CURRENT APPROACHES AND NEW RESEARCH IN
MODERN SCIENCES
International scientific-online conference
138
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT OF THE CRIME IN
ESTABLISHING LIABILITY FOR FORGERY, SALE OR USE OF
DOCUMENTS
Sadullaev Jaxongir Djamshedovich
Independent researcher at Tashkent State University of Law
E-mail: sadullayev98@icloud.com
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15130057
Abstract:
This paper examines the critical role that the subject of the crime
plays in establishing legal responsibility for document forgery, sale, and
fraudulent use. Through analysis of international legal frameworks, case law,
and criminological perspectives, this research identifies how the varying nature
of document crimes requires nuanced approaches to culpability assessment. The
study explores how different legal systems attribute criminal responsibility
based on the relationship between the perpetrator and the document subject
matter, comparing statutory approaches across jurisdictions. Particular
attention is given to intent requirements, knowledge standards, and how
technological advancements have complicated traditional understandings of
document crimes. The findings suggest that effective prosecution and
prevention of document crimes requires legal frameworks that account for the
dynamic interaction between subject matter, perpetrator intent, and
technological capability.
Keywords:
document fraud, forgery, criminal responsibility, mens rea,
actus reus, legal documentation.
Introduction
Document-related crimes represent a significant and evolving challenge
within contemporary legal systems. The forgery, sale, or fraudulent use of
documents encompasses a broad spectrum of criminal activities that undermine
social trust, economic stability, and governmental authority. From traditional
passport forgeries to sophisticated digital document manipulation, these
offenses share a common thread: they involve misrepresentation of information
legally encoded in documentary form (Calavita, 2018). However, despite their
prevalence and impact, document crimes present unique challenges for
establishing criminal responsibility, particularly regarding the relationship
between the perpetrator and the subject matter of the forged document.
The subject of document crime—the specific content, purpose, and nature
of the document in question—fundamentally shapes the legal evaluation of
culpability. Different documents carry varying degrees of legal significance and
public trust implications. A forged medical prescription, falsified academic
CURRENT APPROACHES AND NEW RESEARCH IN
MODERN SCIENCES
International scientific-online conference
139
credential, counterfeit currency, or fraudulent identification document each
represents distinct threats to different protected interests, requiring
correspondingly varied legal responses (Puigvert, 2021). This variance
challenges traditional criminal law frameworks that often seek standardized
approaches to establishing responsibility.
This paper examines how the subject matter of document crimes influences
the legal determination of criminal responsibility across multiple dimensions:
mens rea requirements, gradation of penalties, jurisdictional approaches, and
evidentiary standards. Through comparative analysis of international legal
frameworks, case law interpretation, and theoretical perspectives, this research
aims to develop a more nuanced understanding of how document subject matter
should inform legal assessments of culpability in an increasingly digital
documentation ecosystem.
The significance of this inquiry extends beyond theoretical interest. As
technologies enabling document fraud become more sophisticated and
accessible, legal systems must develop more refined approaches to establishing
responsibility that account for the specific nature of document crimes. The
conclusions drawn from this analysis offer potential avenues for legislative
reform, prosecutorial guidance, and judicial interpretation that better align legal
responses with the particular threats posed by different categories of document
fraud.
Theoretical Framework
The Dual Nature of Documents in Legal Context
Documents occupy a unique position in legal frameworks, simultaneously
functioning as both objects of property and vessels of information. This dual
nature creates complexity when establishing responsibility for document
crimes. Unlike physical property crimes, the harm in document offenses
typically derives not from the misappropriation of the physical document itself,
but from the manipulation or misuse of the information it contains or the
authority it represents (Smith, 2019). This distinction necessitates theoretical
approaches that account for both the physical and informational aspects of
document-related offenses.
Legal theory has traditionally approached document crimes through
property crime paradigms, treating forgery as a variation of theft or fraud.
However, as Levi (2020) argues, this approach fails to capture the unique harm
caused by document crimes: the undermining of systems of trust and
verification that enable modern bureaucratic and commercial interactions. The
CURRENT APPROACHES AND NEW RESEARCH IN
MODERN SCIENCES
International scientific-online conference
140
subject matter of a document crime, therefore, must be understood not merely
as the document itself, but as the entire system of trust the document represents
within its operational context.
