{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014061654948620876, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.026058631921824, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Role of the Court in Proving Criminal Cases: Unexpected Cross-Industry Analogies

Introduction: consideration of the issue of truth in criminal proceedings is replaced by the issue of the active role of the court in collecting evidence. Avoiding rhetorical questions allows the discussion to be redirected from an ideological framework to a legal one. The purpose of the work is to identify the patterns of litigation of different branches of procedural law related to the participation of state bodies in the case in defense of a large public interest. It is assumed that the high interest of the authorized state bodies in making judgments in their favor in criminal cases and in arbitration tax cases leads to the same type of legal phenomena in these different proceedings. The determining method of the research was the method of comparative jurisprudence. Also, the study used the methods of historicism, system-structural analysis and synthesis. Results: on the example of criminal and arbitration tax cases, an adjustment of procedural law and its application to the needs of state bodies was found to facilitate their winning cases. This is manifested at the level of the introduction of “special” rules that facilitate proof for tax and law enforcement agencies. The period of work of the tax authorities without such adjustment was distinguished by an explosive growth in its quality. Conclusions: true adversarial nature allows government agencies to improve the level of their work in terms of proving the legally significant circumstances of court cases. The rejection of adversariality, replacing it with the active role of the court, entails the redistribution of part of the burden of proof to it, which has far-reaching negative consequences for the quality of justice in the categories of cases under consideration in general.