Стандарты доказанности как основания различий в регулировании сходных институтов уголовного, гражданского, арбитражного и административного процесса

Abstract

Introduction: the division of all procedural institutions into universal, similar and unique ones requires the identification of the factors that determine the branch uniqueness. The purpose of the work is to determine the validity of inter-branch differences in the regulation of the institutions of criminal, civil, arbitration and administrative processes, depending on their own standards of proof. The determinant method of the research was the method of comparative law. A comparison was made of typical situations of proving related offenses under consideration of the criminal and civil or arbitration or administrative procedure. The research also uses the methods of historicism, system-structural analysis and synthesis. Results: the correlation of “standards of proving” and “standards of proof” is determined on the basis of the scientific literature and judicial practice. Through the example of the criminal and civil (arbitration, administrative) cases with similar subjects of proving (the cases of tax crimes and offenses, transport crimes and offenses, fraud and non-repayment of loans, smuggling and non-compliance with the ban on the import and export of goods), different industry requirements are established for the level of verification of the conclusions about the presence or absence of any facts. The cases of the legislative definition of standards of proof for certain legal situations are revealed. Conclusions: serious differences in the levels of proof required by law and judicial practice in different types of legal proceedings dictate the uniqueness of the regulation of a number of procedural institutions in their branch implementation. The sphere of influence of the standards of proof on the branch statutory regulation is not limited by law of evidence.