The effective functioning of all elements is essential for the legal system. The article is devoted to the study of the legal mentality, legal culture, legal awareness, the importance of legal education in the formation of the legal mentality in Kazakhstani society. The low level of legal culture and legal awareness of citizens leads to a weakening of the legal culture of society as a whole and the instability of the legal system. The article deals with the issues of legal culture, legal awareness and legal mentality, the concept of legal education, their mutual influence, important elements. The necessity to study the interaction of these legal phenomena contributes to raising the level of legal awareness and legal culture in Kazakhstani society to a new level. Issues of legal awareness, legal culture and legal mentality should be considered comprehensively, taking into account the mental characteristics of citizens in society, their common system of values. This is one of the important areas of domestic legal science. The result of the study is an analysis of the current state of the national legal system, the development of legal culture, legal awareness and legal mentality from today’s point of view, the development of directions and activities for their in-depth understanding.

This article considers the issue of legal regulation of the digitalization of the environment in the Republic of Kazakhstan. The author analyses the current state of the environmental problem, digital environmental security and digital ecosystem in the development and implementation of new technologies. An analysis of international practice and the experience of the Russian Federation in the implementation of programmes for the digitalization of environmental security at the regional level is also given. Current environmental problems and the environmental crisis in various regions of our country and around the world cause the need to find new solutions using digital ecology and legality. Following the adoption of the new Environmental Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan in 2021, the country has embarked on a course of environmental reform, and this requires the adoption of smart solutions, including the use of digital ecology and legitimacy. Digital transformation affects data protection and security, information technology, technical design, liability and regulatory issues. Therefore, a comprehensive study of the legal regulation of digitalisation of the environment and its accessibility, the study of the conceptual framework, the legal mechanisms for establishing digital platforms for storing stocks of environmental information, the digitalisation and cybersecurity issues of environmental protection are much needed.

This study is devoted to the legal regulation of one of the types of cryptocurrencies – stablecoins. The article deals with issues of legal nature, essence, as well as relatively limited judicial practice in relation to stablecoins. Stablecoins are digital assets that are designed to maintain a stable value relative to some underlying asset or basket of assets, often through the use of algorithms and market mechanisms. The regulation of stablecoins can vary depending on the jurisdiction in which they are offered and used, as well as the specific features of the stablecoin in question. In general, stablecoins that are designed to function as a medium of exchange, store of value, or unit of account may be subject to financial regulatory requirements, such as anti-money laundering (AML) and know-your-customer (KYC) requirements, as well as licensing and reporting obligations. In the United States, for example, stablecoins that are classified as securities may be subject to regulation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), while stablecoins that are considered commodities may be subject to regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Additionally, some stablecoins may be considered to be a type of "money service business" and subject to regulation by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) [1]. In the European Union, stablecoins may be subject to regulation under the EU's revised Payment Services Directive (PSD2) and the forthcoming Digital Finance Strategy [2]. It is important to note that the regulatory landscape for stablecoins is rapidly evolving, and the specific requirements that apply to a particular stablecoin may depend on a number of factors, including the structure of the stablecoin, the specific legal jurisdiction(s) in which it is offered, and the manner in which it is used. As such, the different approach of countries in the regulation of stablecoins has created the need to study this issue from a legal point of view.

The article analyzes disputes over the division of inheritance between heirs recognized by law or who may be recognized in the future. In addition, other hereditary legal disputes arising on the basis of the testator’s will and having the possibility of probable occurrence in the future are considered. In addition, individual concepts and features of legal relations related to the conditions and order of inheritance distribution determined by law are investigated. At the same time, the complex of systems of legal mechanisms used in their theoretical and practical complex of legal, organizational regulation is investigated. At the time of the division of the inheritance, along with the parties in this legal relationship, the legal possibilities of notary services fixed by law, their place and role in the disputed issue were considered. Among the ways of reconciliation of the parties to hereditary legal disputes proceeding without the intervention of the state equivalent to the judicial system, the legal possibility of the conditions for the application of the system of methods of mediation procedure, the degree and level of recognition in the legal plane of the mediation agreement of the parties concluded on the basis of the mediation procedure are analyzed. The practical disadvantages of using mediation procedures to optimize disagreements between the legal status of the parties, their legitimate interests and legal requirements in relation to inheritance disputes, official statistics that identify shortcomings in industry legislation in relation to the procedure, and identified gaps in Intersectoral legislation were also studied.

