Criminal conspiracy

1. What is Criminal Conspiracy?

Criminal Conspiracy is one of the three inchoate offences. It is an independent offense wherein; an agreement is made between two or more individuals to commit a crime at some time in the future. This offense was initially developed as a procedural remedy in medieval England to combat abuses like false accusations but over time evolved into a substantive criminal offense, with a significant portion of its expansion in terms of its scope in the 17th and 18th centuries.

The rationale behind the application of the term is such that it is an anticipatory offense similar to attempt or incitement. It also highlights the risks posed by collective action, emphasising the harm posed by group efforts. Criminal conspiracy laws are designed to prevent collaborative scheming to break the law, even if the planned crime is never completed. This ensures that preparations for crime are punished to deter unlawful agreements. In Indian jurisprudence, criminal conspiracy is considered both a substantive offense and an auxiliary offense when connected to other crimes. Courts have recognized and expanded the application of conspiracy charges in various contexts, including terrorism, corruption, financial fraud, and corporate offenses.

2. Official Definition of Criminal Conspiracy

Criminal conspiracy has been defined in BNS under section 61 as: “Two or more persons agree with the common object to do, or cause to be done—

• An illegal act; or
• An act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated  a criminal conspiracy

Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof”.

• The difference between whether the illegal act was the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to, is considered immaterial.

2.1 ‘Criminal Conspiracy’ as defined in official Documents

Criminal conspiracy  as defined in other official documents Criminal conspiracy in Indian law refers to when two or more people agree to do something illegal or achieve a legal goal unlawfully. It becomes a conspiracy if they go beyond just agreeing. Whether the illegal act is the main goal or a side effect doesn't matter. While the primary legal framework for criminal conspiracy is outlined in the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita under Section 61, it also finds application in various special statutes addressing corruption, terrorism, drug trafficking, and corporate fraud. This concept has evolved to cover a broad range of activities aimed at preventing organized criminal behaviour and ensuring accountability.

2.2.2 Indian Penal Code(1860)

The IPC defines criminal conspiracy in Section 120A as:

"When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, an illegal act, or an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy."

This section emphasizes the agreement between individuals as the core of the offense, distinguishing conspiracy from other inchoate crimes like attempt or abetment. The law does not require the illegal act to be executed for the conspiracy charge to stand, agreeing itself a punishable offense.

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita takes a giant leap from the preceding IPC. S. 61(1) of the BNS has inserted the phrase ‘with the common object’ in its definition of Criminal Conspiracy, which was absent in its IPC counterpart (s. 120B). Hitherto, conspiracy and ‘common object’ had been understood as distinct concepts in criminal law. ‘Common object’ had been used in the IPC about ‘unlawful assembly’, and unlike conspiracy, did not require a prior meeting of minds. Thus, the concept of ‘common object’ has conceptually been at odds with that of conspiracy.

The reasons for such an insertion are unclear. The absence of a concise and clear definition for the term "common object" in the context of criminal conspiracy makes the provision susceptible to varying interpretations. Without a robust legislative explanation or judicial clarification, there is a risk of misuse or overreach in its application, potentially leading to unwarranted criminalization of actions that do not meet the traditional standards of conspiracy.

2.2.3. United Kingdom - Criminal Law Act 1977 (Section 1)

Under the Criminal Law Act 1977, conspiracy is defined as:"If a person agrees with any other person or persons that a course of conduct shall be pursued which, if the agreement is carried out in accordance with their intentions, either—

(a) will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of any offense or offenses by one or more of the parties to the agreement, or

(b) would do so but for the existence of facts which render the commission of the offense or any of the offenses impossible,

he is guilty of conspiracy to commit the offense or offenses in question."

While both legal systems treat conspiracy as an inchoate offense and prioritise agreement as its core element, the Criminal Law Act 1977 adopts a broader and more flexible approach, particularly in terms of impossibility and the absence of an overt act requirement.

