In the period 2022–2025 the development of criminal legislation was influenced by the geopolitical situation in the Russian Federation. This has led to the emergence of new compositions of criminal offences (for example, Articles 781 and 802 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and to amendments in fundamental provisions of criminal law (for example, Articles 48 and 35 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). At the same time, a significant proportion of statutory provisions remains effectively non‑operational. Thus, in 2024 one‑fifth of the articles of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation were not applied. This may indicate, not a preventive effect of criminal law, but rather the ineffectiveness and/or unreasonableness of the established norms. Law‑enforcement practice shows a tendency toward increasing judicial autonomy, which does not always adhere strictly to the letter of the law. Therefore, reforming certain institutions in the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is justified: in particular, there is a need to unify the grounds for criminal liability (with reference to examples in the Criminal Code of Belarus), to clarify the forms of guilt, and to specify provisions concerning the commission of crimes by multiple persons that involve subjects (perpetrators) who are not criminally liable. The study further notes that the expansion of grounds for exemption from liability has not led to a decrease in recidivism among persons convicted of offences of minor and medium severity. This reveals a substantial number of inapplicable penalties and thus casts doubt on the effectiveness of the system. The study emphasizes the importance of public awareness about the possibility of exemption from criminal liability.

The paper examines the substance and practical issues arising from the application of statutory provisions governing decision‑making by collegial management bodies of business entities — namely, boards of directors (supervisory boards) and collegial executive bodies — through remote electronic forms of participation. The relevant amendments introduced in 2024 to Federal Law No. 208‑FZ dated 26 December 1995 «On Joint‑Stock Companies» and Federal Law No. 14‑FZ dated 8 February 1998 «On Limited Liability Companies» further developed the regulation of remote participation in meetings (by electronic or other technical means), which had been formally recognized following the adoption of Federal Law No. 225‑FZ dated 28 June 2021 «On Amendments to Part One of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation». Whereas the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Article 181.2) establishes general provisions on the possibility of holding meetings and adopting decisions by civil‑law communities, the 2024 amendments introduced special rules specifically governing the remote conduct of meetings and the adoption of decisions (through electronic or other technical means) by boards of directors (supervisory boards) of business entities. The author analyzes in detail the distinctive features of this new regulatory framework, highlighting its differences from the rules governing remote participation in general meetings of shareholders of joint‑stock companies and in general meetings of participants of limited liability companies. The study also identifies divergences in regulatory approaches between the two federal laws. The paper formulates conclusions regarding the principal shortcomings of the current regulation, proposes means of addressing them, and advances specific recommendations for legislative reform.

The authors examine organizational unity as a characteristic of a legal entity. Based on an analysis of contemporary forms of association — such as ecosystems, integrated groups and holdings — they conclude that a community exhibiting organizational unity is not necessarily a legal entity. If participants in such an organizational unity seek to acquire legal personality, the community must meet the requirements established by law for the organizational legal forms that are permitted to participate in civil circulation as legal entities. The authors analyze the indicators of organizational unity, including stability; the presence of a common goal; coordination (cooperation and hierarchical relations); the distribution of functions within the organization; the existence of a unified regulatory space (harmonization by common standards); and external manifestations of belonging to the organizational unity. Communities organized around differing values may vary in structure, purpose and the substantive content of their activities. Membership in an organizational unity affects a subject’s legal status and the legal relations in which they participate. This has particular significance for assessing the validity of gratuitous transactions between commercial organizations, for qualifying large transactions, for identifying criteria for approving transactions under an entity’s charter, and for attributing liability for the actions of another entity.

The constitutional principle of support for and protection of the family, together with the constitutional amendments of 2020 and the adoption of the Fundamentals of State Policy for the Preservation and Strengthening of Traditional Russian Spiritual and Moral Values, have established a fundamentally new political and legal vector for family law regulation. The natural connection between the state, society and the family is affirmed, which permits positioning the family as an object of family state policy of the Russian Federation. At the same time, a clear distinction is drawn between the family as an object of family state policy and the family as an object of family legal influence. The paper advances arguments concerning the specific method of family law influence. It discusses the balance between imperative and dispositive principles in family legal regulation, notes the impact of private interests on the content of the regulatory method, and emphasizes the significance of the principle prohibiting arbitrary interference in family affairs as a defining marker of that method. It is demonstrated that the distinctiveness of family law lies in its normative function to protect the interests of participants in family legal relations and to fix the legal status of family members. The study concludes that, in analyzing the specifics of the method of family law regulation, one must proceed from the premise that family relations are the true object of family law influence.

