Abstract: The subject of the study is the novelties introduced by the legislator into the criminal procedure legislation in 2016 on the possibility of termination of criminal prosecution against persons who have committed crimes of small and medium gravity for the first time, with the simultaneous application of another criminal law measure against them, a judicial fine. The object of the study is the emerging law enforcement practice arising in connection with the application of the norms on the judicial fine. The article pays special attention to the practical applicability of the rules on the judicial fine in relation to persons who have committed crimes of small and medium gravity for the first time, with the so-called formal (non-investigative) composition, as well as those who have committed attempted crimes. Various aspects of practical compensation by such defendants (suspects, defendants) for the harm caused by the crime are considered. The main result of the conducted research is the author's conclusion that a real proportionate compensation for any harm caused by a crime, as required by law, should be an indispensable condition for the application of the rules on a judicial fine, regardless of what kind of crime is in question: with a formal composition or material.
The novelty of the research lies in the fact that the author analyzed statistical data on the application of novels about a court fine for the last 3 years, the existing trends in the application of a criminal law measure, a court fine against persons accused (suspects, defendants) of committing crimes with the so-called formal composition, as well as attempted crimes.

Abstract: This work examines the origin and evolution of the concept of “criminal procedure function”. A comparison is made on various approaches to definition of the criminal procedure function. The author demonstrates the systemic foundation of functionality in the criminal procedure. From the dialectics positions, the author unifies the approach towards definition of the criminal procedure function as a branch of activity, viewing it as duties established by the law or rights of general character of the parties of the criminal procedure. The author makes a conclusion that the main directions of the criminal procedure work that are manifested in the criminal procedure carry systemic character. The author removes the contradictions in the outlooks upon the criminal procedure function as a branch of activity as established by the law or rights of general character of the parties of the criminal procedure.

Abstract: This work examines the origin and evolution of the concept of “criminal procedure function”. A comparison is made on various approaches to definition of the criminal procedure function. The author demonstrates the systemic foundation of functionality in the criminal procedure. From the dialectics positions, the author unifies the approach towards definition of the criminal procedure function as a branch of activity, viewing it as duties established by the law or rights of general character of the parties of the criminal procedure. The author makes a conclusion that the main directions of the criminal procedure work that are manifested in the criminal procedure carry systemic character. The author removes the contradictions in the outlooks upon the criminal procedure function as a branch of activity as established by the law or rights of general character of the parties of the criminal procedure.

Abstract: This article discusses and analyzes the different approaches to the determination of the number of criminal procedural functions in the Russian criminal trial. It is concluded that the joint criminal process associated with more than three main functions of criminal procedure. It is determined that there are three main features of criminal procedure specific to criminal proceedings in Russia. The author highlights the key arguments in favor of the qualitative differentiation of procedural functions of organs and persons in criminal proceedings and the main functions of criminal procedure as qualitative characteristics of the process. The author gives classification of criminal procedural functions. General scientific methods of gaining new scientific knowledge, in particular, systemic analysis and systemic theory, formal logical and other methods that would allow examining the correlation in legal relations in the sphere of criminal proceedings, as well as private methods - historical, comparative legal. The author determines the number by the number of criminal procedural functions inherent in the Russian criminal trial, as well as proposes an original classification. The author gives criteria of differentiation of criminal procedural functions from the functions of organs and persons, as well as the division of procedural functions into basic and advanced. The non-functional activity of the subjects of domestic criminal proceedings is being exposed.

Abstract: The subject of the research is the evolution of functional content of the prosecutor's activities at pretrial stages of criminal process. The author outlines the functions of  procedural oversight and prosecution in the prosecutors' activities. The author analyzes the normative base of Russian legislation from Peter the Great to the present day, which is a means of these functions implementation. The author examines such aspects of the issue as the origins of the prosecutor's criminal procedural functions, their dependence on the role of the prosecutor in the state mechanism as a whole. The article shows the historical continuity of Russian prosecutors of different epochs in implementation of these two functions. The methodology of the study is based on the provisions of the dialectical method of cognition. Along with it the study uses the comparative legal, the system, the logical-legal and the historical methods of scientific research. The scientific novelty of the research lies in the complex historical and legal study of the implementation of the functions by the prosecutor in the criminal trial in Russia from Peter the Great to the present day. The article shows the historical continuity of the role of the prosecutor's figure in the criminal proceedings in different historical epochs. The research provides the extensive analysis of pre-revolutionary and contemporary authors' views towards the issue. The author comes to the conclusion about the necessity of simultaneous possession by the prosecutor of functions of prosecution and supervision, and the necessity of a further conservation of such a model of the prosecutor's activities.

Abstract: This article discusses and analyzes the different approaches to the determination of the number of criminal procedural functions in the Russian criminal trial. It is concluded that the joint criminal process associated with more than three main functions of criminal procedure. It is determined that there are three main features of criminal procedure specific to criminal proceedings in Russia. The author highlights the key arguments in favor of the qualitative differentiation of procedural functions of organs and persons in criminal proceedings and the main functions of criminal procedure as qualitative characteristics of the process. The author gives classification of criminal procedural functions. General scientific methods of gaining new scientific knowledge, in particular, systemic analysis and systemic theory, formal logical and other methods that would allow examining the correlation in legal relations in the sphere of criminal proceedings, as well as private methods - historical, comparative legal. The author determines the number by the number of criminal procedural functions inherent in the Russian criminal trial, as well as proposes an original classification. The author gives criteria of differentiation of criminal procedural functions from the functions of organs and persons, as well as the division of procedural functions into basic and advanced. The non-functional activity of the subjects of domestic criminal proceedings is being exposed.