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.

The Practical Interaction and Institutional Coordination between Burden of Proof,Standard of Proof and Evaluation of Proof

Current status, obstacles and advice for improvement on expert assistant system

On Coping Mechanisms of Procuratorate for the Public Opinion-Related Cases

Distribution,Inversion and Shift of Burden of Proof:In Perspective of Civil Litigation

The Burden of Proof in Civil Procedure

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

Transforming the Evaluation of the Rule of Law in China

The General Principles of the Distribution of Burden of Proof in the Civil Procedure in P.R.China

Basic Research on the Transfer of Burden of Proof

Gauging Court Adjudication: Qualification And Quantification

Presuppositions And Discursive Control In Court Examinations

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

Burdens of Persuasion and Standards of Proof in Structured Argumentation

Comparative Advantage and Institutional Arrangement

On the Distribution of Burden of Proof on Causation in Environmental Tort——Also on the interpretation and application of article 66 of the tort law

FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF INSTITUTIONAL DISTORTION: THE CASE OF WENZHOU

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

Study on Pragmatic Cooperative Principles of Jury Instructions in Hong Kong

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

Reflect on the System of Evidence Spoliation in Civil Procedure —Perspective on Theory, Practice and System Optimization