The paper analyzes the admissibility of securing an obligation after its violation. Drawing on the judicial practice of the higher courts, it demonstrates that Russian law‑enforcement practice permits the conclusion of interim transactions after non‑performance or improper performance of the principal obligation, treating such transactions as means of ensuring performance. The author criticizes this approach, advancing an understanding of security as a mechanism for creating additional guarantees of the creditor’s proprietary interest against a prospective failure of the debtor to perform. It is argued that the security relationship is of a staged nature: its establishment must precede any breach of the principal obligation, although its operation may be triggered only upon such a breach. Under this conception, the breach functions as a condition of law (conditio iuris) within the dynamics of the security relationship. The absence of the initial stage transforms the arrangement that the parties characterize as collateral into other legal forms — primarily intercessional constructs (such as accession to the debt or cumulative acceptance of the obligation) or into a liability (guarantee) agreement. The paper distinguishes collateral from assumption of another’s debt by reference to the consequences for subrogation, accessory obligations and bankruptcy proceedings. It concludes that the existing legal positions of the highest court require adjustment and that the criteria for qualification should be clarified.

The paper examines multilateral agreements in modern civil law. It identifies three characteristic features of multilateral agreements: the number of parties to the agreement; a common goal shared by all parties; and an identical scope of rights and obligations for each party. Multilateral agreements are classified on various grounds, including the presence or absence of a common goal, the possibility of succession of parties, form, and other criteria. Noting that the concept of a multilateral transaction, as formulated in paragraph 3 of Article 154 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, no longer corresponds to the legal nature of all multilateral agreements, the paper proposes several solutions. The first proposal is to reformulate paragraph 3 of Article 154 by introducing the following definition: a multilateral agreement is an agreement concluded between three or more persons for the establishment, modification or termination of civil rights and obligations. The second proposal is to introduce, alongside the term «multilateral agreement», the distinct term «agreements with an indefinite number of parties». The third and preferred solution is to adopt a generic concept of «multilateral agreement» encompassing two species — closed and open multilateral agreements. The introduction of a generic concept together with specific concepts reflecting the distinguishing features of different types of multilateral agreements will accommodate their diversity and assist in resolving contested questions concerning the application of particular legal rules to specific categories of such agreements.

In modern Russian criminal proceedings, the practice of seizing property of persons specified in Part 3 of Article 115 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, often also referred to as third parties, has become widespread. The Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation neither defines the procedure for involving such persons in criminal proceedings nor their procedural status. At the same time, some of their individual rights are already enshrined in the law, while others implied by its meaning and are actually implemented in practice. This allows us to speak of the emergence of a new special participant in criminal proceedings and the de facto formation of their procedural status that while acquiring certain rights of a party in a court hearing does not become a party thereof. The scope of their powers in criminal proceedings is determined by the intention to protect their property that is at risk of confiscation. For the legitimate interests of such persons to be protected in a more effective way, it is proposed to expand their powers in the process. To this end, they should be allowed to participate in court hearings both to review the material on the seizure of property and to consider the merits of the criminal case in which the property was seized; to involve representatives, including lawyers, to protect their rights and legitimate interests; to receive copies of final decisions both on the materials regarding the seizure of property (relevant rulings) and on the criminal case (verdicts, decisions to terminate the criminal case). 

The paper examines both the practical problems of preventing and investigating corruption and related crimes, and the main shortcomings of forensic scientific and, more broadly, interdisciplinary applied research in this area. It is noted that in the presence of positive trends, law enforcement practice and science are still far from the desired parameters in terms of the principle of effectiveness in combating corruption. Next, the essence of corruption and related crimes is revealed, and several classifications are given for various reasons. The phenomenon of their multiplicity, other key concepts and scientific categories are explained. It is proved that the most dangerous corruption crimes are high-tech, highly organized and are committed repetitively, in various combinations. Their prevention and investigation must be supported by high-tech tools that anticipate the natural evolution of corruption crimes. Means to overcome the shortcomings of practice and theory are listed, and the main directions of scientific research in this area are determined. Among them are: 1) the introduction of state-of-the-art digital tools and methods for the prevention and investigation of corrupt assets into forensic techniques; 2) adherence by developers to the principle of law enforcement effectiveness — maximum investigation results with minimal expenditure of state resources; 3) development of new methods for investigating corruption and related crimes: a) by group, based on the method and criminal legal criteria, b) in certain fields of activity. It is concluded that criminalistic and interdisciplinary recommendations should be developed in two senses: as independent investigation methods; as a means of updating and modernizing existing methodological developments for combating most other, especially organized, types of criminal activity. 

