.
The investigator or inquiry officer must ensure that the
auditor can use previous inspection documents, tax
information, accounting documents, as well as other
documents relevant to the criminal case when
necessary.
In turn, after familiarizing themselves with the relevant
documents serving as the basis for conducting the audit,
the head or other authorized employee of the entity
being examined must provide the inspector with
necessary documents, information, and other required
materials for conducting the audit.
The auditor has the right to request explanations from
the persons being audited and obtain documents and
certificates confirming the operations being examined.
The auditor should compare the obtained explanations
with accounting documents and present their
conclusions in writing at the end of the investigation.
If the organization head fails to provide necessary
documents for examination, an inspection report is
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
39
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
drawn up, noting that it is impossible to answer specific
questions due to the absence of necessary documents.
When the requested documents are submitted to the
inspector, additions are made to the inspection report.
The appropriateness of designating a person to
conduct the inspection in the assignment should be
determined based on to whom the audit is entrusted.
When planning to involve independent specialists or
persons with knowledge in accounting, the
investigator should specifically indicate the person
who will conduct the study of financial and economic
activities.
At the same time, if the inspection is being conducted
at the organization being inspected, the investigator
has the right to give instructions to the head of the
enterprise or organization regarding the need to
provide documents to the auditor and provide them
with office space. The investigator sends the decision
on appointing an audit to the head of the organization
or higher organization and requires them to take
measures aimed at preventing violations.
The investigator has the right to recommend the use of
certain methods during the investigation to the
auditor. Additionally, they may be aware of
information about methods of committing and
concealing illegal actions. Therefore, they may indicate
the appropriateness of using optimal inspection
methods.
Considering that the relationship between the
investigator and auditor has a criminal-procedural
nature, the rules regarding the procedure for
interaction between these persons should be reflected
in the Criminal Procedure Code rather than in
departmental (interdepartmental) protocols.
To identify all facts of abuse and violations committed
by the persons being inspected, the investigator should
inform the auditor about where to look for traces of
illegal actions upon receiving any information related
to the ongoing inspection that would facilitate the
inspector's activities, thereby contributing to the faster
completion of the audit. The auditor, in turn, should
inform the investigator about facts discovered related
to the criminal case. After receiving relevant
information, they can carry out a series of investigative
actions to consolidate traces related to the discovered
facts, which positively affects the completeness and
quality of the investigation.
Because their self-removal reduces the quality of the
audit and leads to serious deficiencies in the
inspector's activities [8]. They should deeply study the
essence of the auditor's work and be interested in the
completion time and interim results. As a result, they
will have the opportunity to receive an interim
protocol before the full completion of the audit and use
the information contained therein to determine the
direction and further conduct of the investigation [9, p.
22].
The literature pays little attention to the psychological
aspects of relationships between investigators and
auditors, as well as specialists participating in
commission and complex inspections, although this
aspect is of great importance in the audit process.
Based on their study of auditors' work practices, Yu.A.
Babaev and N.G. Gadzhiev concluded that the quality of
many of the most complex audits is low due to the
psychological unpreparedness of inspectors. According
to the authors, to ensure mutual understanding among
audit group members, certain conditions should be
created, particularly: rational distribution of tasks
among
interacting
auditors;
determining
the
correspondence of personal capabilities to the structure
and content of the activities being carried out; creating
various individual opportunities for specialists; ensuring
unity in understanding goals and ways to achieve them;
mutual trust and others [10, pp. 87-88].
Auditors operate in conditions where they are subject
to psychological pressure through various obstacles to
their activities and attempts to influence audit results.
This is confirmed by our research results. In this regard,
the investigator should play a certain role in creating
favorable conditions for conducting the inspection and
eliminating influence on the inspectors.
In such cases, relevant persons have the right to
independently decide on allocating specialists in the
field of accounting, depending on the scope of the
assignment, the workload of auditors, and knowledge of
the specific features of the organization's activities
being inspected [11, p. 52].
However, at the same time, its composition must be
agreed upon with the investigator. As B.Kh.
