The role of the Security Service of Ukraine in proving crimes against the state

Abstract

The relevance of the study is determined by the growing need to enhance the efficiency of the Security Service of Ukraine (SSU) in preventing crimes against the state under conditions of hybrid aggression, digitalization, and reform of the criminal justice system. It has been revealed that modern forms of treason, espionage, and sabotage possess a complex information-analytical nature, which requires the modernization of legal, procedural, and technical mechanisms for the collection and evaluation of evidence. It has been proven that the coherence of the SBU’s interaction with the prosecution and pre-trial investigation bodies directly affects the state’s ability to uphold legality and stability in the sphere of national security.

The purpose of the article is to provide a scientific justification of the SSU’s role in the system of proving crimes against the state, to define the scope and content of its procedural powers, to analyze the effectiveness of using materials from operational-search and counterintelligence activities in criminal proceedings, and to formulate recommendations for improving the legal and organizational mechanisms of national security assurance.

Research methodology is based on systemic, structural-functional, and comparative-legal approaches combined with analysis of legislation, judicial practice, empirical materials of the SSU, and the generalization of international experience (CEPOL, Eurojust, Council of Europe). Analytical and statistical methods were applied to assess the effectiveness of evidentiary activities and the use of digital verification technologies.

Research results indicate that the key problems of proving crimes against the state include the fragmented regulation of procedures for legalizing operational materials, the ambiguous status of the SSU as a subject of criminal proceedings, duplication of functions with the prosecution, and the absence of a unified system of digital traceability. The need to unify digital evidence verification procedures and to develop a standardized evidence management model has been identified.

Conclusions substantiate the necessity of creating a unified procedural standard for the legalization of operational materials, developing the SSU’s digital forensics capacity, and establishing a secure inter-agency digital environment for evidence exchange. Strengthening the evidentiary capacity of the SSU is shown to be a prerequisite for improving legal guarantees and public trust in the justice system.

Prospects for further research include the development of a normative model of Ukraine’s digital evidence infrastructure, the harmonization of national procedures with EU standards, and the assessment of the impact of artificial intelligence technologies on the evidentiary functions of security institutions.