Novels of the new Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine regarding IT

    In November 2012, a new Code of Criminal Procedure entered into force in Ukraine (the CPC describes the procedure for holding a person liable for a crime - from a pre-trial investigation to the execution of a court decision).

    This code has a number of new articles that regulate and clarify such issues as the removal of information from transport telecommunication networks and electronic information networks by law enforcement agencies. This legislative act must meet the requirements of the present with regard to interaction with the IT world, since all such legal relations were previously regulated by the code of 1960, where they operated with the concepts of "telegraphic correspondence" in particular. I think this information will be useful to both providers and ordinary users who may be affected by these innovations.



    I create this topic more to discuss innovations with users in the comments and I am not a professional interpreter. For me there are more questions than answers. Judicial and investigative practice will certainly provide answers, but I think this topic will be useful for familiarization and forecasts.

    I’ll explain from myself that all these actions are unspoken investigative actions (the person in respect of whom they are carried out should not be aware of their conduct). That is, they can only be applied if a serious / especially serious crime is suspected / charged and for their conduct it is necessary to obtain a determination of an investigating judge.

    The investigating judge is a new figure in the Ukrainian criminal process - this is a special judge who is appointed to “supervise” the investigation. That is, the investigator must coordinate the following investigative actions with the prosecutor and then file a petition with the investigating judge.

    Article 263. Withdrawal of information from transport telecommunication networks

    1. Withdrawal of information from transport telecommunication networks (networks providing the transmission of signs, signals, written text, images and sounds or messages of any kind between telecommunication access networks connected to it) is a form of interference in personal communication , which is conducted without the knowledge of persons , use telecommunication facilities to transmit information , based on the decision of the investigating judge, if It is possible to establish circumstances relevant to criminal proceedings.

    2. In the decision of the investigating judge on permission to intervene in private communication in this case additionallyidentification signs should be indicated that will uniquely identify the monitoring subscriber, transport telecommunications network, end equipment , which may interfere with personal communication ...

    3. The removal of information from transport telecommunication networks consists in the use of appropriate technical means of monitoring, selection and fixing the content of information that is transmitted by a person and is important for pre-trial investigation , as well as for receiving, transforming Waning and fixing various types of signals transmitted through communication channels.

    4. The removal of information from telecommunication transport networks is assigned to authorized units of the internal affairs bodies and security agencies. Managers and employees of telecommunication operators are obliged to facilitate the removal of information from transport telecommunication networks, take measures regarding the non-disclosure of the fact of such actions and the information received, and store it unchanged.


    1. As you can see, law enforcement agencies can intervene and remove information from your communication channels, for example, Internet service provider networks that go to your home. Moreover, both the provider itself and bypassing it. All categories are spelled out quite clearly.

    2. Interestingly, by the end equipment is meant the equipment of the user, or the subject, carrying out the removal of information? And as in this case, the excuse will work in practice: “this is my Wi-Fi router, its mac address, but it wasn’t me, someone hacked the router” The identification data will be the IP address, mac address, or both and other?

    3. No matter how strange the sentence was built, the translation is subjectively correct :)

    4. The provider should assist law enforcement officers and in this case the question that worried many before is immediately described: “Is it possible to notify the user that they are interested in the authorities”. No - not possible (that’s how my old German teacher replied).

    Article 264. Withdrawal of information from electronic information systems

    1. Search, identification and fixing of information contained in the electronic information system or its parts, access to the electronic information system or its part, as well as receipt of such information without the knowledge of its owner, owner or holder may carried out on the basis of the decision of the investigating judge, if there is information about the availability of information in the electronic information system or its part, which is important for a certain pre-trial investigation.
    2. Does not require the permission of the investigating judge to obtain information from electronic information systems or a part thereof, access to which is not limited to its owner, owner or holder or is not associated with overcoming the logical defense system.
    3. In the decision of the investigating judge on permission to intervene in personal communication in this case, the identification signs of the electronic information system in which interference in personal communication may be carried out must be additionally indicated


    1. It is interesting what is meant by an electronic information system. Website, server, user computer, database? Could this information system be an email account, a social network?

    2. Apparently in this case, we mean the entire open segment of the Internet. And under logical protection, there is some explicit protection mechanism set by the user. Apparently hidden from everyone, including from unauthorized users, the photo on Facebook is also protected.

    3. In this case, everything is no less clear. Surely it will be domain names, ip-addresses and more.

    Article 268. Establishing the location of electronic equipment

    1. Establishing the location of electronic equipment is an unspoken investigative (search) action, which involves the use of technical means to localize the location of electronic equipment, including the mobile terminal of communication systems and other radio-emitting devices activated in the networks of mobile operators (mobile) communication, without disclosing the content of messages transmitted if, as a result of it, it is possible to establish be circumstances important for criminal proceedings.