Toleubekova noted, "If access to the territory and
premises of the entity being examined (except for
residential premises) is obstructed for the person
conducting the audit, and if inventory of its property for
conducting the audit is refused, a protocol is drawn up
signed by the person conducting the audit and the
official or representative of the entity being examined"
[12].
If the persons being inspected refuse to submit
documents or other obstacles arise that make it difficult
to conduct the audit, the auditor should inform the
operational officer or investigator about these facts,
who should take measures to eliminate the deficiencies.
When there is a need to seize documents, the
investigator makes a decision, and the court issues a
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
40
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
ruling. If necessary documents are not provided to the
auditor and there is sufficient information that they are
being kept in any building, structure, or other location
belonging to the enterprise or at the residence of an
enterprise official against whom criminal proceedings
have been initiated, the inquiry officer, investigator, or
prosecutor may conduct a search investigation action
to seize documents necessary for conducting the audit
at these locations. However, searches are not
permitted during pre-investigation verification.
When necessary, the person conducting the audit may
conduct a full or selective inventory of property
according to National Accounting Standard No. 19 of
the Republic of Uzbekistan. Inspectors have the right
to request accounting and tax documents within these
conditions.
However, business entities do not always maintain
documents for the periods established by legislation.
Some persons attempt to destroy documents that
could identify specific crimes in order to hide traces of
illegal actions.
Based on the requirements of our national legislation,
failure to submit documents necessary for calculating
taxes and other levies and their payment may result in
administrative
liability
under
the
Code
of
Administrative Responsibility and imposition of a fine
on the offending person [13].
Article 227 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of
Uzbekistan provides for criminal liability "for the
acquisition of strictly accounted documents, stamps,
seals, forms of enterprises, institutions, organizations,
as well as their destruction, damage, or concealment
committed with mercenary or other base motives"
[14], which is considered a crime against the
management order.
In our opinion, intentional destruction of accounting
rules should provide for separate criminal liability as a
crime in the sphere of economic activity, and the
relevant norm should be stated as follows: "intentional
violation of accounting rules and submission of
accounting reports, as well as the procedure and terms
for storing documents, with the aim of concealing
traces of criminal activity."
If it is determined that the documents, necessary
information, and other documents of the enterprise
being inspected have been lost, destroyed, or are not
available, the auditor may conduct an audit in
accordance with accounting, currency, and tax
legislation on issues specified in the decision or ruling
on appointing the audit when it is impossible to
conduct a full audit, or conduct a study using internal
and external source data and work materials available
to the authorized div instead of an audit.
If documents and information are additionally provided
after the conducted audit or study, additions and
changes may be made to the audit or study materials.
At the same time, the success of the audit depends not
only on the quality of preparation for its
implementation. Establishing business relationships
between the investigator and auditor plays an
important role [15, pp. 23-29].
Therefore, first of all, from the moment the audit
inspection commission is formed, efforts should be
made to establish relationships with the inspectors.
The existence of communication between these
persons during the inspection helps to identify all facts
of illegal actions committed [16, p. 27], and its absence
can lead to the submission of poor-quality protocols
that do not reflect circumstances important for the case
[17, p. 55].
However, as L.A. Sergeev notes, in many cases, proper
communication is not established between these
persons, which is due to the lack of legal regulation in
this area [18, p. 42].
During the inspection, the investigator should
constantly be interested in its completion deadline. If its
completion does not allow meeting the deadline set by
them, they should raise the issue of allocating additional
specialists before the organization head (control div)
if appropriate opportunities exist.
If during the investigation process, the inspector
concludes that it is impossible to complete the
inspection within the established period, they may
appeal to the investigator with a petition for extending
the inspection period.
Analysis of inspection materials shows that during 2018-
2022 and the first 6 months of 2023, the audit period
was extended for 6.7% or 1,418 of the conducted audits,
of which 772 (54.5%) were in business entities and 646
(45.5%) in state bodies, organizations, and business
entities with 50% or more state share in the charter
fund. Extension of audit periods is observed mostly, i.e.,
in 921 (65%) audits conducted by State Tax authorities.
This figure is 330 (23.3%) in Financial Control bodies and
167 (11.7%) in Department bodies [19].
