Abstract: The subject of this article is the scientific and organizational-methodical patterns of forensic audit in conducting research on the objects of accounting processes of an economic entity, which describe records on the due and listed tax obligations seized by the Federal Tax Service to the government and (or) municipal formations. Special attention is given to the tactics of assigning such research in the criminal proceedings. In the course of this study, the author applied the comparative-analytical and system-structural methods of scientific cognition, as well as interdisciplinary approaches, since the study required knowledge of procedural and substantive law, forensic science, theory of forensic audit, economics and normative legal regulation regulation of the accounting processes of economic entities, which determined comprehensive character of this research. The author attempted to examine the forensic tax audit as an independent type of economic audit, which includes subject, object, goals and scientific-methodical recommendations for law enforcement agencies in commissioning such audits. The article describes the fundamental principles of private theory of forensic tax audit, which did not receive due attention within the scientific literature. The proposed recommendations are aimed at unification of investigative and judicial practices on commissioning and assessment of application of the results of forensic tax audit.  A comprehensive perspective upon the forensic tax audit and its current status is essential for its implementation by investigators, courts or investigating officers in criminal proceedings. The result of this work lies in formulation of recommendations for law enforcement agencies on the peculiarities of tactics used in commissioning forensic tax audit to state and non-state forensic audit institutions relating to peculiarities of preparing the objects of investigation, specificity of questions submitted to resolution by a forensic expert. A list of questions for forensic tax audit is presented.

Abstract: The research subject is the scientific, organizational and methodical regularities of judicial and examination activities during the research of finance-credit relations. Special attention is given to the key provisions of finance-credit examinations and the peculiarities of their commissioning. The author uses the categories and laws of dialectical and formal logic along with general scientific methods of scientific cognition (observation, description, comparison, systematization, formalization, etc.), and specific methods (comparative-analytical and system-structural). The author also uses the techniques of the interdisciplinary approach since the research requires knowledge in the field of procedural and substantive law, theory of court examination, economics and banking law, which determines the comprehensive nature of the research. From the viewpoint of modern scientific knowledge, the author attempts to analyze court examination as an independent class of judicial economic examinations which includes objects, subclasses, typical tasks and scientific and methodical recommendations for law enforcement officers about commissioning such examinations. The research addresses the main provisions of the subtheory of a judicial finance-credit examination which either haven’t been described sufficiently enough in the scientific works, or haven’t been systematised. The author’s recommendations are aimed at unification of the judicial practice of commissioning and assessment of the results of a judicial finance-credit examination. The formation of a comprehensive idea about this examination and its modern state is necessary for the implementation of its possibilities by an investigator, a court or an inquiry officer within criminal proceedings. The result of the research is the development of recommendations for law enforcement officers about the peculiarities of commissioning of a court tax analysis in governmental and nongovernmental criminal expertise institutions connected with the peculiarities of preparation of research objects and the specificity of issues subject to the consideration of a court expert; the author formulates the list of questions to an expert.