Causes of delays and possible solutions to the protraction of monstrous cases of budget fraud

Abstract

Aim: The aim of the study is to explore why large-scale (so-called monstrous) criminal proceedings for budgetary fraud are delayed for excessive periods of time and what factors prevent the timely and efficient closure of proceedings.

Methodology: The research is based on a normative analysis of current legislation and related judicial, prosecutorial and investigative practice, complemented by a critical evaluation of the relevant literature. The study highlights, by means of examples, the structural and practical problems encountered in the fight against budgetary fraud. The study also builds on the experience gained by the first author as a member of the Ministry of Justice’s working group investigating delays in criminal proceedings.

Findings: The study concludes that the prolongation of budgetary fraud prosecutions is mainly caused by an over-expansion of the unity of offences, leading to a forced merging of offences and an increasing volume of cases. This results in structural overload, particularly at the investigation stage, as the complexity of the facts, the large number of sub-actions and the growing volume of evidence require an excessive amount of time and capacity. In the judicial phase, while the trial concentration function of the preliminary hearing could in principle help to streamline proceedings, in practice the lack of a material and procedural framework to encourage cooperation on the case load is a major obstacle. At the same time, the excessive use of expert evidence and the technical shortcomings of digital case management slow down proceedings. The timeliness of proceedings is also often jeopardized by changes in personnel (e.g. changes of judge or defense counsel) which necessitate a repetition of the procedure. The study concludes that timely and efficient administration of justice can only be ensured through complex and coordinated reform measures, covering legislation, administration of justice, infrastructure and human resources management.

Value: The value of the study lies in its systemic approach to the problems of prosecuting budget fraud and in the concrete reform directions it suggests for legislation and enforcement. The proposals can contribute to increasing efficiency, reducing procedural overload and achieving timely and fair criminal justice.