2023 Issue №4

The study examines the transformation of the legal status of agricultural cooperatives in Russia from the period when the Provisional Government came to power to 1929, the period when this type of cooperation was liquidated as a separate entity. The study demonstrates changes in cooperative legislation after the February Revolution of 1917 until the late 1920s — from expanding the democratic foundations of cooperative societies to the complete abolition of agricultural cooperation as a separate type of this socio-economic movement. The legislation of the Provisional Government on cooperation, including agricultural, expanded the rights of agricultural societies, established a unified legal status for all types of cooperatives, introduced the concept of a “cooperative society” into legal circulation for the first time, allowed cooperatives to form unions, and outlined a clear algorithm for the organization of cooperative activities. The period of “war communism” was characterized by extremely harsh measures regarding the state control of cooperatives. During the New Economic Policy, the legislator adopted imperial cooperative legislation, granting democratic rights and freedoms to cooperatives. This was driven by the difficult financial situation of the population, especially peasants, and the acute shortage of food products. The policy of building a socialist state determined the further fate of agricultural cooperation, as well as cooperation in general, transforming it from a private-law institution into a public-law one and thereby depriving it of the fundamental principles on which it had been built for several decades.

The article discusses the most significant issues of legal regulation and forensic support for the identification of living persons carried out within the framework of pre-trial proceedings. Empirical materials illustrating typical mistakes made during this procedure are provided. The authors also emphasize the necessity of working with the recognized individuals during the identification process. Examples of procedural and criminalistic errors in presenting individuals for identification in conditions that exclude visual observation by the identifier are examined. The essence of presenting individuals for identification is defined as an independent investigative action, the procedure of which is regulated by Article 193 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. The main characteristic of identification is identified as the recognition (identification) of the presented object. The conclusion is justified that this recognition is the procedural form of criminalistic identification.

The study presents the concept of the special evidentiary value of the results of operational experiments and test purchases. This is due to the fact that these actions reflect a criminal event carried out under the control of law enforcement authorities. To dispel doubts about the admissibility of documented results of such operational measures, a legal standard for their conduct is developed. Unlike sectoral developments regarding such a legal standard, an interdisciplinary legal standard is proposed. It includes criminal procedural norms, norms of criminal investigative law, as well as judicial precedents. Compliance with this standard should guarantee the admissibility of using the results of these operational measures in criminal procedural evidence. Simultaneously, the rights of individuals implicated in the commission of a crime must be ensured. The material-legal and procedural components of the standard for the lawful conduct of operational experiments and test purchases are analyzed. A material-legal criterion for distinguishing lawful operational experiments and test purchases from entrapment is formulated. Criteria for the procedural component of this legal standard are provided. In conclusion, a synthesis of all analyzed components is made in the form of a comprehensive standard for the activities of law enforcement authorities, preliminary investigation bodies, and prosecutors in forming evidence of charges from the results of operational experiments and test purchases. The conclusions drawn can be used in the field of operational and investigative activities and criminal procedural evidence to eliminate legal uncertainty and increase the effectiveness of prosecuting individuals who have committed serious, covert crimes. Additionally, it may reduce the professional risk for operational personnel authorized to conduct these activities.