When studying and analyzing the state of compliance
with legislation in the appointment and conduct of
audits by prosecutor's office investigators in relation to
business entities and state bodies and organizations, it
was revealed that prosecutor-investigation officers
commit numerous violations of law during preliminary
investigation procedures.
In particular, Article 1877 of the Criminal Procedure
Code strictly establishes that the audit period consists of
30 calendar days.
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
41
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
If necessary, the audit period may be extended based
on the auditor's justified petition in accordance with
the decision of the authorized investigative div with
the consent of the Prosecutor General or their deputy,
or by court ruling.
However, in practice, this requirement of the law
regarding the extension of audit periods is violated,
and audits are conducted with illegally extended
periods.
For instance, out of a total of 21,054 audits appointed
by prosecution authorities over the past 6 years,
periods were actually extended for 1,418 or 7% of
them, but these extensions were made without
obtaining the consent of the Prosecutor General or
deputy as required by the established procedure.
When analyzing illegally extended audits without
obtaining consent through the established procedure
by the bodies that conducted them, for the
Department bodies - 167 or 3% of total conducted
(7,109) audits; for Ministry of Finance bodies - 330 or
7% of total conducted (4,570) audits; for State Tax
Service bodies - 921 or 10% of total conducted (9,375)
audits were extended illegally by territorial prosecutor-
investigation officers through arbitrary decisions
contrary to law.
When studying the procedure for extending audit
periods in the field, a negative practice has formed
where periods are extended based on decisions made
arbitrarily
by
prosecutor-investigation
officers
(without consent) or appeals (letters) made by the
investigator (prosecutor) to the audit-conducting div
regarding the extension of specialists' business trip
periods.
For example, regarding the criminal case against the
Shakhrikhan district employment assistance center,
Assistant Prosecutor M. Iminov appointed a
documentary audit on 10.08.2022, and made decisions
to extend the audit period twice, on September 11 and
22, 2022, for 2 months, submitting them to the district
prosecutor.
The district prosecutor, despite not having the
authority to extend audit periods, approved these
decisions and gave consent.
In most cases, prosecutor-investigation officers
illegally extended audit periods based on letters
requesting extension of specialists' business trip
periods, grossly violating the requirements of Article
1877 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
For instance, within the framework of a criminal case
against "Ziyo nur metan servis" LLC, a documentary
audit appointed by the Syrdarya regional prosecutor's
office on 04.12.2022 was conducted for 90 days based
on the investigator's letters dated January 6 and March
6, 2023, to the regional state tax department regarding
the extension of specialists' business trip period.
Meanwhile, taking into account the scope of documents
and type of activity of the business entities being
examined, the audit period may be extended based on
the auditor's justified petition, with the consent of the
authorized person or court ruling: for thirty calendar
days (for business entities); for other entities - for a
period not exceeding the deadlines established by the
Criminal Procedure Code for investigation and court
consideration of criminal cases.
When studying criminal cases related to audit
appointments, in practice, there are instances where
during the audit period, without fully completing the
audit and without the auditor formalizing the final
protocol, audit documents are submitted to the
investigator with an "interim protocol," and in turn, the
investigator makes decisions based on these "interim
protocols."
However, the concept of "interim protocol" does not
exist in the Criminal Procedure Code. According to the
results of our research conducted during the study, a
draft "Instruction on appointing, conducting audits and
formalizing their results in criminal cases" has been
prepared, which includes a provision strictly prohibiting
the preparation of an "interim protocol" without fully
completing the audit.
Based on the results of analyses and scientific research,
we propose introducing an amendment to the Criminal
Procedure Code transferring the authority to extend
audit periods from the authorized official of the
Prosecutor General's Office to the Prosecutor of the
Republic of Karakalpakstan, regional prosecutors, the
Prosecutor of Tashkent city, and prosecutors of equal
status.
According to current legislation, the audit period for
business entities is set at 30 calendar days, which
includes an average of 20-22 actual working days
(excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays). It should
be noted that although the concept of working day is
not specifically defined in the current Criminal
Procedure Code, this period may potentially limit the
ability to fully audit the financial and economic activities
of large-scale business entities.
