Abstract: The article discusses the mechanism of administrative coercion, this issue is important from the point of view of the application of various measures of administrative influence. The importance of such a category as the "legal mechanism of administrative coercion" will be predetermined by its functionality in determining methods of coercive influence. The mechanism of application of administrative coercion may make it possible to balance private and public interests in the application of various measures of administrative coercion, as well as to avoid violations of the requirements of legality. The mechanism of administrative coercion is a kind of law enforcement (police) mechanism. Despite this, the mechanism of coercion has its own specifics. The author revealed the features of the mechanism of administrative coercion measures, gave a theoretical analysis of the elements of this mechanism. The paper draws attention to the fact that constructively the mechanism of administrative and legal regulation of the use of coercive measures includes the norms of law, legal relations, acts of application of the norms of law, as well as legal culture. Based on this, the author concludes that the mechanism of action of administrative coercion harmoniously includes both legal and non-legal elements, and the importance of the latter elements is also important for the effectiveness of the implementation of the coercion. The author concluded that the legal culture as an element of the mechanism of administrative coercion has not received a proper theoretical assessment.

Keywords: law and order, efficiency, offense, restriction, responsibility, impact, suppression, punishment, coercion, mechanism

Abstract: The article discusses the possibility of the court, provided for in paragraph 5 of Part 2 of Article 281 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, to make a decision on the disclosure of the testimony of witnesses and victims. This problem is investigated by the authors in the context of the fact that the parties should be given the opportunity to protect their interests by all means not prohibited by law, including challenging the read testimony and petitions for their verification with the help of other evidence, as well as by using other means that contribute to the prevention, detection and elimination of errors in court decisions. Based on the study of judicial practice, the authors consider the question of what is meant by the defendant's ability to challenge the testimony of a person testifying against him in ways not prohibited by law and whether it matters what position the defense takes on this issue. The article gives a critical assessment of the approach to solving this issue that has developed in law enforcement practice, which, in essence, "obliges" the defense party to file a petition for a confrontation in case of disagreement with the testimony of a witness. It is noted that this approach is obviously incorrect, and this position is justified. The authors come to the conclusion that depriving the defendant of the right to interrogate the participant showing against him is depriving him of the opportunity to demonstrate to the court the inconsistency of the testimony given by the victim or witness, which can become the key evidence underlying the court's conviction against the defendant. The authors of the article consider correct the position in which the court takes into account the non-confrontation between the accused and the victim, the witness at the stage of preliminary investigation as a circumstance preventing the disclosure of testimony, taking into account the position of the defense. The article evaluates proposals to improve the norms of criminal procedure legislation, taking into account the balance of interests of the parties.

Keywords: confrontation, defendant's rights, contestation of testimony, immediacy, burden of proof, right to defense, reading out of testimony, interrogation, criminal proceedings, judicial practice

Abstract: Based on scientific sources and practical experience, the article examines problematic issues of criminalistic support for the disclosure and investigation of crimes related to the occupation of a person of the highest position in the criminal hierarchy. The subject of the study is some features of the identification, disclosure and investigation of the crime provided for in Article 210.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation The object of the study is public relations arising in the process of countering organized crime, in particular criminal authorities having the statute "thief in law", "posenets", "looking". The author examines in detail such aspects of the topic as the peculiarities of identifying persons occupying the highest position in the criminal hierarchy, establishing the circumstances of "crowning" or obtaining the appropriate status. Within the framework of forensic support, the issues of technical-forensic and tactical-forensic support for the detection of signs of a crime, material and ideal traces, as well as the specifics of their fixation and use in proving criminal cases are considered. The main conclusions of the study: effective forensic support for the disclosure and investigation of a crime under Article 210.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation "Occupying the highest position in the criminal hierarchy" is not possible without a clear legislative definition of the concept of a person occupying the highest position in the criminal hierarchy. To increase the effectiveness of the fight against organized crime, it is necessary to develop methodological recommendations and algorithms for identifying and bringing to criminal responsibility persons occupying the highest position in the criminal hierarchy.

Keywords: criminal subculture, thug, community service holder, looking, posenets, higher position, leader of criminal communities, thief in law, criminal community, criminal hierarchy

Abstract: Every year, the number of offenses related to "forgery of a person" in the Russian Federation is only growing, but there is no liability for fraud of this kind. The article discusses ways of seizing someone else's document with a socially dangerous illegal purpose. The arbitrary acquisition of a passport, as well as with temporary borrowing, is considered in detail as not explicitly related to illegal acts. An attempt is made to answer the question of whether the passport is property. cases of the use of other people's documents or personal data with a socially dangerous illegal purpose are also considered. The author draws attention to the fact that the number of different types of cases of "forgery of a person" is much more than was presented. These types need to be analyzed in detail in further studies from the point of view of violation of inalienable rights, and especially the right to a name. These issues are investigated using logical and systematic methods, analysis and synthesis, formal legal, comparative legal methods of cognition. The main conclusion of the study is the position on the need to expand the disposition of Part 3 of Article 327 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation by fixing the possibility of criminal prosecution for using someone else's document or personal data for a socially dangerous illegal purpose.

Keywords: property, wrongful act, identification, document, arbitrariness, passport, right to name, person, types of forgery, identification card

Abstract: The object of the study is the crimes provided for in Articles 285.1 and Article 285.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as the activities of the subject of the investigation in general and to verify reports of misuse of budgetary funds, in particular. The subject of the study was the regularities of the preparation, commission and concealment of this group of crimes, as well as the regularities of the activities of law enforcement agencies to identify, investigate and disclose them. When forming conclusions, the authors were guided by the analysis of the norms of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, other laws regulating the verification of reports on this group of crimes and the conduct of their investigation, the provisions of general criminalistic theories, materials of investigative and judicial practice (materials of 148 criminal cases considered in the courts of the Southern Federal District of the Russian Federation are summarized). The authors consider in detail the investigator's verification of the report on the misuse of budgetary funds, with special attention being paid to the problems of using the means of its implementation. The study used dialectical, logical, statistical, formal and legal research methods, as well as the method of legal modeling. The authors note that when conducting an audit of a report on the misuse of budgetary funds, the investigator needs to use the full range of means specified in Part 1 of Article 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. The conducted research made it possible to establish that these funds are sufficient for its implementation, at the same time, their insufficiently detailed regulation in the criminal procedure Law creates difficulties when investigating a crime report. The authors offer organizational and tactical recommendations that will avoid negative consequences when receiving explanations, requesting documents, appointing examinations, etc. At the same time, the authors point out that a complete solution to this problem requires fixing a clear and detailed procedure for using means of verifying a crime report in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

Keywords: forensic characteristics of a crime, subject of preliminary examination, inspection of the scene of the incident, audit, appointment of forensic examinations, reclamation of documents, getting an explanation, misappropriation of funds, crime report, circumstances to be established