Orlovskyi R. Institute of complicity in the criminal law of Ukraine.

This thesis is devoted to a comprehensive exploration of the problems of criminal complicity, in as much as it constitutes an institute of criminal law. This research uses systematic, functional and psychological approaches to define the structure and relationships of the institute of criminal complicity, and the work also seeks to determine complicity’s place in criminal-legal regulation. It is proven that criminal complicity constitutes an independent institute of the general part of criminal law, consisting of an integrated group of norms, regulations, and ideas that are intended to carry out the functional tasks of: 1) ensuring criminalization of acts made by individuals who did not carry out the actus reus themselves, but have objective relations to the crime that was committed; 2) using statutes to define and express the objectively higher level of social danger of crimes committed by the joint efforts of several culprits (compared to crimes committed singly). It is proven that the institute of criminal complicity ought to be conceptualized as consisting of three sub-institutes: a) types of accomplices, b) forms of partnership to commit a crime; 3) special aspects of the criminal liability of accomplices. The historical development of the institute of criminal complicity has been determined by the domination of two opposing trends. The first one is the drive to establish accurate and clear criteria to determine whether a person is an accomplice and define the limits of responsibility of accomplices for a crime. This trend has resulted in a narrowing of scope as to which behavior falls in the legal regulation of the institute of complicity. The second tendency has been towards the gradual broadening of legal regulation of complicity, through the differentiation of the kinds of responsibility of accomplices. Such differentiation depends on the type and extent of participation in a crime, the form of partnership to commit a crime, etc. Accounting for these trends enables the prediction of possible ways the institute of criminal complicity will further develop. This thesis defines the specific functions of the institute of complicity in the system of criminal law. The first function is to create a normative justification for bringing an individual to criminal liability, when that person did not directly commit an act defined in an article of the Special part of the Criminal Code, but merely abetted, aided or organized its commission. The second function is to assess and propone the greater social threat posed by crimes committed in complicity rather than committed singly, expressing in law as increased punishment for this increased social danger. This second function also includes ranking the increased social danger of crimes committed by different types of criminal groups and organizations and determining the defining traits of such groups. The third function is to determine special aspects of criminal liability of accomplices and defining the limits of imputation. The ways in which institutional norms on complicity assist in completing those functions are considered.