2.2.4. United States - Title 18, United States Code, Section 371

"If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

The US law prioritizes federal interests, overt acts, and impossibility doctrines. In contrast, the BNS offers broader applicability, distinguishing between minor and grave offenses in terms of evidence and punishment.

2.3. Legal provision(s) relating to 'Criminal Conspiracy'

1. Organised Crime

Organised crime involves illegal activities carried out by structured groups attempting to make money through illicit methods. Their modus operandi is quite broad. Their actions are fuelled by a sense of economic gain; much of the money made from organised crime drains away national resources, worsening social inequalities and hindering development efforts. Most of the offences defined under the section of ‘organized crime’ such as kidnapping, robbery, vehicle theft, extortion, land grabbing, and  contract killing, also continue to exist as stand-alone offences under BNS, as they did under Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’) however in the IPC there was no particular statute for Organised crime and it was clubbed under Criminal conspiracy(s120). India faces significant challenges with organised crime, particularly in the realm of cybercrime. In 2022, the country reported over 740,000 cybercrime incidents, a substantial increase from previous years. The financial sector has also been heavily impacted, with bank frauds amounting to over 139 billion Indian rupees in the 2024 fiscal year. Organized crime and criminal conspiracy are closely linked because both involve criminal enterprises or activities that require planning, collaboration, and coordination among multiple individuals. In essence, organized crime can often be seen as a form of criminal conspiracy due to its structured nature and the agreement to engage in illegal activities.

2. Abetment

In the BNS 2023, abetment means encouraging, conspiring, or intentionally helping in an act. This includes urging others or aiding through actions. Abetment also covers acts done with the same intention.

Abetment by conspiracy requires proof of three constituent elements: (i) The abettor has engaged with one or more persons in a conspiracy; (ii) The conspiracy was for doing of the thing abetted and (iii) an act or illegal omission has taken place in pursuance of the conspiracy, and in order to 'the doing of the thing'.

3. Offences against the State

Criminal conspiracy can be implicated in cases where individuals agree to wage war or support acts aimed at destabilizing the government. This agreement, involving two or more persons, constitutes a criminal conspiracy under Section 61 of the BNS.This provision expands the scope of criminal conspiracy by penalizing individuals who plan or conspire to intimidate the government through criminal force or threats, even if no overt act of violence occurs.

2.4 Types of Criminal Conspiracy

There are a wide variety of Criminal Conspiracy

1. Conspiracy to Defraud: Conspiring with another to dishonestly defraud a person or organisation out of something.

Conspiracy to Defraud involves two or more individuals who come together with the intent to dishonestly defraud another person or organization. This typically means depriving the victim of something they are legally entitled to, usually money or property, by using deception, false pretenses, or fraudulent means.

1. Conspiracy to Commit Robbery: This can mean the planning of a robbery or helping the robbers in some way, such as taking them to the scene of the robbery or providing weapons.

This can involve preparing or facilitating the robbery, or providing support to those committing the crime, even if the robbery itself is not actually carried out.

1. Conspiracy to Murder: The planning of the unlawful killing of another person and/or helping the murderer by, for example, providing a weapon or transport.

Conspiracy to murder is a serious criminal offense that involves an agreement to take the life of another person. It does not matter whether the murder is actually carried out—the intent and the agreement to commit the crime are sufficient for prosecution. Legal systems treat this crime very seriously, and the penalties for conspiracy to murder can be as severe as those for the actual commission of murder, including life imprisonment or, in some cases, the death penalty.

The concept of criminal conspiracy is broadly similar across various legal systems; however, there are key differences in how it is defined, prosecuted, and punished.

3. International Experiences

The international experience of criminal conspiracy has been shaped by how different countries approach and address conspiracies. International frameworks like the United Nations and Interpol play a crucial role in defining and tackling criminal conspiracy, particularly in the context of organized crime and terrorism.

