Abstract: This article presents the results of analysis of application of cross-system methods in conveying Russian criminal law and criminal procedure realias in English. The specific examples of Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation illustrate substantial discrepancies in the existing within Russian criminal law systems and Anglo-American type of criminal law system, which cause most difficulties in translation of relevant terminology from Russian into English. Leaning on the considered linguistic and extralinguistic factors, the authors suggest the original solutions of the set communicative tasks. The scientific novelty is substantiated by the absence of the official English version of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, while the need for the corresponding paperwork (request for legal assistance, extradition request, etc.) is significantly growing. The following conclusions are made: criminal procedure discourse of Russian-language and English-language community constructs different and most of the time nonequivalent models of legal reality, which increases the value of comparative jurisprudence for the translator; at the same time, detailed analysis of not only the direct structure of common law and continental law systems, but also methods of their verbalization, allows comprising a more precise portrait of linguistic persona to have an idea of their experience, worldview, thesaurus and other cultural-specific peculiarities that are essential for improving efficiency of communication.      

Abstract: This work examines the fundamental differences between legal systems, defining uniqueness of the Russian-language and English-language criminal legal discourses, which should be taken into consideration during communication. Moving general-to-specific, the authors analyze the main differences at the legal system level, directly impacting translation of criminal procedural terminology (primary source of law, its role in formation of juridical technique, etc.), and concentrate their attention on the unique traits of lingual and non-lingual element (idea of the criminal legal system, ways of verbalization, etc.), characteristic to Russian and Anglo-American criminal legal discourses. The novelty of this research is justified by the fact that extralinguistic factors of legal discourse and their role during representation has only been generally studied, without sufficient work being done on verbalization of criminal legal system in the Russian and English languages. Referring to separate articles of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the authors propose a way of transmitting the essence of the Russian legal institution of investigation and the stage of preliminary inquiry by means of Anglo-American legal terminology.

Abstract: This research is dedicated to the specificities of territorial application of criminal jurisdiction. The author reveals the concepts of territoriality, extraterritoriality, and extraterritoriality of jurisdiction; demonstrates whether the various types of criminal jurisdiction (prescriptive criminal substantive or procedural jurisdiction, law enforcement criminal jurisdiction) can be applied territorially, extraterritorially, or distributed extraterritorially. The article demonstrated the details of particular manifestations of territorial application of criminal jurisdiction: national criminal and criminal procedural law abroad; proceedings via realization of the forms of international cooperation in the field of criminal justice. In the course of this study, the author determines that the territorial application of prescriptive criminal substantive jurisdiction is full, while the extraterritorial is impossible due to the concept of protection of sovereign interest. The extraterritorial distribution of law enforcement criminal jurisdiction as the process of delegation of competence is realized primarily via legal aid in criminal cases. The application of prescriptive criminal procedural jurisdiction of the requesting country is extraterritorial; moreover, it is cumulative with the territorial application of jurisdiction of the requesting country in its priority, and formally dissolutive within the framework of application of the latter.