The Author and Participants

Abstract

In this context of the need for regulation, the idea of liability/assuming responsibility for the fact was born. Liability has been divided, over time, according to the social values damaged (civil, contraventional, criminal, etc.) and the degree of abstract or concrete social danger generated by the illegal act. Later, there was a need for regulation regarding the repetition of illegal conduct and regarding the cooperation of several people in the commission of an illegal act. Thus, various ways of establishing liability in case of multiple acts and multiple perpetrators have appeared.

For the interest of this work, the institution of the plurality of perpetrators, regulated by the legislator in chapter VI (Author and Participants), from title II (Offense) of the Criminal Code, Law no. 286/2009, regulation related to the fundamental institution of the crime, one of the three fundamental institutions in the General Part of the Criminal Code (along with

the institution of criminal liability and that of punishment). However, as the regulation is a homogeneous one, in dealing with the various problems related to participation, it will not be possible to ignore the analysis of certain related aspects from the matter of unity/plurality of facts (such as the regime of participation in continued crime), as related aspects from the matter of punishments will be highlighted, especially the regime of circumstances, either mitigating or aggravating.

Thus, we assume that a complex analysis of the author's institution and participation must also take into account aspects related to the regulation contained in Chapter VI. At the same time, the particular aspects of the Special Part of the Criminal Code will also be taken into account, especially in the matter of crimes in which the legislator requires a certain special quality of the author (for example, embezzlement) or in the matter of dissociated crimes (such as taking/giving bribery), where the first impression is that the intermediary of the bribery is a participant in both crimes. Obviously, there are certain nuances in the interpretation, necessary to avoid establishing a more serious liability on the part of the participant than on the author of any of the two dissociated crimes, aspects that will be analyzed in the appropriate framework, in this context, the purpose of the exposition being only anticipatory.