3.1. United Nations

The UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime (2000), known as the Palermo Convention, recognizes conspiracy as a core element in organized crime. It obliges states to criminalize conspiracy related to human trafficking, drug trafficking, money laundering, and other cross-border criminal activities. The UN Convention Against Terrorism also mandates the criminalization of conspiracy to commit terrorist acts.

• Organised crime (conspiracies) often spans multiple states and even countries; the interstate and transnational dimensions have emerged as serious challenges to state authority. If it is left to the States to enact their own laws, some of them would do it according to their time frame and some others may not do so at all. Even if they enact such a law, its efficiency could remain questionable because of the nature of crime being transnational. To deal with this effectively, investigations have to be conducted with Interpol letters of request for deportation of criminals to India and have to be processed by the Ministry of External Affairs with foreign embassies.

3.2 Interpol

Interpol facilitates international cooperation among police forces, particularly regarding criminal conspiracies across borders. Conspiracies involving transnational organized crime, such as human trafficking, drug smuggling, and arms trafficking, are often investigated with a transnational approach, linking multiple jurisdictions. According to the V.S. Malimath Committee Report (2003), there must be international cooperation between different national and international agencies in order to tackle multidimensional and international conspiracies and organized crimes. The report emphasizes the importance of coordinated efforts between law enforcement agencies, intelligence organizations, and international bodies such as Interpol, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), and Europol in combating cross-border criminal conspiracies.

Following the events of September 11, 2001, investigations by American authorities uncovered a complex web of terrorist networks, revealing how Pakistan and its proxies had become central hubs for terrorist training. These investigations highlighted the intricate connections between various terrorist groups, many of which were facilitated by the availability of Pakistani territory. Key revelations emerged from probes into terrorist modules in Southeast Asia, which were directly or indirectly linked to Al-Qaeda, often involving Pakistani nationals or utilizing Pakistan as a base.

One of the most notorious figures in this global network was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a Pakistani radical jihadist and the alleged mastermind behind the September 11 attacks. His involvement underscored the critical role played by Pakistani territory and networks in facilitating terrorism. Despite the immense strides made by international counter-terrorism efforts, several key conspirators involved in the Al-Qaeda attacks remain at large.

The post-9/11 era also exposed a significant failure in the intelligence capabilities of North American and European agencies, which allowed terrorists to exploit various resources and facilities to plan and execute such devastating acts, notably using civilian airlines. The ongoing pursuit of these conspirators has become a prolonged and complex global endeavor, with the shadow of this "war on terror" continuing, irrespective of whether figures like Osama bin Laden are alive or dead. This situation underscores the international nature of terrorist conspiracies and the urgent need for global cooperation to dismantle such networks.

3.3 How Have Other Countries Sought to Define and Operationalise it

3.3.1 England and Wales

When talking about jurisdictions other than that of the Indian nation state, the common law jurisdiction is one of the most influential ones that has significantly impacted modern legal systems. Since common law jurisdictions broadly lack statutory definitions an interpretation of the law through judgement delivered by the court is warranted. The 76th law commission report for England and Wales provides a comprehensive report on the crime of conspiracy and criminal law reform. The primary recommendation of the report was that the crime of conspiracy should be fairly limited to the agreements to commit illegal acts or offenses punishable by law. The proposals made by the report were in agreement with the recommendation of the working party's working paper number 50. The law of the land in england and wales is as follows as per the law commission report of 1976:

