Falsification of evidence as a form of manifestation of lies in civil and arbitration proceedings

The article considers the problem of falsification of evidence in civil and arbitration proceedings. Along with false information about the facts of the dispute, presented to the court by the parties and third parties in their explanations, intentional distortion of the circumstances of the case may also manifest itself in the form of falsification of evidence. The work substantiates the need to include both material and intellectual forgery in the concept of falsification of evidence. The emphasis on both methods of forgery is due to the standpoint of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which declares that only material forgery constitutes falsification, which seems to be an erroneous approach. Procedural response measures are also proposed in relation to persons who submit false evidence. Particular emphasis is placed on the need for an appropriate procedural response to the facts of “complicity” in falsification by representatives of persons participating in the case, up to and including the application of procedural sanctions to them and disciplinary measures against barristers.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Russian Journal of Legal Studies (Moscow)
Published
2024-12-10
DOI
https://doi.org/10.17816/rjls642089
Primary Topic
Jury Decision Making Processes
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Falsification of evidence as a form of manifestation of lies in civil and arbitration proceedings

Olga A. Sukhorukova
Russian Journal of Legal Studies (Moscow)
Jury Decision Making Processes
article

Falsification of evidence as a form of manifestation of lies in civil and arbitration proceedings

Olga A. Sukhorukova
article en

Abstract

The article considers the problem of falsification of evidence in civil and arbitration proceedings. Along with false information about the facts of the dispute, presented to the court by the parties and third parties in their explanations, intentional distortion of the circumstances of the case may also manifest itself in the form of falsification of evidence. The work substantiates the need to include both material and intellectual forgery in the concept of falsification of evidence. The emphasis on both methods of forgery is due to the standpoint of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which declares that only material forgery constitutes falsification, which seems to be an erroneous approach. Procedural response measures are also proposed in relation to persons who submit false evidence. Particular emphasis is placed on the need for an appropriate procedural response to the facts of “complicity” in falsification by representatives of persons participating in the case, up to and including the application of procedural sanctions to them and disciplinary measures against barristers.

Russian Journal of Legal Studies (Moscow)Vol. 11(4)
Voronezh State University (RU)
Openalex Percentile: Top 51%
Jury Decision Making Processes
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.