Therefore, if relevant amendments and additions are
made to the current legislation to set the audit period at
30 working days, the opportunity for conducting quality
and comprehensive audits would be expanded,
preventing the need for appointing additional audits or
extending audit periods.
Although the term "working day" is used in the current
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
42
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
Criminal
Procedure
Code,
Administrative
Responsibility Code, Civil Procedure Code, Economic
Procedure Code, Budget Code, and Labor Code, none
of them provide a specific definition for calculating
periods. Article 5 of the Tax Code of the Republic of
Uzbekistan establishes the procedure for calculating
periods specified in tax legislation, and part seven of
this article states that "a period calculated in days is
counted in working days if this period is not specified
in calendar days. A day is considered a working day if it
is not recognized as a day off and/or non-working
holiday according to legislation" [20].
Furthermore, according to the "Regulations on
Managing Tax Risk, Identifying Taxpayers (Tax Agents)
with Tax Risk, and Classifying Them by Tax Risk Level"
approved by Resolution No. 1 of the Cabinet of
Ministers dated 07.01.2021, paragraph 133 establishes
that the duration of a tax audit shall be thirty working
days.
Based on the above, we believe it is appropriate to
amend Article 1871 of the Criminal Procedure Code
according to the draft law provided in the appendix to
this research work. Additionally, based on the analysis
of analytical data and survey results, we propose
supplementing Article 1877 of the Criminal Procedure
Code with part 3 according to the appendix [21] to
eliminate cases of illegal extension of audit periods and
to address possible obstacles that may arise during the
audit by introducing provisions for suspending the
audit period.
The day when the audit results protocol is handed over
to the head or authorized employee of the business
entity being audited, or the day when it is sent by
registered mail to the legal address of the entity or the
residential address of the enterprise head, is
considered the day of completion of the audit.
In some cases, improper organization of the audit, lack
of monitoring of the audit progress and specialists'
activities, and unclear formulation of questions for the
specialist may lead to repeated extensions of the audit
period or appointment of repeat or additional audits.
An additional audit is appointed to clarify new
circumstances in the case and fill gaps in the protocol.
According to the requirements of the Criminal
Procedure Code, "a repeat audit is appointed in the
following cases: when objections submitted by the
examined entity, accused, or defendant regarding
disagreement with audit conclusions and results are
found to be justified; when there are contradictions in
the audit results protocol with audit materials and
other materials of the criminal case, as well as when
documents, information, and materials that formed
the basis for conclusions in the audit results protocol
are found to be incorrect; when conclusions indicated in
the audit results protocol are unfounded or their
accuracy raises doubts. Persons who conducted the
initial audit may not be appointed to conduct a repeat
audit" [22].
Articles 18710 and 18711 of the Criminal Procedure
Code detail the rights of heads or other representatives
of business entities being examined and the rights and
obligations of the auditor, respectively.
"The final stage of the audit is drawing up a protocol.
The protocol is the final document that represents the
result of the specialist's activity and is subject to
evaluation by the audit-appointing div." "To be
recognized as an official document, the protocol must
meet procedural requirements" [23, p. 179].
Persons conducting the audit shall prepare an audit
results protocol in at least three copies based on the
conducted audit results. According to the requirements
of the Criminal Procedure Code, "The audit results
protocol shall indicate the following: place of audit, date
of protocol preparation; grounds for conducting the
audit; duration of the audit; surname, first name,
patronymic of persons who conducted the audit; full
name of the legal entity, surname, first name,
patronymic of officials who carried out management
functions or accounting and financial management
functions during the period under examination
(surname, first name, patronymic of individual
entrepreneur); location (postal address) of the entity
being examined, bank details, as well as its taxpayer
identification number; information about previous
inspections of the financial and economic activities of
the entity being examined; general information about
the period under examination and documents,
information, and materials provided for conducting the
audit; detailed description of identified violations of
legislation (if any) with reference to the violated norms
of legislation; conclusions regarding the conducted
audit results, including the absence of violations of
legislation."
The audit results protocol must be accompanied by a
copy of the decision or ruling on appointing the audit
and an excerpt from the order on conducting the audit,
relevant protocols about actions during the audit, as
well as inventory protocols, materials obtained during
the inspection, and appropriate documents confirming
other actions related to the audit.