1. The basis of the entire offense of conspiracy lies in the said agreement between the parties to the crime, thus the forming or making of the agreement as well as the ultimate objective of the agreement in question should be substantially evaluated.
2. In the case of R. v Walker the law of the land with respect to the agreement to a crime was settled beyond doubt. The law dictated that the conspiracy must essentially include a full agreement between all the parties to the actual crime in contention. Thus the ambiguities with regards to the agreement being a mere negotiation between parties or even having a common purpose but no agreement won't suffice. Thus, through this landmark case, the essentials for the crime of conspiracy were settled and the court intervened to clarify that nothing short of a full agreement between the conspirators won't suffice as ingredients to the crime.
3. Further in the case of R. v O. Brian in 1974, the court further intervend to clarify that the consent to the agreement for a crime does not get affected by the time and place at which the said consent to the agreement is given. In this landmark judgement the court of appeals clarified the principles which deal with wheel and chain conspiracy. What the court essentially meant by the same was that a single charge of conspiracy should not encompass multiple conspiracy charges. The aim is to ensure that the charge remains focused on a single conspiracy rather than incorrectly mixing different conspiratorial activities. This clarification by the court helped the prosecution to establish one single charge of a specific criminal conspiracy thereby avoiding multiple improper conspiracy charges being framed.      
4. In England and Wales, the law has evolved to mean that the offense of conspiracy shall lie in the agreement to commit an illegal act itself. Since the core of the crime of conspiracy lies in the agreement, consent and the terms of the agreement are essential to the object of the crime. Thus, each conspirator must agree to the object of the crime. And thereby, negotiation is insufficient.
5. The criminal law act of 1977 finally abolished all the common law variants of the said crime and thereby discontinued all the variants of the definitions that existed. All the different types and varieties of the crime were discontinued except for two- criminal conspiracy to defraud and conspiracy to corrupt public morals or outrage public decency.
6. As defined in the landmark judgement of Scott v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis , section 5(2) of the criminal law act of 1977 retained the conspiracy to defraud as a punishable crime under law. The element of conspiracy as defined in the act which gives object to the concerned offense in section 5(2) of the act, is:

“... an agreement by two or more [persons] by dishonesty to deprive a person of something which is his or to which he is or would be or might be entitled [or] an agreement by two or more by dishonesty to injure some proprietary right of his suffices to constitute the offence.”

This definition in the section 1(1) of the said act is:

if a person agrees with any other person or persons that a course of conduct shall be pursued which, if the agreement is carried out in accordance with their intentions, either – (a) will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of any offence or offences by one or more of the parties to the agreement, or (b) would do so but for the existence of facts which render the commission of the offence or any of the offences impossible, [added by S.5 Criminal Attempts Act 1981] Then he is guilty of conspiracy to commit the offence or offences in question.

3.4.2 Ireland

The definition for the offense of conspiracy as per the The Criminal Attempts and Conspiracy (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 in the jurisdiction of northern Ireland is:

Section 9 of The Criminal Attempts and Conspiracy (Northern Ireland) Order 1983.

(1) Subject to the following provisions of this Part, if a person agrees with any other person or persons that a course of conduct shall be pursued which, if the agreement is carried out in accordance with their intentions, either— will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of any offence or offences by one or more of the parties to the agreement, or would do so but for the existence of facts which render the commission of the offence or any of the offences impossible, he is guilty of conspiracy to commit the offence or offences in question.

(2) Where liability for any offence may be incurred without knowledge on the part of the person committing it of any particular fact or circumstances necessary for the commission of the offence, a person shall nevertheless not be guilty of conspiracy to commit that offence by virtue of paragraph (1) unless he and at least one other party to the agreement intend or know that the fact or circumstance shall or will exist at the time when the conduct constituting the offence is to take place. Article 13(1) of the Criminal Attempts and Conspiracy (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 (S.I. 1983/1120 (N.I. 13)) does not affect the common law offence of conspiracy so far as it relates to conspiracy to defraud.

3.4.3. United States

Most U.S. jurisdictions also require an overt act toward furthering the agreement.  An overt act is a statutory requirement, not a constitutional one. The illegal act is the conspiracy's "target offense.”

Conspiracy generally carries a penalty on its own which essentially means that even if the illegal act in question is not committed, the presence of the mental element to commit the offense and conspiracy in the same regard is enough to incriminate someone for the offense of conspiracy.​​Where no one has actually committed a criminal act, the punishment varies.  Some conspiracy statutes assign the same punishment for conspiracy as for the target offense.  Others impose lesser penalties.

Conspiracy applies to both civil and criminal offenses. For example, you may conspire to commit murder, or conspire to commit fraud.