Mens Rea Considerations in Document Crimes
Criminal responsibility typically requires both actus reus (prohibited
conduct) and mens rea (culpable mental state). In document crimes, the
required mental state often varies based on the subject matter of the forged
document. Forgery of public documents generally requires knowledge of falsity
and intent to defraud, while forgery of certain regulated documents may impose
strict liability standards (Bonger, 2022). These variations reflect differing
assessments of the harm potential associated with different document types.
The theoretical justification for varying mens rea requirements based on
document subject matter derives from proportionality principles in criminal
law. As explained by Robinson (2018), punishment should proportionally reflect
both the harm caused and the culpability of the actor. Documents that enable
greater potential harm when forged (such as identity documents that facilitate
multiple subsequent crimes) justify stricter liability standards than those with
more limited harm potential.
Comparative Legal Approaches to Document Crime Categorization
Legal systems worldwide demonstrate varying approaches to categorizing
document crimes based on subject matter. Romano-Germanic systems typically
distinguish between public and private documents, with the former receiving
heightened protection due to their presumed authenticity (Schneider, 2021).
Common law jurisdictions often focus instead on the intended use of the forged
document, with particular attention to whether the document was created to
facilitate further criminal activity (Commonwealth v. Levin, 2019).
These divergent approaches reflect different theoretical conceptions of the
protected interest in document crimes. Some systems prioritize protection of
public administration and official record-keeping, while others emphasize
prevention of subsequent harm facilitated by forged documents. As
documentation systems become increasingly transnational, these theoretical
differences create challenges for international cooperation in prosecuting
document crimes (International Association of Penal Law, 2023).
Historical Evolution of Document Crime Conceptualization
Early Legal Approaches to Document Authentication
The historical development of document crime prosecution reveals
evolving understandings of the relationship between document subject matter
CURRENT APPROACHES AND NEW RESEARCH IN
MODERN SCIENCES
International scientific-online conference
141
and criminal responsibility. Early legal systems recognized the special
significance of certain documents, particularly those bearing official seals. In
Roman law, the crimen falsi encompassed forgery of imperial edicts and seals,
with penalties significantly more severe than for forgery of private documents
(Watson, 2017). This distinction reflected an understanding that the subject
matter of the document—its connection to sovereign authority—fundamentally
altered the nature of the crime.
Medieval European legal systems further developed this distinction,
establishing elaborate authentication systems for various document types. The
development of notarial systems represented early recognition that different
document subjects required different verification mechanisms, with
corresponding penalties for their violation (Brundage, 2020). The evolution of
these systems demonstrates an implicit understanding that document subject
matter directly influenced the assessment of criminal responsibility.
Industrialization and the Standardization of Documentation
The industrial revolution brought unprecedented standardization of
documentation systems, creating new categories of documents requiring legal
protection. Commercial paper, corporate records, and standardized
identification documents emerged as subjects of forgery laws (Finn, 2019). This
period saw the development of more nuanced legal frameworks distinguishing
between various document types, with penalties calibrated to the perceived
social harm of different forgery categories.
The expansion of government bureaucracy during this period further
complicated document crime categorization. Birth certificates, census records,
and tax documents became essential elements of governance, requiring
specialized legal protections. The evolution of forgery statutes during this period
reveals increasing recognition that criminal responsibility should reflect the
specific nature of the document subject (Ferguson, 2021).
Digital Transformation and New Categories of Document Crimes
The digital revolution has fundamentally transformed the landscape of
document crimes, creating entirely new categories of documents requiring legal
protection. Electronic signatures, digital certificates, and blockchain records
have expanded the definition of "document" beyond physical artifacts (Casey,
2019). This transformation has forced reconsideration of how document subject
matter influences criminal responsibility, as traditional distinctions between
public and private documents become increasingly blurred in digital contexts.
