CRIMINAL INFLUENCE: CHALLENGES IN LEGAL ENFORCEMENT AND DIRECTIONS FOR IMPROVING THE GROUNDS FOR CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Abstract

Abstract. This article examines the grounds and limits of criminal liability for criminal influence as a distinct manifestation of organized crime characterized by systemic functioning and often exercised without the direct involvement of the perpetrator in the commission of specific criminal acts. The author substantiates the need to criminalize this phenomenon as an instrument for countering criminal environments, particularly their informal leaders who coordinate, control, or influence criminal activities without personally participating in the commission of particular crimes. Based on a comprehensive analysis of Article 255-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, as well as judicial practice and critical perspectives in legal scholarship, the article reveals several systemic flaws in the current legislative regulation of criminal influence. The most critical deficiencies include excessive vagueness and tautology in legal language (e.g., «other influence», «personal qualities or abilities»), lack of a clear definition of «criminal activity», and difficulties in distinguishing criminal influence from criminal complicity. Special attention is devoted to the draft of the new Criminal Code of Ukraine, which introduces the concept of criminal leadership as a way to address high-level coordination within criminal structures. While the proposed framework aims to offer a more precise definition, it still faces challenges such as excessive reliance on proving connections to organized criminal groups, overlap with existing provisions, and potential breaches of the principle of legal certainty. The article systematizes the typical manifestations of criminal influence identified in judicial practice and advocates for their formal legislative codification. These include: (1) assigning an individual a criminal status that confers informal authority, accepting such status, and coercing others into recognizing it; (2) establishing or spreading rules of conduct that contradict Ukrainian law and compelling others to comply with them; (3) settling public or private disputes through violence, threats, coercion, or other unlawful means; (4) exercising control over the illegal supply of prohibited items to places of detention; (5) organizing, managing, or distributing funds, property, or other assets intended to support criminal activity; (6) engaging in other acts related to organizing, coordinating, facilitating, or inciting criminal conduct. The author argues that providing a detailed list of forms of criminal influence in the explanatory note to Article 255-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is essential for strengthening legal certainty, improving evidentiary standards in judicial proceedings, and ensuring an adequate criminal law response to the conduct of individuals occupying influential positions within the criminal hierarchy.

Keywords: criminal liability; organized crime; «thief in law»; criminal authority; complicity; evidentiary standards; criminal status; penitentiary institution; prison subculture; crime prevention; criminalization.