Inducement, Recruitment, Involvement as a Means of Constructing a Crime

The paper examines the terms “inducement”, “recruitment”, “involvement”, and determines their relationship. Taking into account the fact that the legislator considers in various ways the content of a criminal offense in the form of inducement, ambiguous interpretation and difficulties arise in the application of those norms that do not define this term. In addition, there is a confusion between the concepts of “inducement” and “assistance”. Because “inducement” is similar to the activity of an instigator, and “assistance” is similar to the activity of an accomplice, these concepts cannot be considered as similar, including from the point of view of social danger. An analysis of the norms of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation showed that the legislator recognizes assistance as a higher degree of public danger. The construction of special bodies of crime in the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, where instigators, accomplices, and organizers become perpetrators of crimes, is determined primarily by the desire of the legislator to deviate from the traditional rules of the institution of complicity. It seems that when regulating special types of abetting, the choice of the wording “inducement, recruitment or other involvement”, “inducement or other involvement” or only “inducement” should be based on the different volume and content of the actions that constitute one or another form of involvement.

1. Bezborodov D. A. Nekotorye osobennosti obektivnoy storony sostava prestupleniya, predusmotrennogo statey 230.1 UK RF (sklonenie sportsmena k ispolzovaniyu substantsiy i (ili) metodov, zapreshchennykh dlya ispolzovaniya v sporte) // Advokatskaya praktika. — 2020. — № 6. — S. 29–34.

2. Ivanchin A. V. Zakonodatelnaya tekhnika i ee rol v rossiyskom ugolovnom pravotvorchestve. — M., 2011. — 206 s.

3. Kalinina S. Psikhologicheskie metody verbovki molodezhi v terroristicheskie organizatsii // Nauka. Obshchestvo. Oborona. — 2018. — № 2 (15). — URL: https://www.noo-journal.ru/nauka-obshestvooborona/2018-2-15/article-0145/.

4. Kovalev M. I. K voprosu o teorii ugolovnogo kodeksa // Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo. — 1988. — № 5. — S. 78–79.

5. Molchanov D. M. Praktikum po ugolovnomu pravu: ucheb. posobie. — M., 2021. — 192 s.

6. Obrazhiev K. V. Posobnichestvo prestupleniyu: problemy ugolovno-pravovoy otsenki // Ugolovnoe pravo. — 2019. — № 3. — S. 59–70.

7. Oreshkina T. Yu., Ustinova T. D. Prinuzhdenie kak sposob soversheniya prestupleniya i kak ugolovno nakazuemoe deyanie // Sovremennoe pravo. — 2009. — № 9. — S. 104–108.

8. Savitskiy V. M. Yazyk protsessualnogo zakona (voprosy terminologii). — M., 1987. — 286 s.

9. Sur E. I. Manipulyatsiya: ponyatie, osnovnye priznaki i struktura // Aktualnye problemy gumanitarnykh i estestvennykh nauk. — 2012. — № 3.

10. Ustinova T. D. Sklonenie k samoubiystvu ili sodeystvie samoubiystvu: kriticheskiy analiz // Lex russica. — 2020. — № 3. — S. 151–159.