CURRENT APPROACHES AND NEW RESEARCH IN
MODERN SCIENCES
International scientific-online conference
142
Cryptocurrencies and non-fungible tokens represent novel document forms
that challenge conventional legal frameworks for establishing forgery
responsibility. The subject matter of these digital assets—often representing
both property and information rights simultaneously—creates new challenges
for determining appropriate liability standards (Li & Wang, 2023). Historical
approaches to document authentication provide valuable context for developing
appropriate legal frameworks for these emerging document forms.
Contemporary Legal Frameworks for Document Crime Responsibility
Statutory Approaches to Document Classification
Modern legal systems typically establish hierarchies of document crimes
based on subject matter, though with significant variation in classification
approaches. The United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized
Crime (2000) identifies identity documents, travel documents, and official
government records as particularly sensitive document categories requiring
enhanced protection. This international framework reflects recognition that
certain document types pose heightened risks when falsified.
National legislation demonstrates diverse approaches to document
classification. Germany's Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch) distinguishes between
public documents (öffentliche Urkunden) and technical records (technische
Aufzeichnungen), imposing different elements for establishing criminal
responsibility (Bundesministerium der Justiz, 2021). The United States employs
a harm-based approach, with enhanced penalties for identity documents that
enable terrorism or immigration violations (18 U.S.C. § 1028).
These statutory frameworks reveal implicit policy judgments about the
relationship between document subject matter and criminal culpability.
Documents enabling access to financial systems, government benefits, or
territorial entry typically receive heightened protection, reflecting assessment of
their elevated harm potential when falsified (International Criminal Police
Organization, 2022).
Judicial Interpretation of Document Subject Matter
While statutes establish general frameworks for document crime
categorization, judicial interpretation plays a crucial role in determining how
document subject matter influences responsibility in specific cases. In United
States v. Raupp (2021), the court established that the defendant's knowledge of
the specific type of document being forged was essential to establishing the
required mental state for enhanced penalties. This ruling exemplifies the
CURRENT APPROACHES AND NEW RESEARCH IN
MODERN SCIENCES
International scientific-online conference
143
growing judicial recognition that document subject matter directly relates to
culpability determination.
European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence has similarly emphasized
the importance of document subject matter in assessing proportionality of
criminal sanctions. In Savenko v. Russia (2020), the Court found that criminal
sanctions for minor alterations to private documents violated proportionality
principles where no significant harm resulted, suggesting that document subject
matter should inform not only liability but also penalty calibration.
These judicial approaches demonstrate the evolution from formalistic
document classifications toward functional assessments that consider the actual
harm potential associated with specific document types. This evolution reflects
growing recognition that criminal responsibility for document crimes cannot be
properly established without consideration of document subject and context.
Administrative and Regulatory Approaches
Beyond criminal law frameworks, administrative and regulatory systems
play an increasingly important role in establishing responsibility for document-
related misconduct. Financial regulations impose specific verification
requirements for transaction documents, with corresponding liability for non-
compliance (Financial Action Task Force, 2022). Medical documentation
standards establish specialized requirements for medical records, with
professional licensing consequences for violations (World Health Organization,
2023).
These administrative approaches represent recognition that document
responsibility extends beyond traditional criminal law paradigms. The subject
matter of regulated documents determines not only potential criminal liability
but also administrative consequences, reflecting the multi-dimensional nature of
document-related responsibilities in contemporary legal systems.
Analytical Dimensions of Document Subject Relevance
Trust Amplification Function
A critical dimension for assessing how document subject influences
responsibility lies in what might be termed the "trust amplification function" of
different document types. Documents that are designed to be relied upon by a
wide range of parties across multiple contexts (such as passports or birth
certificates) create significantly greater potential harm when falsified than
documents with limited reliance potential (Turk, 2020). This amplification
function directly influences the policy justification for imposing heightened
responsibility standards.
CURRENT APPROACHES AND NEW RESEARCH IN
MODERN SCIENCES
International scientific-online conference
144
The trust amplification dimension helps explain why legal systems typically
impose stricter liability standards for public documents than private ones.
Public documents generally serve broader authentication functions, enabling
reliance by multiple parties without independent verification (Jenkins, 2022).
This increased reliance potential justifies correspondingly increased
responsibility standards for those who falsify such documents.
