Гловюк, І.ВІ.ВГловюк2026-06-182026-06-182016-11-13Гловюк, І. (2016). The prosecution as a subject of proving when disposing the issue of property attachment. Вісник кримінального судочинства(3), 18–25.https://ir.library.knu.ua/handle/15071834/24146The article is dedicated to the study of legal regulation and practice of proving when disposingthe issue of property attachment in the aspect of prosecution as a subject of proving. Based on CPCprovisions and court practice, the participation of prosecution as a subject of proving in disposing theissue of property attachment was examined. It was proved that in determination of prosecution’s rolein criminal procedural proving during the property attachment it is crucial to distinguish the local factsin proof depending on the purpose of attachment; the recovery of obtained illegitimate proft from theentity is considered as a separate purpose of attachment. The burden of proving such circumstancesas concealment, damaging, deterioration, destruction, transformation and exclusion of property shallbe placed upon the prosecution. Investigator or/and prosecutor takes a part in examination of themotion by investigative judge or court. The defense substantiates the statements of motion by givingthings and documents, initiation of hearing any witness or examination any materials that have significant meaning for deciding the issue of property attachment.Such statement as «complex of reasons or reasonable suspicions» is doubtful in the aspect ofqualitative grounds which are necessary for making the decision of property attachment; such statement as «complex of sufcient reasons or reasonable suspicions» seems to be more logical.For improvement the process of proving in examination of enforcement measures to ensurecriminal proceedings generally and attachment of property particularly it was proposed to withdrawthe statement of subclause 3 clause 2 art.173 of CPC of Ukraine: «if attachment of property is imposed under the statements of subclause 3,4 clause 2 art. 170 CPC of Ukraine»; clause 5 art. 132 ofCPC of Ukraine was proposed to express in follow edition: «during examination of the enforcementof measures to ensure criminal proceedings, parties to criminal proceedings and other participantsshould present to investigating judge or court evidence on circumstances to which they refer»Стаття присвячена дослідженню проблем нормативної регламентації та практики реалізації доказування при вирішенні питання про арешт майна у контексті сторони обвинувачення як суб'єкта доказування. На основі аналізу положень КПК, судової практики охарактеризовано роль сторони обвинувачення як суб'єкта доказування при вирішенні питання про арешт майна, запропоновані зміни та доповнення до ст.ст. 132, 173 КПК.ukinvestigative judgeadvocacytransparencycivil consciousnessinformationjudical reformслідчий суддясударешт майнаслідчийпрокурорлокальний предмет доказуванняСтаття