Problems of qualification of favorite false indications, conclusions of an expert, specialist or incorrect transfer
( Pp. 269-272)

The establishment of objective truth in the course of the administration of justice is carried out on the basis of evidence, among which special importance is attached to the testimony and conclusions of experts and specialists. Official translations of texts, documents, etc. also take an important place in the evidence base. At the same time, they must meet the criterion of reliability, non-compliance with which entails the recognition of evidence as inadmissible, and the subjects who provided them are subject to criminal liability under Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The indicated evidence is characterized by specific features arising from the object of encroachment, which includes the normal functioning of the justice system. The article analyzes the criteria for recognizing testimonies, opinions of experts, specialists, translation results as false, among which the main criterion is knowingness, reveals the delimitation of their falsity from erroneousness, and also analyzes the term "conscientious delusion" and its use when qualifying an act under Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Despite the proliferation of cases of criminal prosecution for knowingly false testimony, conclusions, and incorrect translation in law enforcement, there remain a number of unresolved significant issues related to the qualification of the actions of the perpetrators. In particular, at present, the law does not provide for the commission of the crime considered in the article in the form of inaction, which creates difficulties for law enforcement officers when qualifying the offense by special subjects with procedural status. The purpose of this study is to identify problems that arise during the qualification of the actions of experts, specialists and translators who knowingly give false testimony, conclusions or incorrect translation. To achieve this goal, the author analyzed the specifics of the qualification of the crime in question, on the basis of which it was concluded that it is advisable to consolidate this form of criminal behavior in this case as inaction at the legislative level, which will avoid possible obstacles in qualifying the crime in question.

Akkaeva H.A., (2020), PROBLEMS OF QUALIFICATION OF FAVORITE FALSE INDICATIONS, CONCLUSIONS OF AN EXPERT, SPECIALIST OR INCORRECT TRANSFER. Gaps in Russian Legislation, 4 => 269-272.

Belkin R.S. Kriminalisticheskaya entsiklopediya. M., 1997. 334 s.
Vayner M.E., Mishin A.V. K voprosu ob ekspertnykh oshibkakh // Tatishchevskie chteniya: aktual nye problemy nauki i praktiki. Materialy XV Mezhdunarodnoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii. Tol yatti, 2018. S. 300-302
Dubinin L. G. Metodika rassledovaniya zavedomo lozhnykh pokazaniy svidetelya i poterpevshego: avtoref. dis.. kand. yurid. nauk: 12.00.09. M., 2010. 24 c.
Egorov N.N. Problemnye voprosy sootnosheniya zaklyucheniya eksperta i zaklyucheniya spetsialista // Probely v rossiyskom zakonodatel stve. № 2017. № 1. S. 16-18.
Ivanov N.G. Vozmozhnosti i imperativy osvobozhdeniya ot ugolovnoy otvetstvennosti // Probely v rossiyskom zakonodatel stve. 2017. № 1. S. 141-145.
Kosyakova N.S. Lzhesvidetel stvo // Gosudarstvo i pravo. 2001. № 4. S. 66-74.
Lesnikov G.YU., Kopytkin S.A. Zavedomo lozhnyy donos: problemy pravovoy otsenki i pravoprimenitel noy praktiki v uchrezhdeniyakh ugolovno-ispolnitel noy sistemy // Probely v rossiyskom zakonodatel stve. 2018. № 3. S. 281-284.
Popov A.A. Reglamentatsiya v UPK RF pravil, zakreplyayushchikh dopustimost pokazaniy v ugolovnom protsesse (komparativistskiy podkhod) // Probely v rossiyskom zakonodatel stve. 2015. № 2. S. 155-159.
Radchenko A.A. Ugolovno-pravovaya kharakteristika sub ektov lzhesvidetel stva (st. 307 UK RF) // Sibirskiy yuridicheskiy vestnik. 2016. № 3 (74). S. 103-109.
Fedorov A.V. Prestupleniya protiv pravosudiya (voprosy istorii, ponyatiya i klassifikatsii) / otv. red. A.I. CHuchaev. Kaluga:, 2004. 284 c.

expert, specialist, knowingly false testimony, responsibility, inaction.