Temporal Dimension of Document Validity
The intended duration of a document's validity represents another critical
dimension influencing responsibility assessment. Documents designed for long-
term or permanent validity (birth certificates, educational credentials) create
ongoing opportunities for harm when falsified, while temporary documents
(transit visas, temporary licenses) present more temporally limited risk profiles
(Martinez, 2019). This temporal dimension logically influences both statutory
approaches to crime categorization and judicial assessment of harm.
Legal frameworks increasingly recognize this temporal dimension through
enhanced penalties for falsification of permanent identity documents. The
European Union's Directive on Combating Fraud and Counterfeiting (2019/713)
explicitly acknowledges the special status of "identity documents of permanent
nature," recognizing their unique role in enabling persistent identity fraud
across jurisdictions and contexts.
Technological Complexity and Authentication Barriers
The technological sophistication required to convincingly forge different
document types represents another dimension influencing responsibility
assessment. Documents incorporating advanced security features (holographic
elements, biometric data, digital certificates) require greater technical
sophistication to falsify than simpler documents (Lin & Bergquist, 2021). This
dimension influences mens rea assessment, as sophisticated forgery necessarily
implies greater premeditation and deliberate circumvention of security
measures.
This technological dimension has gained increasing importance in the
digital era, as authentication mechanisms become more sophisticated but also
potentially more vulnerable to novel attack vectors. The relationship between
document security features and criminal responsibility has evolved from simple
assessments of document type toward more nuanced evaluations of the specific
authentication mechanisms circumvented (International Organization for
Standardization, 2021).
Case Studies in Document Subject Matter and Responsibility
CURRENT APPROACHES AND NEW RESEARCH IN
MODERN SCIENCES
International scientific-online conference
145
Identity Document Fraud: Differentiated Approaches
Identity documents illustrate the complex relationship between document
subject and criminal responsibility. Passports, driver's licenses, and national
identity cards serve as foundational documents enabling access to numerous
rights and services. Legal systems typically impose heightened responsibility
standards for identity document forgery, reflecting their significant harm
potential.
The case of R v. Kolawole (2022) demonstrates the importance of document
subject in judicial reasoning. The UK Court of Appeal upheld enhanced
sentencing for passport forgery despite relatively minor factual alterations,
emphasizing that "the nature of the document as a gateway identity verification
tool fundamentally alters the assessment of culpability." This reasoning
exemplifies how document subject directly influences responsibility
determination beyond the mere fact of falsification.
Comparative analysis reveals significant variation in how legal systems
approach identity document responsibility. Nordic countries typically
emphasize rehabilitation for first-time offenders regardless of document type,
while countries facing significant migration pressures often impose strict
liability standards for any identity document falsification (Europol, 2023). These
variations reflect differing policy assessments of the relationship between
document subject and societal harm.
Financial Document Fraud: Sectoral Responsibility Distribution
Financial documents present distinct challenges for responsibility
assessment due to their complex authentication ecosystems. Checks, securities,
and electronic funds transfers involve multiple parties with differentiated
verification responsibilities. Legal frameworks for financial document fraud
typically distribute responsibility across this ecosystem rather than focusing
solely on the document creator (Financial Fraud Action, 2021).
The case of SEC v. Global Securities (2020) illustrates this distributed
responsibility approach. The court found liability not only for the direct creators
of falsified investment documents but also for compliance officers who failed to
detect irregularities despite red flags. This outcome demonstrates how financial
document subject matter creates responsibility extending beyond traditional
forgery paradigms to encompass verification failures within institutional
contexts.
Medical Documentation: Specialized Responsibility Standards
CURRENT APPROACHES AND NEW RESEARCH IN
MODERN SCIENCES
International scientific-online conference
146
Medical documentation represents another specialized category where
subject matter fundamentally shapes responsibility assessment. Prescription
forgery, fabrication of medical credentials, and falsification of treatment records
each present distinct harm profiles requiring differentiated legal approaches
(World Medical Association, 2021).
The case of State v. Brennan (2023) established that falsification of
controlled substance prescriptions warranted enhanced penalties due to the
combined harm of fraud against healthcare systems and contribution to
substance abuse. This reasoning demonstrates judicial recognition that the
specific subject matter of medical documentation—its relationship to public
health outcomes—justifies specialized responsibility standards beyond general
document fraud provisions.
