Article deals with some problematic aspects of complicity forms, types of accessories and their criminal liability. It is maintained that there is a contemporary disbalance between the provisions of General and Special parts of the Ukrainian Criminal Code regarding understanding some of the complicity institute aspects. Author shows that acting UCC is wrongly oriented at regulation of mainly simple complicity types. It is proved that UCC 2001 disregards the specifics of the accessory role and the peculiarities of their liability and punishment in case he commits the actus reus only partially. Because of that law application practice has no distinct differentiation criteria between co-execution and abetting. It is mentioned that article 27 of the UCC having title «Types of accessories» includes contents beyond the institute of complicity (i. e. indirect infliction and privacy).