Perfection of rules of sentencing for the crime, committed in complicity
( Pp. 212-217)

Problem. The cause of the preparation of the article is the perfection of the Criminal Code of Russia regarding to the rules of sentencing for the crime, committed in complicity. Model. The study was performed with the dialectical-materialist method of knowing legal phenomenons and with partial scientific and special methods: formally juridical, relatively legal, functional, statistical, sociological. Conclusion. Analyses of the normative legal acts of Russia and other states, of the judicial practice and of the scientific literature shows that the differentiation of punishment for the complicity can be provided in legislation in dependence of the type of the complicity (organizer, perpetrator, inciter, accomplice). Practical importance. The author offers to improve Article 67 («The sentencing for the crime in complicity») of the Criminal Code of Russia. Value. Conclusions and proposals of the article can be used in the legislative and law enforcement work, in the preparation of the rulings of The Supreme Court of Russia and in the scientific and study process.

Yankovsky D.A., (2015), PERFECTION OF RULES OF SENTENCING FOR THE CRIME, COMMITTED IN COMPLICITY. Gaps in Russian Legislation, 4 => 212-217.

Aynutdinova K.A. Obshchie kriterii individualizatsii nakazaniya pri ego naznachenii // Probely v rossiyskom zakonodatel stve. 2010. № 1.
Arutyunov A.A. Problemy otvetstvennosti souchastnikov prestupleniya // Ugolovnoe pravo. 2001. № 3.
Baleev S.A. Otvetstvennost za organizatsionnuyu prestupnuyu deyatel nost po deystvuyushchemu rossiyskomu ugolovnomu zakonodatel stvu. Kazan , 2002.
Blagov E.V. Naznachenie nakazaniya. Teoriya i praktika. YAroslavl , 2002.
Budzinskiy S.M. Osnovnye nachala nauki ugolovnogo prava. Varshava, 1870.
Dimchenko N.V. Otvetstvennost za prestupleniya, sovershennye v souchastii: teoreticheskie i prikladnye aspekty / Diss kand.yurid.nauk. Moskva, 2006.
Dolgopolov K.A. Naznachenie nakazaniya za prestuplenie, sovershennoe v souchastii // Probely v rossiyskom zakonodatel stve. 2012. № 4.
ZHiryaev A.P. O stechenii neskol kikh prestupnikov pri odnom i tom zhe prestuplenii. S-Pb., 1850.
Zakharyan G.A. Souchastie i individualizatsiya nakazaniya // Sovetskaya yustitsiya. 1989. № 5.
Kovalev M.I. Souchastie v prestuplenii: Monografiya. Ekaterinburg: Izd-vo UrGYUA, 1999.
Mishunin P.G. Ocherki po istorii sovetskogo ugolovnogo prava. 1917-1918 gg. M., 1954.
Panchenko N.P. Probely v zakonodatel stve o souchastii v prestuplenii i puti ikh ustraneniya v svyazi s zadachami protivodeystviya korruptsii // Probely v rossiyskom zakonodatel stve. 2008. № 1.
Sidiryakova M.V. Naznachenie nakazaniya uchastnikam gruppovykh prestupleniy / Diss kand.yurid.nauk. Kazan , 2003.
Traynin A.N. Uchenie o souchastii. M., 1941.
TSaregorodtsev A.M. Otvetstvennost organizatorov prestupleniya. Omsk, 1978.

differentiation of punishment, complicity, the sentencing, the organizer of the crime, the instigator, aiding.