Additionally, documents confirming instances of
legislation violations discovered during the inspection
are attached to the inspection protocol. If no violations
of legislation are found during the inspection, this is
noted in the inspection protocol.
All copies of the audit results protocol are signed by the
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
43
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
auditors. The signature of the head or other
representative of the entity being examined on this
protocol does not indicate their agreement with the
audit results. One copy of the audit results protocol is
handed over to the enterprise head or representative,
and they must sign all copies indicating the date of
receipt.
If they refuse to receive or sign the protocol, the
person conducting the audit makes a relevant note
about this in the protocol. In such cases, where
representatives of the entity being examined also
refuse to sign this note, it is signed only by the auditor,
and one copy of the protocol is sent by postal service
via registered mail to the address of the audited entity,
with the postal receipt attached to the audit
documents.
Other copies of the audit results protocol must be
registered in the established manner on the next
working day after the audit completion, and one copy
should be sent with an accompanying letter to the
relevant investigative div or court for attachment to
the audit documents.
If the audit regarding compliance with tax legislation is
conducted by department div employees, the
protocol drawn up based on the audit results, along
with attachments, shall be sent within one working day
via communication letter to the tax authority where
the taxpayer is registered for registration, review, and
decision-making.
Review of audit materials regarding compliance with
tax legislation and decision-making are carried out in
accordance with the procedure established by the Tax
Code, and the decision made is sent to the div that
appointed the audit via communication letter within 3
working days.
Currently, although the Criminal Procedure Code of the
Republic of Uzbekistan has strictly established norms
regarding the appointment and conduct of audits,
there are various views regarding the procedural status
of audits.
According to B.A. Muminov, the non-recognition of the
opinion expressed by the auditor (specialist-
economist) leads to it having no evidentiary value.
However, Article 87 of the Criminal Procedure Code
specifically lists expertise and audit among the
methods of collecting evidence. Analysis of the above
reveals the existence of two different approaches to
one issue in the law [25, p. 105].
Although not explicitly stated in the Criminal
Procedure Code, according to I.R. Astanov, "it is
appropriate to include the protocol as a type of
evidence." "Because based on it, criminal cases are
initiated, legal assessment is given to a person's actions,
in short, legal facts (legal consequences) arise" [26, p.
179].
In our opinion, we also consider it appropriate to add
the words "audit protocol" after the words "expert
conclusion" in the second part of Article 81 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, thereby recognizing the
protocol drawn up based on audit results as evidence.
At the same time, I believe that persons conducting
audits should also be warned like experts before
conducting the audit, and relevant additions and
amendments should be made to Articles 238 and 240 of
the Criminal Code.
Furthermore, it is proposed to supplement Article
18711 of the Criminal Procedure Code with part 4 of the
following content: "The reliability, objectivity, and
completeness of information stated in documents
regarding audit results shall be ensured by officials
conducting the audit."
This comprehensive approach to the legal status of audit
protocols
and
auditors'
responsibilities
would
strengthen the evidentiary value of audit findings while
ensuring appropriate accountability for the accuracy
and completeness of audit results.
REFERENCES
Eremin S.G. Forensic Accounting. Textbook - Moscow:
TSOKR MVD Russia, 2005. - pp. A5-12; Dubonosov E.S.
Forensic Accounting: Educational-practical guide. -
Moscow: Knizhniy mir, 2005. - pp. 116-141.
Regulations "On the State Financial Control Inspection
under the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of
Uzbekistan" approved by Resolution No. 431 of the
Cabinet of Ministers dated 05.08.2022. //www.lex.uz
Muminov B.A. "Improving the use of special economic
knowledge in pre-trial proceedings" Dissertation
prepared for obtaining the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy (PhD) in Legal Sciences - Tashkent: 2018. - p.
70.
Article 1874, Part 6 of the Criminal Procedure Code of
the Republic of Uzbekistan. //www.lex.uz
Dzhumamuratov Sh.Ya. Organization and conduct of
documentary
audits
and
forensic
accounting
examinations in investigating theft of state and public
property. - p. 13; Gramovich G.I. Referenced work - p.