In most U.S. jurisdictions, for a person to be convicted of conspiracy, not only must he or she agree to commit a crime, but at least one of the conspirators must commit an overt act (the actus reus) in furtherance of the crime. This means that a positive act has to be done in furtherance of the act, thus mere mediation and meeting of minds is not sufficient to actually incriminate someone for the offense of conspiracy.

The distinctions between different kinds of conspiracy in question is probably one of the highest in the criminal and civil jurisdiction of the united states:

Conspiracy against the United States refers to a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 371, wherein two or more individuals conspire to commit an offense against the United States or to defraud the government in any way. The statute aims to punish acts that undermine the integrity of government functions and operations. Conspiracy itself is a broad crime and does not require the actual commission of the underlying offense but focuses on the agreement and overt acts taken toward achieving unlawful goals. The punishment for a conspiracy conviction can include fines and imprisonment, often depending on the severity of the underlying crime and the roles of the participants in the conspiracy.

Additionally, the United States has specific statutes dealing with conspiracies aimed at depriving individuals of rights secured by the U.S. Constitution. This is commonly referred to as conspiracy against rights. The law provides federal criminal penalties for anyone conspiring to interfere with another’s constitutional rights, such as voting rights or freedom of speech, thus extending protection against conspiratorial actions that target fundamental liberties.

A significant aspect of conspiracy cases in the U.S. is the concept of unindicted co-conspirators. The U.S. Attorneys' Manual generally discourages naming co-conspirators who have not been formally indicted but does not prohibit it outright. The use of unindicted co-conspirators has been a source of legal debate, with concerns over due-process violations if such individuals are publicly named without being charged. The Fifth Circuit in United States v. Briggs(1975) clarified some aspects of this issue, confirming that the practice could be permissible under specific circumstances.

The term "unindicted co-conspirator" gained national attention in the 1974 Watergate Scandal, where President Richard Nixon was referred to as such in connection with his involvement, though he was not indicted due to constitutional concerns regarding sitting presidents. The term resurfaced during the investigation into President Donald Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, where Trump was named as "Unindicted co-conspirator number 1" in relation to campaign finance violations.

3.5 Criminal Conspiracy in International Law versus in Indian Jurisdiction

Criminal conspiracy is a serious offense in both international law and Indian law, though there are key differences in how these two legal systems approach the crime. Both frameworks recognize conspiracy as an unlawful agreement between two or more individuals to commit a criminal act, but their scope, definitions, and application differ significantly.

Criminal conspiracy is frequently linked in international law to serious crimes, especially those pertaining to global peace and security. Most prominently, conspiracy is discussed in relation to crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide. Conspiracy in connection with the commission of such offenses is defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Individuals who conspire with others to commit an international crime, even if the crime is not carried out completely, may be prosecuted for conspiracy under Article 25 of the Rome Statute. This principle was notably applied in the Nuremberg Trials after World War II, where conspirators involved in the Holocaust were prosecuted for conspiracy to commit crimes against humanity, despite not all acts being carried out by the conspirators themselves.

International law, however, typically limits its focus on conspiracy to certain serious crimes that have an international impact, such as terrorism, drug trafficking, and environmental crimes. Conspiracy laws under international law are designed to deter activities that threaten global peace and security, with an emphasis on collective responsibility and the need for international cooperation in criminal justice. Additionally, international law permits the prosecution of individuals for conspiracy even if they are not directly involved in the commission of the crime itself, as long as they played a role in planning or facilitating the crime.

On the other hand, Indian law provides a more comprehensive approach to criminal conspiracy under Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The section defines conspiracy as an agreement between two or more persons to commit a criminal act or to do something illegal. Indian law does not require the actual commission of the underlying crime for a conspiracy charge to be made. It is sufficient to prove that there was a plan and that overt acts were committed towards its realization. This is a broader interpretation compared to international law, where conspiracy is often confined to specific categories of crime. Indian law emphasizes the prevention of criminal activities through early intervention in conspiratorial planning, which is significant in the prosecution of organized crime, terrorism, and corruption cases.

