Prevention of corruption is one of the most important areas of modern state policy of the Russian Federation where the state undertakes a complex of legal and organizational measures. However, the major efforts are focused on corruption prevention in the state and municipal government, as well as in law enforcement agencies. In other spheres including education corruption prevention is carried out randomly. The authors give a general overview and formulate the proposals to improve corruption prevention in Russian education.

Taking into account that the problem of illegal forest felling in Russia has not been solved so far, the article studies the justification for criminalization of illegal forest felling in considerable amount provided for under Part 1, Article 260 of the Criminal Code of the RF (“simple” illegal felling of forest plantations). According to the Criminal law theory de facto such offence aspires to complete or partial decriminalization, however, de jure such offence has been significantly criminalized. Referring to the theory of criminalization and decriminalization, the authors defined that criminal public danger possesses 2 subsystems (object and damage), “simple” illegal felling has got only one so-called subsystem, which is valuable object. The second subsystem (damage) is absent. The authors determined the significant amount of illegal felling by analyzing the judicial practice which in turn fails to meet the requirements of the legislation. In order to prosecute somebody for illegal felling it is enough to prove that the only one pine tree 26 cm in diameter and 16 meters high has been illegally cut down. Offenders are more often prosecuted for illegal felling in significant amount (Part 3, Article 260 of the Criminal Code of the RF) than for offence provided for under Part 1, Article 260 of the Criminal Code of the RF. As for the total number of verdicts rendered based on Part 2 and Part 3 of the given article, they are twice higher than the number of verdicts based on Part 1, Article 260. Nevertheless, the circumstances that are being introduced into this law as qualifying cannot go with the absolute majority of offences and become a kind of “standard norm” for them. The elements which characterize the overwhelming majority of the certain types of offences should be acknowledged as the essential elements of an offence. In this context authors assume that such indicator as the significant amount of felling should be considered as a criminalizing element of illegal felling. “Simple” illegal forest felling is to be decriminalized, so that sanctions of Part 1 and Part 2 of Article 8.28 of the Code of Administrative Offences are to be amended as well: fines should be increased, basic alternative kind of punishment should be implemented such as community service as well as supplementary punishment in a form of confiscation of work tool or the target of administrative offence

15ПРОБЛЕМЫ ЮРИДИЧЕСКОГО ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ И НАУКИ Научно-исследовательская работа и трудовые обязанности педагогического работника вуза Басалаева С.П., Шишко И.В.* Цель. Исследовать правомерность включения в обязанности педагога высшего образования осуществления научно-исследовательской деятельности. Методология: использованы как общенаучные методы познания (диалектический, системный), так и частнонаучные (формально-логический, историко-правовой). Выводы. В соответствии с современным трудовым и образовательным законодательством научно-исследовательская работа в обязанности подавляющего большинства педагогических работников не входит. Научная и практическая значимость. Сформулированные авторами выводы расширяют сферу научного знания в области трудового и образовательного законодательства и могут быть использованы для формирования научной и кадровой политики образовательных учреждений высшего образования.Ключевые слова: научно-исследовательская работа, педагогические работники, научные работники, высшее образование, профессиональный стандарт, квалификационные требования, трудовая функция. Research Work and Labor Obligations of an Academic Employee of a Higher Educational InstitutionBasalaeva S.P., Shishko I.V.** Purpose. To investigate the legitimacy of research activities to be part of a university educationalist's responsibility. Methodology: general scientifi c methods of cognition (dialectical, systemic), as well as private scientifi c ones (formal-logical, historical and legal) are used. Conclusions. In accordance with modern labor and educational legislation, research work is not the duty of the overwhelming majority of educationalists. Scientifi c and practical signifi cance. The conclusions formulated by the authors expand the sphere of scientifi c knowledge in the fi eld of labor and educational legislation and can be used to shape a scientifi c and personnel policy of educational institutions of higher education.