43.
Kozitsin Ya.M. Investigation and consideration of cases
of embezzlement committed using official position. - p.
110.
Klimova Z.P. Ways to improve audits in the investigation
process // Detection of hidden embezzlement through
economic analysis and by improving the activities of
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
44
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
control and audit apparatus. - Moscow, 1978. - p. 223.
Garitovskaya E.V., Toleubekova B.Kh. Assistance
provided by specialist-accountant to investigator in
appointing documentary audit and forensic accounting
examination / Derevyagin Yu.T., Garitovskaya E.V.,
Toleubekova B.Kh. Participation of specialist-
accountant in conducting investigative and non-
procedural actions in cases of socialist property theft:
textbook. - Moscow: VNII MVD USSR, 1989.
Madogoev A.A., Tsvetkov S.I. Forensic methodology for
investigating economic crimes // Madogoev A.A.,
Tsvetkov S.I. Organization and forensic methodology
for investigating economic crimes. - Moscow, 1990. - p.
22.
Babaev Yu.A., Gadzhiev N.G. Control and audit under
lease conditions. - Moscow: Finance and Statistics,
1992. - pp. 87-88.
Toleubekova B.Kh. Audit and evaluation of its results //
Oparin N.V., Garitovskaya E.V., Pulyakhin V.L. et al.
Investigation of socialist property theft in construction:
manual. - Moscow: VNII MVD USSR, 1987. - p. 52.
Article 1877, Part 10 of the Criminal Procedure Code of
the Republic of Uzbekistan. //www.lex.uz
Article 175, Part 1 of the Code of Administrative
Responsibility of the Republic of Uzbekistan.
//www.lex.uz
Article 227 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of
Uzbekistan. //www.lex.uz
Vorobyova I.B. Typical situations of interaction
between investigator and controlling bodies arising in
detection and investigation of crimes // Theory and
practice of criminalistics and forensic examination:
interuniversity collection of scientific works. - Issue 8. -
Saratov: Saratov University Publishing House, 1989. -
pp. 23-29.
Ordynsky S.S. Investigation of theft in trade
organizations: methodological guide for investigators.
- Moscow: State Publishing House of Legal Literature,
1954. - p. 27.
Detection of theft by economic-forensic means:
textbook / under general ed. S.P. Golubyatnikov, G.V.
Dashkov, V.G. Tanasevich. - Gorky: All-Union Institute
for Studying Causes and Developing Measures to
Prevent Crime; GVSh MVD USSR, 1983. - p. 55.
Sergeev L.A. Some problems of audit control and
combating theft of socialist property // Combating
theft of state and public property. - Moscow: Legal
Literature, 1971. - p. 42.
Letter No. 9/3-1506-23 dated June 21, 2023, from the
Department for Combating Economic Crimes (in
response to letter No. 15/05a-23 dated June 15, 2023,
from the Prosecutor General's Office). Letter No. 20/4-
67502 dated June 24, 2023, from the Tax Committee (in
response to letter No. 15/05a-23 dated June 15, 2023,
from the Prosecutor General's Office). Letter No. 14/8-
01549 dated June 23, 2023, from the State Financial
Control Inspection (in response to letter No. 15/05a-23
dated June 15, 2023, from the Prosecutor General's
Office).
Article 5 of the Tax Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan.
//www.lex.uz
See appendix to the research work.
Article 1879 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the
Republic of Uzbekistan. //www.lex.uz
Astanov I.R. "Procedural and forensic aspects of using
special knowledge in criminal cases" Dissertation
prepared for obtaining the degree of Doctor of Legal
Sciences (DSc). - Tashkent: 2020. p. 179.
Article 1878 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the
Republic of Uzbekistan. //www.lex.uz
Muminov B.A. "Use of special economic knowledge in
pre-trial proceedings" Monograph. - Academy of the
Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of
Uzbekistan, Tashkent: 2018. - p. 105.
Astanov I.R. "Procedural and forensic aspects of using
special knowledge in criminal cases" Dissertation
prepared for obtaining the degree of Doctor of Legal
Sciences (DSc). - Tashkent: 2020. - p. 179.
