The article examines the influence of subjective factors on the activities of a forensic expert. It is noted that to improve the objectivity and reliability of the findings of forensic experts is necessary to strictly observe the presumption of innocence, to develop guidelines for certain types of expertise, production of which is not carried out in the state forensic institutions, as well as carry out some other organizational and methodical activities.

The subject of the article was the negative tendency in recent years to use by law enforcers the high repressive potential enshrined in art. 35 and 210 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (CC RF) on liability for the creation, leadership and participation in criminal communities for the purpose of criminal prosecution of owners and heads of legal companies that use the latter to commit crimes in economic field. More and more often, the law enforcer began to consider the organizational structure of a commercial organization, fixed in the charter and well-documented, as indisputable evidence of the presence of structural features of a criminal community (criminal organization). Until recently, such an interpretation of the criminal law was not hindered by either the criminal law or the position of the highest court in criminal matters. An attempt to solve this problem by the Federal Law of April 1, 2020 No. 73-ФЗ initiated by the President of the country, according to the author, is a “half measure”. This novelty also raises new problems for the law enforcer in interpreting such valuation concepts as “reliable knowledge” and “are not subject to criminal liability ... due to the organizational and staff structure of the organization”. In this regard, the legislator will be forced to continue the search for new, more effective and reliable barriers for the incorrect application of Article 210 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The author proposes to the expert community a number of specific legal and technical solutions to the problem of the unreasonably widespread application of art. 210 of the CC RF, including: using judicial control over the conformity of the legal entity with the goals of its creation and removing unreasonable restrictions when deciding whether there is a reason for initiating a criminal case under art. 210 CC RF in relation to owners, beneficiaries and heads of organizations, if the latter is charged with creating a legal entity for the purpose of committing a grave or especially grave crime; legislative limitation of the range of grave and especially grave crimes for the commission of which a criminal community (criminal organization) can be created; consolidation in the criminal law of the concept of creating a criminal community (criminal organization) in the form of a legal entity that does not belong to the state and municipal sectors, on the basis of the exceptional character of the criminal purpose of creating such a person.

The article discusses the criminological grounds and background introduced liability for abuse of power in the performance of the state defense order in the non-state sector of the economy (art. 201.1 of the Criminal Code) and for abuse of official powers in the performance of the state defense order, infringing on the interests of state power, public service and service in local governments (article 285.4 of the Criminal Code). Formulated private rules for qualifying relevant crimes and distinguishing them from related crimes and administrative offenses. The controversial and insufficiently substantiated rule-making decisions underlying the short stories are investigated. Keywords: Criminal Code of the RF, state defense order, abuse of power, abuse of official authority.

Аннотация. Подлинность изделий, документов и ряда других объектов имеет первостепенное значение во всех областях человеческой деятельности. Незаконное изготовление поддельных товаров, документов, денег, ценных бумаг и некоторых других предметов влечет предусмотренную законом ответственность, в том числе уголовную. Вопросы о подлинности нередко ставятся перед экспертами при назначении ряда судебных экспертиз: почерковедческих, судебно-трасологических, судебно-товароведческих, криминалистической экспертизы материалов, веществ и изделий. Методики судебно-экспертного определения подлинности значительной части объектов требуют дальнейшего совершенствования. В статье рассмотрены объекты, подделка или фальсификация которых влечет уголовную ответственность, методы установления подлинности в криминалистике и судебной экспертизе, проанализированы особенности научного обоснования выводов о подлинности при проведении судебных экспертиз, а также вопросы оценки заключений экспертов, разрешавших данный вопрос по уголовным делам. Приведены примеры уникальных исследований подлинности объектов, имевшие место в истории криминалистики, а также данные о некоторых современных исследованиях редких культурных ценностей. Отмечается необходимость разработки ставших актуальными методов судебно-экспертного исследования относительно новых объектов, содержащих заведомо ложную информацию.

The authors present data on the forensic investigations conducted during the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal, as well as evaluation and use of expert testimony by the Tribunal, and characterize the main types of forensic investigations conducted both prior to the Tribunal and in the course of the trials. Certain procedural aspects of ordering and conducting forensic examinations are examined. The authors show how Nuremberg's forensic legacy provided an important contribution to the organization of forensic support for international and internationalized criminal courts and tribunals created in the post-1990s period.