Criminal conspiracy as an essential characteristic of complicity
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21564/2414-990x.137.98556Keywords:
the criminal conspiracy, complicity in a crime, the principal offenderAbstract
In the article the author substantiated the recognition of the criminal conspiracy as an essential characteristic of complicity. The author made findings that participants of the criminal conspiracy cannot always be recognized as accomplices. As a result the author separated the criminal conspiracy between the subjects of crime without characteristics of complicity from the criminal conspiracy between accomplices. The author drew a conclusion that the participants of the criminal conspiracy become accomplices if an act of each of them has characteristics of an act provided for by the corresponding part of Art. 27 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The author substantiated that to achieve the criminal conspiracy of the principal offender is not required to commit an act which forms objective side of actus reus but is enough to coordinate the intent to execute role of the principal offender with another participant of criminal conspiracy by committing this participant an act provided for by the corresponding part of Art. 27 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine or to give consent in consequence of inducement to commit it. If the crime is committed by the co-principal offenders there is no need to separate the criminal conspiracy between the subjects of crime without characteristics of complicity from the criminal conspiracy between accomplices because only one criminal conspiracy can be achieved between the co-principal offenders – the criminal conspiracy between accomplices. The author substantiated that complicity in course of preparation of crime may arise before searching of the principal offender when other accomplices provided conditions for committing a crime and then attracted the principal offender for committing an act which forms objective side of actus reus.
References
Piontkovskiy, A.A. (1961). Uchenie o prestuplenii po sovetskomu ugolovnomu pravu. Moscow: Gosjurizdat [in Russian].
Telnov, P.F. (1974). Otvetstvennost za souchastie v prestuplenii. Moscow: Jurid. lit. [in Russian].
Shneyder, M.A. (1958). Souchastie v prestuplenii po sovetskomu ugolovnomu pravu. Moscow: MGJeI [in Russian].
Kovalev, M.I. (1960). Souchastie v prestuplenii. Part 1: Ponjatie souchastija. Sverdlovsk: Ural’sk. rabochij [in Russian].
Grishaev, P.I., Kriger, G.A. (1959). Souchastie po sovetskomu ugolovnomu pravu. Moscow: Gosjurizdat [in Russian].
Abakumova, Yu.V. (2012). Instytut spivuchasti v kryminalnomu pravi Ukrainy: pryroda, sutnist, suchasni problem vyznachennia. Zaporizhzhia: KPU [in Ukrainian].
Avetisyan, S.S. (2004). Souchastie v prestupleniyakh so spetsialnym sostavom. Moscow: JuNITI-DANA, Zakon i pravo [in Russian].
Arutyunov, A.A. (2013). Souchastie v prestuplenii. Moscow: Statut [in Russian].
Babij, N.A. (2013). Mnozhestvennost’ lic v prestuplenii i problemy uchenija o souchastii. Moscow: Jurlitinform [in Russian].
Zharovs’ka, H.P. (2004). Spivuchast’ u zlochyni za kryminal’nym pravom Ukrainy. Extended abstract of candidate’s thesis. Kiev [in Ukrainian].
Zinchenko, I.O. (2013). Spivuchast’ u zlochyni za kryminal’nym pravom Ukrainy ta Anhlii: porivnial’no-pravovyj aspect. Visnyk Natsional’noho universytetu «Yurydychna akademiia Ukrainy imeni Yaroslava Mudroho» – Herald of National University «Yaroslav Mudryi National Law Academy of Ukraine», 3 (14), 205–216 [in Ukrainian].
Kvasha, O.O. (2013). Spivuchast u zlochyni: struktura ta vidpovidalnist. Luhansk: RVV LDUVS im. E. O. Didorenka [in Ukrainian].
Ter-Akopov, A.A. (2003). Prestuplenie i problemy nefizicheskoj prichinnosti v ugolovnom prave. Moscow: JuRKNIGA [in Russian].
Shesler, A.V. (1999). Ugolovno-pravovye sredstva bor’by s gruppovoj prestupnost’ju. Krasnojarsk: Sibirskij juridicheskij institut MVD Rossii [in Russian].
Maslak, N.V. (2010). Kryminal’na vidpovidal’nist’ za hotuvannia do zlochynu. Kharkiv: Pravo [in Ukrainian].
Ugolovnoe ulozhenie ot 22 marta 1903 g. N.S. Tagancev (Ed.). (1922). Riga: Leta [in Russian].
Tsvetkov Yu.A. Problemy primeneniya instituta souchastiya. Ugolovnoe pravo. Aktualnye problemy teorii i praktiki – Criminal Law. Current Issues in Theory and Practice. V. V. Luneev (Ed.). (2010). Moscow: Jurajt, sketch 7, 244–276 [in Russian].
Us, O.V. (2007). Kryminal’na vidpovidal’nist’ za pidburiuvannia do zlochynu. Kharkiv: Vydavets’ FO-P Vapniarchuk N.M. [in Ukrainian].
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2017 Ірина Анатоліївна Зінов'єва
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.