Abstract. The article is devoted to the delimitation of the concepts of a group of persons by prior agreement, a group of persons and an organized group. It is proved that a lot of difficulties in legal science are caused by the distinction between a group of persons by prior conspiracy and an organized group. In view of this, we consider it expedient to establish differences between these forms of complicity through the disclosure of the characteristics of a group of persons by prior agreement and an organized group. It is superfluous to disclose the content of the features of a group of persons by prior agreement. And to reveal the content of the features of an organized group is possible through the analysis of Part 3 of Art. 28 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. According to this norm of the law, a criminal offense is recognized as committed by an organized group if several persons (three or more) who were previously organized into a stable association to commit this and other (other) criminal offenses, combined, participated in its preparation or commission. a single plan with the distribution of functions of group members aimed at achieving this plan, known to all group members. From the above legislative definition, we can distinguish such features that give rise to discussions among scholars about the difficulty of distinguishing between a group of persons by prior conspiracy and an organized group, such as the stability and number of members of a criminal association. The number of members of the group by prior agreement and the organized group does not cause difficulties either in the science of criminal law or in judicial practice. Thus, in a group of persons by prior agreement, there may be two or more persons who are endowed with the characteristics of the subject of a criminal offense. And for an organized group, the Criminal Code of Ukraine provides for the need to unite the efforts of at least three subjects of a criminal offense. As for another sign - stability, it causes problems in practice. In particular, in such its manifestation as the number of criminal offenses, the commission of which is agreed by the accomplices. Because of this, it is necessary to establish differences in the stability of the studied forms of complicity. Yes, the stability of a group of people by prior agreement, in contrast to the stability of an organized group, is not a mandatory feature. However, given that there is a certain period of time between a group member's conspiracy to commit a group criminal offense during which the group does not disintegrate, it can also be argued that resilience still exists in this form of complicity. But it is of different level and different quality of stability. The stability of a group of persons by prior conspiracy differs from the stability of an organized group in that in the first form the formation of a criminal association is not yet complete and its composition has not stabilized. The stability of an organized group lies in its stability, the stability of its composition. However, the main difference is that joint criminal activity is designed for a long time.
1. Zahorodnykov N. (1967). O predelakh uholovnoy otvet·stvennosty[On the limits of criminal liability]. Sovetskoe hosudarstvo y pravo. № 7. Pp. 38-41 2. Holovkin O. (2007). Hrupova zlochynnistʹ: spetsyfika vynyknennya i rozvytku, mekhanizmy poperedzhennya[Group's malignity: the specifics of the determination and development, the mechanisms of improvement]. K. : In-t zakonodavchykh peredbachenʹ i pravovoyi ekspertyzy, 204 p. 3. Fris P. (2009). Kryminalʹne pravo Ukrayiny. Zahalʹna chastyna[Criminal law of Ukraine. The part is hidden]. K. : Atika, 394 p. 4. Kvasha O. Spivuchastʹ u zlochyni: sutnistʹ, struktura ta vidpovidalʹnistʹ[Speech in the evil: day, structure and performance]: dys. ... doktora yuryd. nauk : 12.00.08 / O. O. Kvasha. K., 2013. 286 p. 5. Mytrofanov I. Spivuchastʹ u zlochyni[The sound of the evil]. Odesa : Feniks, 2012. 205 p. 6. Khavronyuk M. Oznaky i ponyattya orhanizovanoyi hrupy ta zlochynnoyi orhanizatsiyi (kryminalʹno-pravovyy aspekt)[ Signs and understanding of an organized group and evil organization (criminal-legal aspect)]. Pravo Ukrayiny. 2000. № 4. Pp. 59-64. 7. Kalmykov P. Uchebnyk uholovnoho prava. Chastʹ Obshchaya. [Textbook of criminal law. Part General]. SPb : b/v., 1866. 311 p. 8. Zharovsʹka H. Spivuchastʹ u zlochyni za kryminalʹnym pravom Ukrayiny [Spіvuchast u zlochina for the criminal law of Ukraine]: dys. … kand. yuryd. nauk : spets. 12.00.08 / Zharovsʹka Halyna Petrivna . K., 2004. 205 p. 9. Mykhaylenko D. Pidstavy kryminalʹnoyi vidpovidalʹnosti za khabarnytstvo (davannya ta oderzhannya khabara) [Pidstavi of criminal vidpovidalnosti for habarnstvo (davannya and obsession habar)]: avtoref. dys. na zdobuttya nauk. stupenya kand. yuryd. nauk : spets. 12.00.08. / D.H. Mykhaylenko. O., 2009. 19 p. 10. Kuznetsova N. Souchastye v prestuplenyy. Rossyyskoe uholovnoe pravo. Obshchaya chastʹ. [Complicity in a crime. Russian criminal law. A common part.]/ Pod red. V.N. Kudryavtseva y A.V. Naumova. M.: Nauka, 1997. 587 p.