Unlike international law, which often requires proof of intent to commit specific international crimes, Indian law does not necessitate the offense to be of international scope. The conspiracy offense under Indian law applies to both domestic and international criminal activities, such as terrorism, murder, and fraud. Furthermore, in India, conspiracy can be charged even if the crime that was planned does not ultimately occur. The mere existence of an agreement to commit a crime is sufficient for a conspiracy charge.

One notable difference between the two legal frameworks is the procedural aspect. In international law, conspirators are typically tried in international tribunals such as the ICC or ad hoc tribunals, which have jurisdiction over crimes that impact multiple states. In contrast, Indian law prosecutes conspiracy cases within the national framework through domestic courts. The Indian judiciary has a more centralized system for dealing with conspiracies, while international law requires coordination between multiple states, international courts, and tribunals.

4. Appearance of Term in Databases

The most reliable report which delineated the statistics and trends of crime in India is released by the home ministry, namely the national crime records bureau. The latest edition of the report as released in 2022 contains no records of the crime of criminal conspiracy. The 3 volume report, published on the website of the home ministry, constraints no insights into the crime of criminal conspiracy thus leaving a lacuna in the official government records pertaining to this crime.

5. Research on the Topic

The most important academic work around the concept of conspiracy revolves around the jurisprudential aspects of the crime as delineated by Wharton. Wharton’s rules serve as exceptions to the general rules of conspiracy. The Rule states that when a crime inherently requires the participation of two or more persons (like bigamy, adultery, bribery), an agreement to commit the crime cannot be separately charged as a conspiracy. Wharton’s Rule prevents the duplication of charges for the same crime which is very important. Another essential aspect of the same is the focus is on preventing over-penalization by stopping charges of both conspiracy and the substantive crime when they are inseparable. This principle by Whatron becomes essential when the courts have to prevent over-penalization of an accused in serious matters like adultery, bigamy, and bribery. Wharton argues that in such serious offenses rule applies in such cases, ensuring that only the substantive crime is charged, not the conspiracy to commit it.

5.1. Forty-Second Report: The Indian Penal Code

• It suggested two reforms:
  • The wide ambit of criminal conspiracy currently includes an agreement to commit an offence, an illegal but not criminal act, and a legal act by illegal means. The law commission opined that the distinction made between an agreement to commit an illegal but not criminal act and an agreement to commit a legal act by illegal means is not relevant.It proposed that whether the offense is the ultimate goal, an incidental outcome of the agreement, or involves any act or illegal omission, it should be considered immaterial
    • To make the definition precise, the Law Commission suggested that the definition should be refined to confine it to : (i) agreement to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or (simple and rigorous) imprisonment for a term of two or more years, and (ii) agreement to cause such an offence to be committed.
  • Criminal conspiracy, under section 120B should be made punishable: (i) with the punishment provided for the conspired offence, if it is committed in pursuance of the agreement, and (ii) with imprisonment for a term up to one-half of the longest term provided for the conspired offence, or with fine prescribed therefor, if no offence is committed in pursuance of the agreement

5.2. One hundred Fifty-Sixth Report: The Indian Penal Code

• The Fourteenth Law Commission of India expressed its disagreement with the proposals of the Fifth Law Commission. They suggested that the act should be preserved in its current form as it is working satisfactorily as residuary provisions.

• They emphasized the unique nature of the offence of criminal conspiracy. A petty offence may escalate into a more serious one, making it difficult to distinguish between the conspiracy and the resulting offence. Consequently, they denied adopting the definition of criminal conspiracy as proposed before.
• It declined the change in punishment of criminal conspiracy as it would render the language of Section 120B unclear and ambiguous.

