Abstract:Introduction: the division of all procedural institutions into universal, similar and unique ones requires the identification of the factors that determine the branch uniqueness. The purpose of the work is to determine the validity of inter-branch differences in the regulation of the institutions of criminal, civil, arbitration and administrative processes, depending on their own standards of proof. The determinant method of the research was the method of comparative law. A comparison was made of typical situations of proving related offenses under consideration of the criminal and civil or arbitration or administrative procedure. The research also uses the methods of historicism, system-structural analysis and synthesis. Results: the correlation of “standards of proving” and “standards of proof” is determined on the basis of the scientific literature and judicial practice. Through the example of the criminal and civil (arbitration, administrative) cases with similar subjects of proving (the cases of tax crimes and offenses, transport crimes and offenses, fraud and non-repayment of loans, smuggling and non-compliance with the ban on the import and export of goods), different industry requirements are established for the level of verification of the conclusions about the presence or absence of any facts. The cases of the legislative definition of standards of proof for certain legal situations are revealed. Conclusions: serious differences in the levels of proof required by law and judicial practice in different types of legal proceedings dictate the uniqueness of the regulation of a number of procedural institutions in their branch implementation. The sphere of influence of the standards of proof on the branch statutory regulation is not limited by law of evidence.

Blurring View in the Research of Standard of Proof

On the Basic Philosophy of Criminal Reconciliation——Comparative Study between Zhejiang "Fengqiao Experience" and U.S. VOR Model

Legal Realism and Criminal Justice in Transitional Society

Gauging Court Adjudication: Qualification And Quantification

Language Modeling for Legal Proof

The Standards of Proof ——objective Authenticity, Legal Authenticity and Substantial Authenticity

On Certainty of Law and Proof of Equity

The Truth and Proposition in Law:Review On Patterson's Law and Truth

Truth, knowledge, and the standard of proof in criminal law

The Differences of Standard Proof in the Civil Proceedings in Common Law and Civil Law and Their Reasons

Presuppositions And Discursive Control In Court Examinations

Testification Standard in Criminal Lawsuit

Is justice blind or myopic? An examination of the effects of meta-cognitive myopia and truth bias on mock jurors and judges

The Standards of Proof as the Basis for Differences in the Regulation of Similar Institutions of Criminal, Civil, Arbitration and Administrative Proceedings

Does Non Liquet Status Exist in System of Proof in China's Civil Procedure?

A Research on the Objective Distribution of Burden of Proof in Administrative Litigation

On the Legality Requirements of Evidence in Civil Action

Burden of Proof: Standard of Proof in Court Proceedings (Latvian Experience)

On Logical Foundation of Legal Argument in Criminal Trial

The Burden of Proof in Civil Procedure