The use of special scientific knowledge is of great importance for the proper protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens. The judge, the prosecutor, the lawyer represent legal knowledge in the judicial process, and in the legal field they resolve and evaluate the emerging conflicts from the standpoint of their professional knowledge. At the same time, if there is a need for special knowledge in a particular branch of science, technology, art or craft, knowledge of knowledgeable persons is necessary. In connection with the importance for the evidentiary assessment of their actions, it is important to understand their legal status and the possibilities for a specialist to participate in the trial. In this connection, the purpose of scientific research is to study the current state of the application of special knowledge in the form of participation of a specialist in the process of proving, the features of legal regulation of the organizational and methodological foundations of his activities. The authors point to the process of «convergence» of two forms of application of special knowledge (expert and specialist) in terms of legal status, functions, which creates problem situations in the practice of their application. The authors in the process of research applied the methods of scientific modeling, comparative analysis and formal logic. As a result, the authors formed their own view on the difference between the two forms of application of special knowledge, proposed the optimization of forensic activities in accordance with the demands of legal practice. The value of the study lies in the fact that the authors proposed independent ways to overcome the problems associated with the participation of a specialist in the trial, highlighted the topical issues of his participation in the proceedings of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Over the past few years since the entry into force and application in criminal proceedings of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Kazakhstan, numerous additions and changes have been made to it, contributing to the improvement of legal proceedings. At the same time, a significant empirical array was formed, which is a rich source for scientific research and further improvement of criminal procedure. Practice shows that in the process of investigating crimes, interrogation is the most common investigative action. Every year, on average, 150,000 crimes are registered in the country. Dozens and sometimes even hundreds of citizens are interrogated in each criminal case: victims and witnesses, suspects and accused. Despite the success in the study of material evidence using special scientific knowledge, the testimony of citizens obtained during interrogation remains the main source of evidence about the event under investigation, its participants and the circumstances that contributed to the commission of the crime. The article provides the concept and classification of interrogation as one of the most common, and at the same time, complex type of investigative action. Its effectiveness is made up of a number of objective and subjective factors that can be reduced to two components of a single whole: strict observance of the law and the professional skills of the investigator, including his tactical and forensic knowledge and skills.

The concept of rivalry is known to all peoples and is characteristic of almost all spheres of society. Issues of rivalry are especially characteristic of entrepreneurship. However, modern legal doctrine and legislation are familiar with this phenomenon as “freedom of competition”. The conquest of the market is a matter of existence and prosperity for the contending parties. This implies a variety of methods of competition, including, unfortunately, unfair ones. Of course, the legislator cannot remain indifferent to the serious threat of unfair competition. But how to determine the boundary separating what is permitted from what is not; where is the general criterion for recognizing acceptable methods of competition and prohibited? These are the questions that the theoretical thought of lawyers and the practice of antimonopoly and judicial authorities are currently looking for answers to. Indeed, where is the desired limit of permissible freedom of competition? We will look for answers to these questions in the domestic legislation and the legislations of foreign countries in the historical context of the development of antimonopoly legal regulation. And in order to conduct a full-fledged comparative legal analysis, we will apply both general scientific and private scientific methods of scientific cognition everywhere. Taking into account the topic and subject of scientific research, the comparative legal method of research will be applied everywhere. The conclusions obtained can be useful in law enforcement practice, in determining the limits of permissible competition, which is sometimes complicated by a broad interpretation of some norms of the national legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, which leads to a violation of antimonopoly legislation, including.

The article describes some aspects of the discussion and adoption of the law “On Probation in the Russian Federation”. A comparative analysis of the version of the draft law submitted to the State Duma of the Russian Federation with the text of the adopted law is carried out and a number of changes are highlighted: the internal affairs bodies are charged with the obligation to interact with the penal enforcement inspections on the application of executive probation; the list of duties of persons for whom penitentiary probation is applied is reduced; etc. There are some issues that the authors of this article paid special attention to in 2021–2022 when discussing the draft law: the prevention of crimes as the purpose of probation, the correction of convicts, three types of probation (executive, penitentiary and post-penitentiary) and the mechanism of their implementation, including through the list of rights and obligations of probation subjects, members of the public and persons who in respect of which it is applied, etc. The adoption of this law has actually expanded the subject of penal enforcement law through probation measures as new grounds for interaction between convicts, institutions and bodies executing sentences, members of the public and other participants in penal enforcement relations. Further directions of the development of penal enforcement law are noted, due to the presence of theoretical and applied problems: the difference between the goals of probation from the goals of penal enforcement legislation, as well as the uncertainty of the criteria for assessing their achievement; the discrepancy between the legal status of convicts and persons to whom probation is applied; the use of probation measures in cases of natural disaster, the introduction of an emergency or martial law; etc .