The experience of Armenia and Georgia in ensuring criminal-legal counteraction to organized crime

This article examines the experience of Armenia and Georgia in refining criminal law mechanisms to combat organized crime and criminal influence. A comparative analysis is conducted of these countries’ approaches to the criminalization of criminal influence and the mechanisms underpinning its social reproduction. Particular attention is given to the legal regulation of «groups that are bearers of criminal subculture» (Criminal Code of Armenia) and the criminalization of the «thief-in-law» status (Criminal Code of Georgia), representing two distinct models for addressing persistent forms of organized crime. It is established that the Armenian model employs a comprehensive approach targeting not only specific criminal acts, but also the structural organization and ideology of the criminal milieu. Conversely, the Georgian approach enforces strict criminalization of symbolic status as a source of latent criminal influence, though it raises concerns about its compliance with the principles of legal certainty and individualized liability. The study substantiates that the current version of Article 255‑1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine – primarily focused on functional criteria – requires enhancement with deeper characteristics reflecting subcultural, ideological, and organizational dimensions. It proposes expanding the definition of criminal influence to include elements related to the establishment of criminal subcultural norms, resolution of conflicts through unlawful means, and conferral of criminal status within a criminal hierarchy. Additionally, the article analyzes Georgia’s special mechanisms for civil confiscation of property, which effectively undermine the financial foundations of criminal entities, and argues for the implementation of similar mechanisms in Ukraine. Attention is drawn to the absence of sufficient incentivizing provisions in the current Ukrainian legislation – beyond Article 255 – that recognize special grounds for exemption from criminal liability in crimes involving criminal influence. This gap limits the potential to weaken organized criminal structures from within. Consequently, the article proposes amending Articles 255‑1 and 255‑3 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine to introduce the possibility of exemption from criminal liability in cases of voluntary renunciation of criminal activity and cooperation with law enforcement agencies.