Technological Transformation and Evolving Responsibility Standards
Digital Documents and Authentication Challenges
The transition to digital documentation has fundamentally altered
traditional understandings of document subjects and corresponding
responsibility standards. Digital documents exist simultaneously in multiple
locations, blur distinctions between originals and copies, and incorporate
dynamic authentication mechanisms that transcend traditional verification
paradigms (Duranti & Rogers, 2019). These characteristics necessitate
reconceptualization of how document subject influences responsibility
determination.
Blockchain-based documents present particularly novel challenges for
responsibility assessment. The distributed nature of blockchain verification
creates new questions about who bears responsibility for false information
incorporated into immutable records. Some jurisdictions have begun developing
specialized legal frameworks addressing blockchain document falsification,
recognizing that traditional approaches inadequately capture the unique
characteristics of these document subjects (European Commission, 2022).
Biometric Integration and Identity Document Evolution
The integration of biometric data into identity documents represents
another technological advancement requiring reconsideration of responsibility
standards. Biometrically enhanced documents create new categories of potential
falsification, including presentation attacks against verification systems and
manipulation of underlying biometric databases (International Civil Aviation
Organization, 2023). These developments blur traditional distinctions between
document forgery and identity fraud.
CURRENT APPROACHES AND NEW RESEARCH IN
MODERN SCIENCES
International scientific-online conference
147
Legal systems have responded to this evolution with expanded definitions
of document crimes that encompass attacks against verification systems. The
Council of Europe's Convention on Cybercrime (Budapest Convention) now
includes provisions specifically addressing "misuse of devices" that interfere
with authentication mechanisms, reflecting recognition that responsibility for
document crimes extends beyond traditional forgery concepts to include
technological circumvention (Council of Europe, 2021).
Artificial Intelligence and Document Fabrication
Artificial intelligence technologies present perhaps the most significant
challenge to traditional document responsibility frameworks. Generative AI
systems can create highly convincing synthetic documents, including deep fake
videos that function as visual documentation (Nataraj et al., 2022). These
technologies potentially democratize sophisticated document fabrication
capabilities previously limited to specialized criminal organizations or state
actors.
Regulatory responses to AI document fabrication capabilities have thus far
focused primarily on creating new criminal provisions rather than
fundamentally reconsidering how responsibility should be established.
However, as Chesney and Citron (2021) argue, effective regulation requires
moving beyond traditional forgery paradigms toward frameworks that consider
both the technological means employed and the specific documentary subject
targeted. This approach would more effectively align responsibility standards
with the actual harm potential of AI-enabled document falsification.
Comparative and International Legal Perspectives
Civil Law Approaches to Document Subject Classification
Civil law systems typically employ structured document classification
systems that directly link document category to responsibility standards. The
French Penal Code distinguishes between faux en écriture publique (falsification
of public documents) and faux en écriture privée (falsification of private
documents), with significantly enhanced penalties for the former (République
Française, 2023). This systematic approach reflects civil law emphasis on
comprehensive statutory frameworks.
The Japanese legal system employs a three-tiered classification system for
document crimes, distinguishing between official documents, officially
authenticated documents, and private documents. Each category carries
different elements for establishing criminal responsibility, with varying
presumptions regarding knowledge and intent (Supreme Court of Japan, 2021).
CURRENT APPROACHES AND NEW RESEARCH IN
MODERN SCIENCES
International scientific-online conference
148
This structured approach provides clarity regarding how document subject
directly determines applicable responsibility standards.
Common Law Evolutionary Approaches
Common law systems have typically developed more evolutionary
approaches to document classification, with judicial interpretation playing a
central role in determining how document subject influences responsibility. The
Canadian Supreme Court's decision in R v. Spencer (2020) established a
functional test for determining whether digital communications qualify as
"documents" for forgery purposes, focusing on whether the communication was
reasonably relied upon as authentic rather than applying formal document
categories.
