No abstract

No abstract

Introduction. The spread of coronavirus infection COVID-19 has led to a forced and rapid transition of educational institutions, including law universities, to distance learning, which has become its predominant and even exclusive form in some periods. The research purpose is to study the features of the transition from traditional to distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic based on the opinions of students and teachers at a law university. Materials and methods. The survey was attended by the teaching staff and students of Kutafin Moscow State Law University. In June 2020, eighty (80) teachers and sixty-five (65) students and in December 2020 – one hundred and thirty (130) teachers and four hundred and sixty-three (463) students took part in the survey. The survey was conducted remotely using Google Forms. Methods of mathematical statistics were used: descriptive methods (percentages, graphical data presentation), Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. Research results. The forced large-scale transition of practicing lawyers to the work with digital technologies in the context of the spread of coronavirus infection revealed the lack of digital competencies in many of them and demonstrated the need to prepare law students for future work in the digital environment. A two-stage survey of teachers and students at a law university made it possible to reveal a significant change in attitudes towards the electronic educational environment and distance learning technologies. An improvement in the quality of education in the second period was noted by 43.0% of students and 41.5% of teachers. Due to the transition to learning with the use of distance learning technologies, teachers began to communicate more often with students and colleagues (r = 0.203; p < 0.05), as a result of which the emotional perception of the educational process in many teachers changed for the better (r = 0.236; p < 0.01). Discussion and conclusion. Learning with the use of distance learning technologies allows students to form new digital competencies that are necessary and in demand in the modern world. In this case, an important role is given not only to remote lecture- and seminar-type classes, but also to remote academic training, which is close to real conditions of the activities of practicing lawyers.

The purpose of the study is to analyze the international and national legal regulation of the digital currencies circulation at the present stage, to assess the state of crime with the illegal use of these assets, to identify the features of the investigating such crimes and to substantiate proposals aimed at improving legislation and law enforcement practice. The following methods were used in the research: normative and comparative legal – in the analysis of legislation and practice of seizure and confiscation of digital currencies in different states, to identify the strengths and weaknesses of national approaches, to assess the possibility of their unification and harmonization; phenomenological – in considering the criminal trafficking in digital currency as a phenomenon that requires special methods of detection and investigation; general logical methods of analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, methods of empirical research and analysis. It was shown that with the rapid growth of crime involving cryptocurrencies, the legislation of various states is at the stage of formation of legal regulation of the fight against its illicit trafficking: only some countries have established the status of digital currency as property, provided for the specifics of seizure, storage and sale of digital currency in criminal cases. The need to recognize digital currencies as property has been substantiated. It is shown that the seizure and confiscation of cryptocurrencies should be carried out only by court decision. The lack of special knowledge in the field of digital technology among the investigator, prosecutor and the court requires the mandatory involvement of a specialist in the proceedings on cases of crimes committed with the use of digital currency.

The processes of the convergence and divergence of law in the era of globalization as well as the trend for establishing similar court proceedings in different countries determine the necessity of studying legal concepts still unknown in the Russian legislation but widely applied in other countries, and expediency is one of them. The goal of this research is to analyze Russian and foreign legislation from both modern and historical perspectives, to analyze the legal regulation of expediency in criminal proceedings, to determine its contents, to differentiate between expediency as a principle and as grounds for the decision to refuse the initiation of criminal proceedings or to terminate them, which is made by a specially authorized official or a state body, to present well-grounded suggestions for the improvement of Russian legislation and the practice of law enforcement. It is determined that expediency is recognized as a principle of criminal proceedings in a number of European states. It is shown that the principle of expediency does not contradict justice and is based on such characteristics of criminal procedure activities as effectiveness, optimality, promptness, procedural economy. At the same time, legislations of the UK, Germany, France and Switzerland provide for the discretionary powers of the prosecutor and other officials to refuse to initiate criminal proceedings, to refuse to bring charges or support them due to inexpediency. The authors show the advantages and disadvantages of making decisions on such grounds: the disadvantages include wide discretionary powers of the officials which could lead to the abuse of power in the absence of necessary guarantees (corruption-generating factor); the advantages are procedural economy, wide opportunities for officials and state bodies involved in the criminal process to use discretionary powers depending on the circumstances of each specific case. They argue that the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation should provide an opportunity for specially authorized officials and state bodies to refuse to initiate a criminal case or pursue criminal prosecution on the grounds of inexpediency.