The Approach of the Federal Commission of Integrity and the Judiciary Regarding the Evidentiary Value of Audit Reports in Criminal Proceedings

Abstract

This research examines the position of the Federal Commission of Integrity as the investigative authority competent to handle corruption cases involving public funds, as well as the stance of the Iraqi judiciary both trial courts and the Court of Cassation regarding the evidentiary value of the Federal Board of Supreme Audit’s (FBSA) reports in crimes against public property The study explores the legal weight of these audit reports and the extent to which they may be relied upon to form judicial conviction and, consequently, issue criminal judgments. Although the criminal judge is not bound by a specific type of evidence and may form his conviction based on the evidence presented before him, judicial practice has not been uniform in assessing these reports. This research analyzes whether trial courts and the Court of Cassation have adopted a consistent approach toward recognizing the audit report as a form of expert or technical evidence on which the criminal judge may rely, or whether the courts have taken a fluctuating stance sometimes treating the report as a valid piece of criminal evidence and at other times merely as an auxiliary tool that may guide the judge in reaching his personal conviction regarding the facts under consideration