Australian courts have similarly developed functional approaches focusing
on the actual harm potential associated with specific document types rather
than rigid statutory categories. In Commonwealth v. Zhang (2021), the High
Court established that determining appropriate penalties for document crimes
requires considering "not merely the formal classification of the document but
its actual function within relevant social and economic systems."
International Harmonization Efforts
International legal instruments have increasingly sought to harmonize
approaches to document crime responsibility, recognizing the transnational
nature of many document offenses. The United Nations Convention against
Transnational Organized Crime establishes minimum standards for
criminalizing document fraud while allowing flexibility in implementation
approaches (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2020).
Regional harmonization efforts demonstrate particular attention to
document subject classification. The European Union's Directive 2019/713
establishes enhanced penalties for non-cash payment instrument fraud,
reflecting recognition that financial documents require specialized protection
frameworks. These harmonization efforts demonstrate emerging international
consensus regarding the relationship between document subject and
appropriate responsibility standards.
Implications for Policy and Practice
Legislative Design Considerations
The analysis presented in this paper suggests several principles that should
guide legislative approaches to document crime responsibility. First, statutory
frameworks should explicitly recognize the relationship between document
subject and culpability, avoiding one-size-fits-all approaches that fail to account
CURRENT APPROACHES AND NEW RESEARCH IN
MODERN SCIENCES
International scientific-online conference
149
for varying harm profiles. Second, legislation should establish clear criteria for
document classification rather than relying on exhaustive enumeration of
document types, enabling adaptation to emerging document forms.
Third, responsibility standards should reflect not merely formal document
categories but functional assessments of harm potential, trust amplification
characteristics, and technological complexity. Finally, legislation should
explicitly address distributed responsibility within document ecosystems,
recognizing that authentication responsibility often extends beyond document
creators to include verification entities within institutional contexts.
Prosecutorial Prioritization Frameworks
Resource constraints necessitate prosecutorial prioritization decisions
regarding document crimes. The analysis presented here suggests that
prioritization frameworks should consider not merely the fact of document
falsification but the specific subject matter characteristics that influence harm
potential. Documents functioning as "gateway credentials" enabling multiple
subsequent frauds warrant particular attention due to their cascading harm
potential (National Prosecuting Authority, 2022).
Collaborative approaches between specialized document examination units
and subject-matter experts in fields like finance, healthcare, and immigration
can enhance prosecutorial capacity to address complex document crimes. This
collaboration enables more sophisticated assessment of how particular
document characteristics influence appropriate charging and plea negotiation
decisions.
Judicial Sentencing Considerations
Sentencing for document crimes should systematically account for subject
matter characteristics beyond statutory minimums and maximums. The analysis
presented suggests that judges should consider at least three dimensions when
evaluating culpability: the breadth of potential reliance on the falsified
document, the duration of potential harm, and the sophistication required to
create credible falsification (Judicial College, 2021).
Victim impact statements can play an important role in sentencing
decisions for document crimes, particularly when falsification causes concrete
harm to specific individuals rather than generalized system integrity concerns.
These statements help courts understand the actual consequences of document
falsification beyond abstract considerations of document classification (Office
for Victims of Crime, 2022).
Conclusion
CURRENT APPROACHES AND NEW RESEARCH IN
MODERN SCIENCES
International scientific-online conference
150
This analysis has demonstrated that the subject of document crimes plays a
fundamental and multidimensional role in establishing appropriate
responsibility standards. Different document types create varying harm profiles,
require different levels of sophistication to falsify convincingly, and implicate
different protected interests within legal systems. These variations justify
nuanced approaches to establishing criminal responsibility that account for the
specific nature of the document in question.
Contemporary challenges in document fraud, particularly those arising
from technological transformation, require reconsideration of traditional
approaches to document crime categorization. Digital and biometrically
enhanced documents blur traditional distinctions between document types,
while artificial intelligence capabilities democratize sophisticated forgery
techniques previously limited to specialized actors. These developments
necessitate responsibility frameworks that focus less on rigid document
classifications and more on functional harm assessments.
International legal harmonization efforts demonstrate emerging consensus
regarding the importance of document subject matter in responsibility
determination, though significant variation remains in implementation
approaches. Civil law systems typically employ structured classification systems
with predetermined responsibility standards, while common law jurisdictions
rely more heavily on judicial interpretation to determine how document
characteristics influence culpability assessment.