    2. The location of the radio-electronic means shall be established on the basis of a decision of the investigating judge, adopted in the manner provided for in Articles 246, 248-250 of this Code.

    3. In the decision of the investigating judge on permission to establish the location of the electronic equipment in this case, identification signs must additionally be indicated that will uniquely identify the monitoring subscriber, transport telecommunication network, and terminal equipment.
    4. Establishing the location of electronic equipment before issuing the decision of the investigating judge may be initiated on the basis of the decision of the investigator or prosecutor only in the case provided for in the first part of Article 250 of this Code.


    That is, now a mechanism has been specifically prescribed by which you can calculate your location, the route of movement, without resorting to listening and removing information (SMS, Internet). Here are IMEI numbers, SIM card identifiers to help. You look, and the SIM cards will be sold only with passports.

    Earlier, in the Ukrainian edition of the CPC of 1960, similar norms sounded archaic:


    Article 187. Seizure of correspondence and removal of information from communication channels.

    Arrest of correspondence and removal of information from communication channels can be applied only if there are sufficient grounds to consider that in letters, telegraph and other correspondence of the suspect or accused to other persons or other persons to the suspect or the accused, as well as the information that they exchange using the means of communication, contains data on the crime committed or documents and objects of evidentiary value, and if other ways to get this data is impossible.

    Correspondence that may be seized includes letters of all kinds, parcels, parcels, mail containers, translations, telegrams, radiograms, etc ...

    The arrest of correspondence and the removal of information from communication channels in order to prevent a crime can be applied to institute criminal proceedings.

    If there are grounds provided for by the first part of this article, the investigator, in agreement with the prosecutor, shall submit a submission to the chairman of the court of appeal at the place of the investigation to seize correspondence or remove information from communication channels. The chairman of the court or his deputy reviews the submission, studies the case file, listens to the investigator if necessary, listens to the opinion of the prosecutor, and then, depending on the grounds for such a decision, issues a decision on the seizure of correspondence or the removal of information from communication channels or on refusal to do so. The decision is not subject to appeal.
    The decision on the seizure of correspondence indicates the criminal case and the grounds on which this investigative action will be carried out, the last name, first name and patronymic of the person whose correspondence should be delayed, the exact address of this person, the types of mail and telegraphy to be seized, the term , during which the arrest is retained, the name of the communications institution, which is charged with the duty of delaying correspondence and notifying the investigator thereof.

    The decision on the removal of information from communication channels indicates the criminal case and the grounds on which this investigative action will be carried out, the surname, name and patronymic of the person from whose communication channels the information is available, the exact address of this person, the types of these channels, the term, during which information is being removed, the name of the institution charged with the obligation to withdraw information and notify the investigator about it.
    A decision to seize correspondence or remove information from communication channels is sent by the investigator to the head of the relevant institution, for which it is mandatory.
    The head of the relevant institution delays correspondence or removes information from communication channels and notifies the investigator about this within 24 hours.

    The seizure of correspondence is canceled, and the removal of information from communication channels ceases upon the expiration of the period established for the execution of these investigative actions by a judge’s decision. The investigator cancels the arrest imposed on correspondence or stops withdrawing information from communication channels when it is no longer necessary to implement these measures, when closing a criminal case or transferring it to the prosecutor in the manner provided for in Article 255 of this Code.
    The decision is made in a regime that ensures non-disclosure of pre-trial investigation data or operational-search activity.

     Section 187-1. Inspection and seizure of correspondence and study of information taken from communication channels

    A review of correspondence is carried out by decision of the court in a communication institution with the participation of witnesses from among the employees of this institution, and, if necessary, with the participation of a specialist. In the presence of these persons, the investigator opens and inspects the delayed correspondence.

    In case of identification of documents or objects of evidentiary value, the investigator seizes the corresponding correspondence or is limited to making copies from the respective items. In the absence of documents or objects of evidentiary value, the investigator gives an instruction on the delivery of the inspected correspondence or on its detention before the deadline set by it.

    The investigator draws up a report on each case of inspection, seizure or detention of correspondence. The protocol should indicate exactly which items were inspected, what was removed and should be delivered to the addressee or temporarily delayed, from which the items were made copies.

    The study of information taken from communication channels, if necessary, is carried out with the participation of a specialist. The investigator listens, or in another appropriate way, examines the content of the information taken, which is the protocol. If information of evidence having evidence is found in the information, the corresponding part of the record is reproduced in the protocol, after which the investigator, by his decision, recognizes the carrier of the information taken as evidence and attaches it to the case.


    PS I did the translation myself, because I did not find a more or less intelligible version in Russian. I will be glad to comments and comments! The full text in the original language can be found here .

    Also popular now: