Different approaches to digitalization of criminal procedure are considered; the conclusion about the need for a functional approach based on a system analysis of procedural activity is substantiated; the internal purposes and functions of this activity subject to accounting for the aims of its system digitalization are highlighted; the functional sequence of purposes and stages of digitalization of procedural activity, which could ensure the transition to electronic justice in criminal cases, is highlighted.

The article analyzes the current problems of access to justice in the criminal proceedings of Russia, and claims that the state is not properly fulfilling this constitutional duty. Pre-trial proceedings are considered to be inefficient, unbalanced, and "red tape" proceedings that do not provide adequate access to justice. Attention is drawn to the lack of a logically holistic, conceptual approach to the development and improvement of the initial stage of criminal proceedings, the fragmented and inconsistent nature of legislative changes, and the locality of scientific discussions that are not United by a single conceptual approach. The article describes the conceptual approach developed by the research team to the construction of criminal proceedings that provides access to justice in criminal proceedings in the context of the development of digital technologies.

The interaction of individuals, structures and collectives in the course of digitalization of the criminal process is analyzed. The goals of various participants in the process of introducing digital technologies into criminal proceedings are considered. It is concluded that it is necessary to timely identify all the stakeholders of digitalization and other actors involved in this process, the thesis is substantiated that it is expedient to take into account and agree on strategies in order to give consistency, predictability and controllability to the digitalization process of the criminal procedural sphere of law enforcement. Thus, the readiness of the criminal justice system for the planned and actually ongoing digitalization is being tested.

Current developments in the area of digital technologies and, as a consequence, the emergence of new information sources cause the necessity of implementation of special provisions regarding electronic (digital) evidence in the law of criminal procedure. Nevertheless, before amending law of evidence regulations, the legal nature of such proof shall be defined. It is also necessary to comprehend how this new evidential source correlates with basic grounds of proof theory, other provisions of criminal procedure and on the whole — other branches of law.

The article focuses on the change in the rules of criminal procedure evidence, due to the increasingly active introduction of digital technologies in the criminal procedure sphere. Taking into account the foreign experience of initiating and investigating criminal cases in digital format, the article clarifies promising areas of digitalization of Russian criminal proceedings. Means that prevent the investigator from violating the procedural form of evidence when using digital technologies in criminal proceedings are determined.

This article is devoted to the problems of participation of the Prosecutor at the initial stage of criminal proceedings and the search for ways to optimize its activities in the light of the digital transformation of the Prosecutor’s office of the Russian Federation, carried out in three main areas, namely high-tech supervision, digital infrastructure, and the environment of trust. The transition to high-tech supervision and the development of digital infrastructure should lead to work with a single electronic case on the basis of a single interdepartmental digital online platform. At the same time, a single interdepartmental digital online platform will ensure interaction both within the prosecutor’s office and the interaction of the prosecutor’s office with the investigation, inquiry, public, and court bodies. The conclusion is drawn that the digital transformation of the Russian prosecutor’s office optimizes the activities of prosecutors at the initial stage of criminal proceedings, but this should be preceded by legislative changes aimed at strengthening the role of the prosecutor in pre-trial proceedings. It also states the need to increase the availability of information to citizens about the activities of prosecutors and the state of legality in pre-trial criminal proceedings and expand the list of statistical data posted on the official website of the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation.

The article deals with the problems, which faced Russian courts in COVID-19 pandemic period. Criminal justice in pandemic or other emergency periods may be retaliated by application distance procedure. Contemporary legislation is not useful for achievement this target. Author call upon for application of modern digital technologies including «electronic criminal case».

The presented article offers an analysis of some of the problems of criminal proceedings caused by the current situation in the country caused by the COVID-19 coronavirus infection pandemic. Based on what was stated in Art. 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the priority direction on the protection of human rights in the field of criminal proceedings, imposing the corresponding obligations on the state, follows the need for a reliable mechanism to ensure these rights. Meanwhile, in the conditions of the spread of coronavirus infection on the territory of the Russian Federation, a number of questions have arisen regarding the protection of human rights in the non-standard conditions of the judicial and law enforcement systems. Documents at the level of state regulation containing relevant recommendations do not fully cover the range of emerging issues. The decisions of the Presidium of the Supreme Court and the Presidium of the Council of Judges of March 18, 2020 and April 8, 2020, as noted by lawyers, did not clarify the practice of law enforcement.

The article offers an overview of the modern state of affairs in the field of the implementation of legal positions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Russian criminal procedural law and law-enforcement practices. Significant attention is paid to the legal approaches of the Russian Constitutional Court as one the main actors in the national implementation system who pointed out a series of problems in functioning of the conception known as «dialog between the Courts». We research the amendments to the Russian Constitution of 2020 year in respect of it’s meaning to the process of realization of the legal positions of ECtHR in the Russian criminal procedure. With the examples from the modern ECtHR case-law in respect of the Russia root problems in the law regulation of different stages and institutions of criminal procedure are being revealed. The article also offers analysis of the trends in national courts practices with proposals of it’s harmonization with the European legal standards.

The Institute of extradition is one of the most important areas of international cooperation in the fight against crime, since this tool ensures the achievement of the fundamental principles of the criminal process, which include: the restoration of the rights of the victim violated by the crime, the application of fair punishment to the criminal, despite the differences in the legal regulation of this issue in the jurisdiction of different States. However, should the legal regulation currently, this institution does not have, and therefore the activities of law enforcement agencies in this part cause certain difficulties.

The article analyzes some features of the legal regulation of the institution of extradition in the criminal process of the Russian Federation, identifies current problems of theory and practice of application. In addition, the author suggests ways to solve the problems of legal regulation of this institution. Attention is focused on the need to make changes not only to the legislative framework, but also to modernize the extradition mechanism itself. In addition, the current issues that arise in the course of the extradition procedure, both at the request of the Russian Federation and foreign States, are considered. 

The digitalization of various spheres of modern life is becoming more and more discussed. Various approaches are analyzed in the legal literature. Many countries are seeking to radically improve their legal procedures through the use of information technology. In this regard, of particular interest is the experience of those states that effectively use digitalization in various industries.

The Netherlands is among the world leaders in digitalization. The Netherlands managed to get one of the leading positions in this area thanks to the implemented policy related to the transfer of government communications in electronic form, ensuring interoperability, confidentiality and reliability of electronic services, and opening access to government information. Occupying one of the leading places among European states leading an effective fight against computer crimes, the Netherlands is constantly improving its criminal and criminal procedure legislation. In this regard, the experience of the Netherlands is of particular interest. 

The article touches upon the issues of correlation of the constitutional rights of the individual and the examination of a mobile device by law enforcement agencies in order to disclose and investigate crimes. The grounds and procedure for examining a mobile device are considered. The question is raised about the need to obtain a court decision for this.

The article analyzes the existing information systems of criminal justice in the United States both at the federal and state levels. The features of the functioning of the federal systems of criminal justice are noted. An assessment of the activities of state information systems is given, the features of the work of some of them are given. The criteria are highlighted that made it possible to carry out a comparative legal analysis of state information systems. Close attention is paid to the activities of electronic systems of bodies carrying out preliminary investigation in the United States. The author’s classification of complex information systems of the US criminal justice is proposed.

The article shows the main models of building pre-trial proceedings in the Russian Federation and foreign countries, analyzes the provision of access to justice in each of the models. A number of measures have been proposed to build pre-trial proceedings in criminal cases that effectively ensure access to justice, including abandoning the stage of initiating a criminal case and keeping a countdown of the preliminary investigation from the moment of registration of a crime report, conducting pre-trial cognitive activity (investigation) under the guidance of a prosecutor, and bringing charges by the prosecutor.based on the results of the investigation, granting participants who are not vested with authority the right to apply to the court to deposit evidence and to assist the court in protecting their interests in connection with the refusal of the preliminary investigation body to satisfy motions related to the process of proving, the introduction of effective simplified and accelerated procedures in pre-trial proceedings, the establishment of digital interaction between government agencies and the population through a single secure digital online platform; creation of a mechanism for filing reports of crime through a special online service integrated into the specified digital platform.

The article analyzes the issue of the lack of proper legal regulation of requirements for the results of operational-search activities used in the field of criminal proceedings. A separate place is given to the problem of assessing the presented results of operational-search activities. On the basis of the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the European Court of Human Rights, a solution to this problem is proposed. At the same time, the provision is taken as a basis that any, in direct or indirect form, affecting the constitutional rights of citizens in the course of operational-search activities, entails the need to obtain a court decision for such activities. The question of the need to reform the criminal legislation is outlined. 

The article examines problematic issues of theoretical understanding, legislative regulation and application in judicial practice of the criminal procedure the institute of the dismissal of the jury in view of its tendentiousness. The article notes that this institution is not implemented in judicial practice in a positive aspect, since all variations for the manifestation of a possible tendentiousness of the collegium are rejected by appeal and cassation courts. It is concluded that there are two irreparable contradictions in the basis of the procedural consolidation of this institution, which determine the ineffectiveness of its positive application. The first contradiction, considered in the article, arises between the need to motivate the application for the dismissal of the jury in view of its tendentiousness and the amorphousness (uncertainty) of the grounds for such a group challenge. The second contradiction arises between the absence of grounds for peremptory challenge of each of the candidates for jury and the existence of grounds for the dismissal of the jury as a whole. The article concludes that the institution under consideration does not adequately fulfill the function of a legal means ensuring the impartiality and objectivity of the jury, and should be excluded from the legislative model of proceedings in the jury trial of the Russian Federation.

The problem of money laundering in socio-economic, criminological, international legal, comparative legal, criminal law and general legal (intersectoral) aspects. It is shown that “money laundering” accompanies the development of a society with a market-based management organization, where mechanisms are in place to ensure the transparency of economic turnover. It is proved that “laundering” is closely related to various types of criminal behavior, provokes their growth, “feeds” on other criminal sources. It has been established that the prevention of money laundering should be joint for the international community and, whenever possible, be carried out through the development of the same rules for combating money laundering. It is argued that modern Russian criminal law is faced with the need to improve the legal structure of the “laundering” of criminal proceeds in order to ensure the stability of legal regulation. In addition, the statement of the question of the feasibility and necessity of adopting federal laws on combating organized crime and on the criminal liability of legal entities that are important in the field of combating the legalization (laundering) of criminal proceeds is substantiated.

One of the topical problematic issues in financial law is the definition of the meaningful characteristics of expenditure obligations in the budget structure. Not only in civil relations there are obligations, they are also characteristic of the public law sphere within the framework of different types of financial obligations: public, budgetary, expenditure, cash, debt. Expenditure obligations are legislatively enshrined in the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, and provide for the obligations of the relevant public law entity to provide funds from the relevant budget to the entity specified in the legislation (natural or legal entity, public entity). An analysis of the content characteristics of expenditure obligations indicates the presence of general and specific signs of civil and expenditure obligations. Among the first, it is necessary to highlight the property nature, the presence of legal relations, and the specific ones include the grounds for the emergence of obligations, their nature.

In the general theory of state and law, a sanction is usually understood as a part of a rule of law that indicates adverse consequences for the offender in the form of coercive influence on him. This idea of a sanction is contradicted by numerous scientific definitions of a criminal legal sanction, which are based on the concept of "sanction of an article of the Special Provisions of the Penal Code", which is repeatedly used in the Penal Code of the Russian Federation. Consideration of the sanction as a part of a criminal legal norm on liability for a certain type of crime allows us to consider it in relation to the composition of the crime, reflected in the disposition of the same criminal legal norm. The Penal Code of the Russian Federation contains legal norms where sanctions have been adjusted to consider the special characteristics of the subject of the crime. These sanctions can be considered as a special group of criminal legal sanctions. Both the disposition (In terms of the characteristics of the subject of the crime) and the sanction of the criminal legal norms are specified in the articles of the General Provisions of the Penal Code of the Russian Federation.

The article discusses the issue of the legal nature of the right to compensate harm, the effectiveness of usage of the criminal procedure mechanism for its protection and the reasonableness of the inclusion of relevant in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.Based on the analysis of judicial practice, it is concluded that the courts have difficulties in determining the appropriate way to protect the right to compensate harm caused in the course of criminal proceedings and the delineation of competence between arbitration courts and courts of general jurisdiction, which leads to a violation of the applicants’ right to access to justice and reduces the effectiveness of judicial protection.In addition, it is concluded that the criminal procedure form is not adapted to the consideration of civil disputes on compensation for harm, the author names the impossibility of collecting lost profits as one of the factors that reduce the effectiveness of the use of the criminal procedural mechanism for protecting property rights.Based on the interpretation of the criminal procedure rules provided in the article, the author concludes that legal entities have an opportunity to use criminal procedure remedies for violated property rights in more cases than individuals, which violates the principle of equality before the law and the court. The article provides ways to solve the identified problems.

The increased digitalization of criminal procedure activities creates a need to overview the attitude to data used in the process of proving in criminal cases. Electronic (digital) information is actively being implement intocognitive activity, however the specifics of its use is not analyzed enough. Active technological progress has led to the formation of a cyberspace (digital space). The peculiarities of its functioning should be taken into account in the process of forming ethical rules of behavior in the digital environment.

Part 2 of Article 389.17 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation establishes a list of unconditionally significant violations of the norms of the criminal procedure law, the identification of which in a case entails the cancellation or change of the sentence in every case without exception. The range of these violations was determined by the legislator during the development of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation in 2001, and has not changed since then. However, the rules, violation of which can affect the quality of the sentence and lead to its cancellation in each case, have changed more than once. Including the norms governing the institution of returning the case to the prosecutor in accordance with Art. 237 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation and determining the significance of this institution for the issuance of a legal, reasonable and fair sentence. In this regard, this article discusses the feasibility of expanding the list of unconditional grounds for canceling a sentence by including a violation associated with the failure of the court to take measures to return the criminal case to the prosecutor in accordance with Art. 237 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, if there are grounds for that.