An issue that raises more discussion in the modern doctrine is the one regarding plurality of actors and participants role in organized crime, a phenomenon that has grown greatly in recent years. Criminal doctrine argued the need to distinguish between the position of leaders who hadn't taken part directly in committing specific acts in implementing the program of association and the position of criminal association members, concluding that co-autorship concept is better suited than other forms of authorship and participation to certain ways of committing the crime, in which the "brain" or the primary responsibile actor is not present at the actual committing of the crime, but in close connection with it, controlling it and determining its accomplishment. In these cases, the basis of co-autorship is called functional prevalence over the offense, disregarding the requisite for co-perpetrate, the main argument being that not only the intervention is important in accomplishing the crime, but also control or management, even though the leader doesn't take part in the actual committing(in narrow sense) of the crime.
展开▼