An analysis of court decisions objectifies the formal establishment of the prejudicial feature of the offense under Part 2 of Article 116.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. By duplicating the law in terms of defining the subject, the indictments are limited to stating sentences that give rise to the conviction of the accused for previously committed violent and mercenary violent crimes. Consistent with the practice of imputing offenses that include a prejudicial feature referring to a specific tort, this approach is unacceptable when implementing Part 2 of Article 116.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which specifies the method used by the perpetrator, which must be established by identifying the mechanism of harm. Having assessed the opinions of scholars regarding the scope of prejudicial crimes, the author, proposing her own criteria, substantiates the need to specify in the sentence the actions recognized as violence in the previously committed crime. The studied practice reflects the variability in considering criminal experience when sentencing persons convicted under Part 2 of Article 116.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which was also characteristic of the implementation of Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Having analyzed the opinions of scholars challenging the validity of both the disregard of paragraph «a» of Part 1 of Article 63 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the application of the rules of Part 2 of Article 68 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation without recognizing recidivism as an aggravating circumstance, the author notes the significance of Article 63 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation only for determining the direction of judicial penalization, the specific mechanism of which is embedded in Article 68 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The refusal to consider paragraph «a» of Part 1 of Article 63 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation nullifies the significance of the corresponding type of multiplicity of crimes when imposing punishment. 

The paper is devoted to determining the range of persons liable for harm caused by highly automated vehicles (HAVs) in the context of the rapid development of autonomous technologies. The author analyzes key aspects of civil, tort, and administrative liability arising in connection with the operation of HAVs, paying special attention to the technological specifics that complicate traditional mechanisms for establishing guilt and causation. The paper examines the evolution of statutory regulation in Russia, including experimental legal regimes and the draft federal law on HAVs. The necessity of expanding the range of liable persons by including not only the owner and manufacturer, but also software developers, digital infrastructure providers and telecom operators is substantiated. Special emphasis is given to the differentiation of responsibility depending on the level of automation (according to the SAE classification), where a special mechanism for allocating responsibility is proposed for levels 4‑5. The author also explores alternative models such as joint liability and the creation of a compensation fund, emphasizing the need for a balance between protecting the rights of victims and stimulating technological progress. In conclusion, it is determined that the legislation is insufficiently adapted to the specifics of HAVs, and ways to improve it are proposed. 

The paper examines the structure of the methodology of legal expertise of legal acts and provides an overview of the procedures and tools of legal expertise. Expert procedures can be defined as the actions of an expert in the framework of a study of a legal act or its draft, aimed at establishing circumstances essential for the adoption of this legal act. It is proposed to understand the tools of legal expertise as logical methods, technical means or organizational techniques used by an expert to conduct expert procedures. The author suggests combining the tools of legal expertise into several groups: 1) logical (logical-linguistic) tools, 2) organizational tools, 3) technical tools and information technologies. In addition, the so-called philosophical instruments of legal expertise can be conditionally distinguished as a separate group— philosophical approaches to its implementation, which influence the expert’s choice of expert research methods. Despite the diversity of professional attitudes and beliefs, experts should be guided in their activities by the imperative of constitutionalization of legislation, which serves as the ideological basis for rule-making and expert activities. 

The study is devoted to carbon regulation, as well as the legal support of a climate project as a set of measures to reduce the carbon footprint of industrial activities, increase the volume of absorption (sequestration) of greenhouse gases, or reduce their emissions. The potential for utilizing a carbon unit generated through a climate project and obtaining income from its sale is an effective economic incentive for taking proactive measures to achieve a balance of emissions and absorption. Meanwhile, the legal norms do not allow us to attribute the verified result of the climate project to one of the types of objects specified in Article 128 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, and therefore the range of civil law contracts concluded in relation to this benefit remains uncertain. The climate project is now a kind of status event for major market players. Legislation on limiting greenhouse gas emissions appears to narrow the range of actors involved in reducing the carbon footprint by setting an excessively high threshold for entry into the carbon market. At the same time, the activities of other entities that are unable to bear the costs associated with the official registration and implementation of the climate project, but voluntarily increase the sequestration of greenhouse gases, are not stimulated in any way. The paper analyzes the legal nature of the carbon unit as another asset and makes proposals to expand the circle of people whose activities can contribute to reducing global temperatures.