CRIMINAL COMPLICITY IN THE SYSTEM OF CRIMES CHARACTERISED BY CONCOURSE OF PERPETRATORS

Criminal Complicity is the most vulnerable element in the system of criminal law norms. Its practical application is characterized by contradictions and discrepancies of fundamental research. The author shows the main reason that served as the "apple of discord" among experts. In the author's opinion this reason is the contradiction between the traditional division of complicity into the perpetrators, organizers and instigators with the modern understanding of the collaborative activity that is considered to be a constructive element of a crime under the law. According to the findings of the psychological science, collaboration p presupposes a conscious interaction of several individuals that is limited in time and place of its implementation. Named traditional forms of criminal compliance do not possess these characteristics as they are separated independent acts. As a result of overlapping of these conflicting views and legislative provisions that reflect them, the practical application of the rules on complicity results in inconsistent and, to some extent, arbitrary evaluation of the same acts as group crimes that have an obvious sign of collaboration (actual complicity) or as complex complicity (traditional), which predetermines their different responsibility and punishability. Since the legal formula of criminal complicity requires joint action of accomplices, the traditional forms of complicity are either artificially adjusted to it, or collaborative actions are expanded to the limits of conventional forms giving rise to the confusion in qualification of a crime, which leads to law enforcement improvisations and violations of the principles of legality and fairness with regard to the issues that involve the responsibility of accomplices. In the author's opinion, the current situation can be eliminated by means of allocating conventional forms of complicity into a separate group of rules that are named "involvement in a crime" and that do not possess such a criterion as collaboration. The former includes group crimes that need specific qualification, responsibility and punishability. To this end, the author suggests that the whole system of rules that are similarly to criminal complicity connected with the facts of concourse of criminals in connection with the commission of a crime should be systemized, the whole system being divided depending on the extent of interconnection of objective and subjective elements into: 1) reckless co-damnification; 2) involvement in a crime; 3) criminal complicity; 4) participation in a crime. This proposal, as the author believes, will eliminate the existing contradictions in the institution of complicity, systemize criminal law rules concerning the concourse of criminals on the grounds of risk and the phenomena they reflect and consequently facilitate the qualification of such crimes, which will facilitate the emplimintation of the principles of criminal law and its efficient application. The author also provides drafts of relevant rules.

concourse of criminals, criminal complicity, involvement, collaborative activity, group crime, criminal complicity in the crime to the execution of the different roles, involvement in a crime, organizer, performer, instigator, accomplice

1. Лосев А. Ф. Из ранних произведений. М., 1990. С. 309-317

2. Таганцев Н.С. Русское уголовное право. Часть Общая. Тула, 2001. Т. 1. С. 572

3. Есаков Г. А. Учение о преступлении в странах семьи общего права: автореф. дис.. д-ра юрид. наук. М., 2007. С. 39.

4. Галиакбаров Р. Р. Квалификация групповых преступлений. М., 1980. С. 6-7.

5. Уголовное право. История юридической науки. М., 1978. С. 112-113.

6. Шеслер А. В. Соучастие в преступлении по уголовному праву Российской Федерации: дис.. д-ра юрид. наук. М., 2008.

7. Уголовный кодекс Испании // URL: Law.edu/norm/norm.asp

8. Шеслер А. В. Перспективы совершенствования уголовно-правовых норм о соучастии в преступлении // Lex Russica. № 6. С. 30

9. Бюллетень Верховного Суда РФ. 2003. № 2. С. 2

10. Совместная деятельность. Методология, теория и практика. М., 1988. С. 22-23

11. Трайнин А.Н. Понятие соучастия // Избранные труды. СПб., 2004. С. 262-263

12. Беляев Н.А. Институт соучастия и организованная преступность // Избранные труды. СПб., 2003. С. 250

13. Оренбургский областной суд.1999. Дело 2-137. См. также: Бюллетень Верховного Суда РФ. 2000. № 7. С. 13; Там же. 2002. № 10. С. 11; Там же. 2004. № 3. С. 14-15; Там же. 2006. № 10. С. 19-20.

14. Постановление Пленума Верховного Суда РФ от 03.03.2015 № 9 // Бюллетень Верховного Суда РФ. 2015. № 5.

15. Андреева Г. М. Социальная психология. М., 1997. С. 81; Роббер М. А., Тильман Ф. Психология индивида и группы. М., 1988. С. 107, 176

16. Межличностное восприятие в группе. М., 1981. С. 53.

17. Совместная деятельность. Методология, теория, практика. С. 22-23.

18. Карпов А.В. Общая психология субъективного выбора: структура, процесс, генезис. Ярославль, 2000. С. 48.

19. Андреева Г.М. Социальная психология. - М., 1997.

20. Беляев Н.А. Институт соучастия и организованная преступность // Избранные труды. - СПб., 2003.

21. Галиакбаров Р.Р. Квалификация групповых преступлений. - М., 1980.

22. Карпов А.В. Общая психология субъективного выбора: структура, процесс, генезис. - Ярославль, 2000.

23. Лосев А.Ф. Из ранних произведений. - М., 1990.

24. Межличностное восприятие в группе. - М., 1981.

25. Совместная деятельность. Методология, теория и практика. - М., 1988.

26. Таганцев Н.С. Русское уголовное право. Часть Общая. - Тула, 2001. - Т. 1.

27. Трайнин А.Н. Понятие соучастия // Избранные труды. СПб., 2004.

28. Шеслер А.В. Перспективы совершенствования уголовно-правовых норм о соучастии в преступлении // Lex Russica. - 2015. - № 6.