The legislative definition of ‘inciter’ is subjected to a critical analysis. Such ways of involvement persons in crime committing as abetment, recruiting, bribery, threat, enforce and their relationship to each other are examined. It was established abetment and enforce are single-level terms, which are species in relation to involvement. Free will of an incited person is a criterion for distinguishing. Recruiting and bribery meet the criteria for abetment and based on a material gain promise. The threat, in turn, reflects the essence of enforce. A number of legal technique shortcomings in the design of particular Specific Part provisions of the Criminal Code which violate consistency using of the considered conceptual construct are noted. The author’s version of p. 4 Art. 33 of the Criminal Code, taking into account the formed terms hierarchy, is offered. The possible qualification ways of actions both covered by a specific article of the Criminal Code and coincide with the complicity institute provisions are considered. There is the absence of uniformity in the approach both on the level of court practice and opinions among the scholars. The views expressed in the scientific community predominantly relate to specific crime components or groups of crimes. It’s emphasized the need for a single principle, universal for all situations. The author concluded that the exclusive using of a specific article unnecessarily, because in some cases it provides a smaller penalty than can be assigned to an inciter by using of an article according to which he can be considered as an accomplice. Another option would be an application of the cumulative crime institute. However, this qualification model is unacceptable because it violates the principle of fairness in sentencing. In this regard, the only solution capable of ensuring uniformity in the enforcement is the exception of legally defined crimes which duplicate provisions of incitement from the Special Part of the Criminal Code. The provisions of Chapter 7 of the Criminal Code of complicity should be used in such situations.
The paper is devoted to the current definition of "perpetrator". Impossibility of distinguishing perpetrator and other accomplices by it is stated. Definitions proposed by different authors are examined. Perpetrator role specific which is offered to accept as a basis for creating a new version of p. 2 art. 33 of the Criminal Code is determined.