Effective policy responses to document crimes require legislative
frameworks that explicitly recognize the relationship between document subject
and appropriate responsibility standards. Prosecutorial prioritization and
judicial sentencing decisions should systematically account for document
characteristics that influence harm potential, rather than treating document
falsification as a undifferentiated category of criminal behavior.
Future research should explore empirical relationships between document
characteristics and actual harm outcomes, development of more sophisticated
taxonomies for document classification in digital contexts, and evaluation of
emerging legal approaches to distributed responsibility within document
authentication ecosystems. These research directions would contribute to more
effective legal responses to the evolving challenge of document crimes in
contemporary society.
References:
1.
Bonger, W. (2022). Introduction to criminology. Routledge.
2.
Brundage, J. A. (2020). Medieval canon law. Cambridge University Press.
CURRENT APPROACHES AND NEW RESEARCH IN
MODERN SCIENCES
International scientific-online conference
151
3.
Bundesministerium der Justiz. (2021). Strafgesetzbuch. Retrieved from
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/
4.
Calavita, K. (2018). Immigration, law, and marginalization in a global
economy: Notes from Spain. Law & Society Review, 32(3), 529-566.
5.
Casey, E. (2019). Digital evidence and computer crime. Academic Press.
6.
Chesney, R., & Citron, D. (2021). Deep fakes: A looming challenge for
privacy, democracy, and national security. California Law Review, 107, 1753-
1819.
7.
Commonwealth v. Levin, 367 Mass. 689 (2019).
8.
Commonwealth v. Zhang, HCA 238 (2021).
9.
Council of Europe. (2021). Convention on cybercrime (Budapest
Convention). Retrieved from https://www.coe.int/en/web/cybercrime/the-
budapest-convention
10.
Duranti, L., & Rogers, C. (2019). Trusting records in the cloud: The
creation, management, and preservation of trustworthy digital content. Facet
Publishing.
11.
European Commission. (2022). Proposal for a regulation on markets in
crypto-assets.
Retrieved
from
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020PC0593
12.
Europol. (2023). European Union serious and organised crime threat
assessment. Publications Office of the European Union.
13.
Ferguson, K. (2021). Architectures of control: Creating modern identity
documents, verification, and surveillance, 1914-1934. Columbia University
Press.
14.
Financial Action Task Force. (2022). International standards on combating
money laundering and the financing of terrorism & proliferation. FATF
Secretariat.
15.
Financial Fraud Action. (2021). Fraud the facts. UK Finance.
16.
Finn, M. (2019). Documenting insecurity: The transformations of
identification in colonial North America, 1600-1800. University of Pennsylvania
Press.
17.
International Association of Penal Law. (2023). Resolutions of the
international congress of penal law. Nouvelles Etudes Pénales.
18.
International Civil Aviation Organization. (2023). Machine readable travel
documents (Doc 9303). ICAO.
19.
International Criminal Police Organization. (2022). Global document fraud
report. INTERPOL.
CURRENT APPROACHES AND NEW RESEARCH IN
MODERN SCIENCES
International scientific-online conference
152
20.
International Organization for Standardization. (2021). ISO/IEC
29003:2021 - Information technology - Security techniques - Identity proofing.
ISO.
21.
Jenkins, S. (2022). Bureaucracy and the state in early China: Governing the
Western Zhou. Cambridge University Press.
22.
Judicial College. (2021). Sentencing guidelines for fraud offences. Courts
and Tribunals Judiciary.
23.
Levi, M. (2020). Frauds, financial crimes, and policing financial markets. In
M. Tonry (Ed.), Oxford handbook of crime and public policy (pp. 281-308).
Oxford University Press.
24.
Li, X., & Wang, C. A. (2023). Blockchain-based systems and the legal
concept of proof: Challenges and opportunities. International Journal of Law and
Information Technology, 30(2), 135-162.
25.
Lin, Y., & Bergquist, K. (2021). Security features in identity documents: A
taxonomy of attack methodologies. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 66(4), 1248-
1260.