6. Challenges

1. In criminal conspiracy cases when most co-accused are acquitted and only one accused remains, then if there is no charge asserting that the offense was committed by the named accused along with unidentified individuals, the acquittal of all other accused effectively undermines the prosecution's case. One person can never be held liable for criminal conspiracy as they cannot conspire with themselves.
   1. However in Mohd Arif v. State of National Capital Territory of Delhi, the Supreme Court, when addressing the propriety of convicting a sole accused for criminal conspiracy, referred to the precedent set in Rinbadfur Mathu v. State of Orissa. It was emphasized that more than one person need not necessarily be convicted for the offense of criminal conspiracy. Even a sole accused can be convicted of criminal conspiracy if there is evidence that others, besides the accused, were involved in the conspiracy. The conviction of the sole accused is justified if the prosecution can prove that they were involved in the conspiracy with others, and the court is convinced that other individuals were indeed involved in the conspiracy.
2. The routine use of conspiracy charges has led to concerns of excess. Prosecutors may overcharge, leading to unsustainable cases and easy defences. Courts have recognized the possibility of multiple conspiracies, meaning that not all related acts should be considered part of a single conspiracy, which could require separate trials.
3. Applying criminal conspiracy can be difficult when differentiating between aiding a crime and intentionally conspiring to commit it.Knowledge of illegal activities is not sufficient to convict someone of conspiracy unless there is evidence of intent to join and further the conspiracy. Direct Sales Co. v. United States highlights the distinction between lawful activities that aid criminal ventures and active participation in a conspiracy.
   1. For an agreement to qualify as conspiracy, the conspirators must have a shared intention to commit a crime.Modern trends lean towards a "unilateral approach," focusing on the defendant’s intent rather than requiring mutual intent among co-conspirators. Conspiratorial intent can be difficult to establish, as it is often inferred from circumstantial evidence or specific actions, such as supplying goods for criminal purposes.

7. Suggestions

7.1. Malimath Committee Report

The Malimath Committee suggests that information sharing and joint task forces should be established to enhance the effectiveness of the legal and investigative processes. In particular, the report advocates for improved extradition treaties and mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs), which would allow countries to collaborate in the prosecution of conspirators operating in multiple jurisdictions. It also highlights the need for harmonization of national legal frameworks concerning organized crime, ensuring that criminal conspiracy laws are sufficiently broad and consistent across borders.

Furthermore, the V.S. Malimath report emphasizes the establishment of specialized anti-organized crime units within national police forces to better handle the complexity of international conspiracies. It calls for the training of law enforcement personnel in understanding the cross-border nature of criminal conspiracies, which often involve complex networks operating across multiple countries, with differing laws and enforcement practices.

The growing influence of technology in international crime must be realized, particularly in cybercrimes, and underscores the importance of international treaties addressing cybercrime conspiracies, a fast-evolving area in criminal law. This coordinated approach is crucial to dismantling organized criminal groups that span across continents, ensuring that no jurisdiction becomes a safe haven for those involved in criminal conspiracies.

8. Related Terms

8.1. Inchoate offences

• Inchoate offences are criminal offences designed to punish the acts which are prior to the committing of another crime. The law distinguishes between an incomplete offence and specific crimes that are part way between an intention and an actual crime. Common inchoate offences include attempting, encouraging, assisting, aiding, abetting, counselling, and procuring.
• Inchoate liability refers to holding someone responsible for actions taken before the full commission of a crime, based on the parent offense. This means that inchoate liability is tied to another crime.
• The Criminal Attempts Act 1981, Section 1, refines the scope of inchoate offenses by establishing a new test for attempts. Under this section, if a person intends to commit a crime and performs an act that is more than just preparatory to its commission, they are guilty of attempting to commit that crime. Although this section prevents the creation of a new offense for attempting to aid and abet, it does not absolve someone from criminal responsibility for aiding and abetting an attempt to commit a crime.

8.2. Organised Crimes

• Section 111 and section 112 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita deals with organised crime and petty organised crime. Organised crime means any continuing unlawful activity by an individual, single person or jointly, either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate. It can be done by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion by unlawful means to gain an advantage.