Prior to the advent of the novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, digitalization of administrative court proceedings was not a prominent priority in Russia. However, subsequent to the emergence of this global health crisis, a series of unprecedented modifications were initiated. The regulation of administrative proceedings remains distinct from other procedural rules with regard to the implementation of digital technologies. For instance, admission to remote participation (web conferencing) depends not only on technical capabilities of a court but also on whether a judge deems such interaction feasible.  Another significant aspect of digitalization is the application of artificial intelligence, the implementation of which is still unclear in relation to existing procedural norms. This study aims to evaluate the current rules governing administrative judicial proceedings in Russia in terms of their readiness for digital transformation. To obtain valid results, the author compares these rules with those of foreign jurisdictions where the process of digitalization has commenced and achieved considerable success, with France serving as a notable example. Using the comparative legal method, the study establishes a conceptual framework, evaluates the legal regulations, and identifies options for addressing emerging legal issues. In Russia, the Code of Administrative Procedure imposes additional requirements for employing web conferencing. However, neither the law nor judicial practice has developed criteria for cases where personal presence is deemed necessary. This situation creates conditions for a violation of the right to a remedy, as it arbitrarily restricts litigants’ rights. Furthermore, if remote participation is not approved, disputing parties are left with the “old” set of legal instruments, depriving them of many advantages associated with remote access, which could reduce material and time costs. In contrast, France does not face this issue, as the idea of real cost reduction has been enshrined in law. Additionally, foreign experiences in implementing artificial intelligence are significant, as Russian domestic law does not adequately address this matter. Despite the long-standing availability of court decisions in Russia for public scrutiny, a significant market for services related to predictive justice remains non-existent, in contrast to the prevalent market dynamics observed in France. The article’s conclusion asserts the urgency of implementing artificial intelligence to prevent the privatization of justice administration by private entities. In the absence of such measures, the principles of judicial independence and impartiality may be compromised, resulting in a violation of constitutional guarantees.

Computer games have become an integral part of leisure activities for millions of people around the world. At the same time, the desire of players to gain a competitive advantage and the will to achieve immediate results often encourage the users to employ cheats, i.e., software tools enabling victories to be achieved dishonestly. The spread of cheats undermines the principles of fair play and creates unequal conditions for users. This, in turn, leads to a decrease in the gaming audience and, as a result, entails losses for publishers. In addition, cheats often infringe on the exclusive rights of copyright holders. In this regard, the legal issues of cheats, especially in the context of protecting the copyrights of video game copyright holders, represent a relevant research direction. This study aims to characterize cheats and anti-cheat technologies from the legal point of view, to determine their conformity with the provisions of copyright laws and with user agreements, to establish the type of responsibility of the creators of cheats, as well as to identify whether cheats are always deemed unacceptable from the legal point of view. The research was conducted using the methods of formal legal and comparative legal analysis. The former was used to assess the scope of copyright protection of video games and to discuss the capacity of individual norms to cover cheats. The latter was used to compare norms concerning technological means of copyright protection, the scope of copyright protection of video games, etc. As a result, several legal qualifications of cheats (from the point of view of criminal and civil law) were proposed. It was concluded that most modern online game cheats violate the exclusive rights of the authors as well as the provisions of user agreements. In this regard, there is a growing demand for anti-cheating technologies, which are in essence technological means of copyright protection, and in some jurisdictions, the very fact of their circumvention may result in liability.

In this article, we carry out a comprehensive comparative legal analysis of the criminal policy in the field of cryptocurrency confiscation in Russia, the European Union, and the United States. The relevance of this research is determined by the rapid growth of crimes involving crypto assets (money laundering, cybercrimes, and drug trafficking) and the lack of effective mechanisms for their final confiscation and implementation in Russia, which undermines the efforts of law enforcement agencies. We aim to identify effective models of cryptocurrency confiscation based on a comparative analysis of legislation and practice in leading jurisdictions and, on this basis, to develop recommendations for improving the Russian legal framework. The methodology includes a comparative legal analysis of regulatory acts (Russian Criminal Procedure Code, EU Directive 2014/42/EU, US Code), a formal legal method, an analysis of judicial practice (Russia, USA), and doctrinal sources. The key findings can be summarized as follows: (1) the USA enjoys the most advanced system, where the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) actively uses private exchanges to convert confiscated assets; (2) the EU has established a strong legal framework (5/6AMLD, Directive 2014/42/EU); however, implementation practices here vary among member states, combining government-owned storage and outsourced sales through licensed platforms; (3) in the Russian Federation, despite the practice of seizure and arrest of crypto assets and legislative initiatives, the legal mechanism for their confiscation and sale is lacking, making court decisions unenforceable. In order to overcome this gap in Russia, it is necessary to urgently legislate cryptocurrency as property for the purposes of confiscation in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, grant the Federal Service for Judicial Enforcement of the Russian Federation the authority to sell through licensed platforms, as well as to develop expert potential. Our study extends the current knowledge by detailing the technological aspects of confiscation in the EU and the USA and proposes specific ways to modernize the criminal policy of the Russian Federation.

The modern order requires the development of information technologies, artificial intelligence technologies and high-quality digitalization of various spheres of society. The importance and necessity of systematic and effective support for developers of various forms of innovative technologies is already recognized worldwide: various measures are being created to support innovative companies. Foreign countries actively support the creation of venture funds. This study examines key challenges in the legal regulation of venture investment in Russia using recent statistical data. The authors identify systemic shortcomings in current legislation and substantiate the need for comprehensive reforms, including revisions to the regulatory framework, implementation of substantive investor protections, and development of incentive mechanisms. The proposed measures aim to establish a sustainable venture financing ecosystem in the Russian Federation.