Survey of the doctrine of the multiplicity of criminal offenses in the scientific works of Professor M. I. Bazhanov

The article is dedicated to the memory of the well-known scientist Professor M. I. Bazhanov, who made a significant contribution to the formation and development of the modern domestic science of criminal law. 
It was noted that at the Department of Criminal Law of the Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University, the institute of multiplicity of criminal offenses it was the doctor of legal sciences, professor, academician of the Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine Mark Ihorovych Bazhanov who initiated the offenses. In his works such as "Prescribing punishment according to the totality of crimes and totality of sentences (1977), "Prescribing punishment according to Soviet criminal law" (1980), "Criminal law of Ukraine. General part" (1992), "Repetition of crimes as a type of multiplicity of crimes" (1993), "Multiplicity of crimes under the criminal law of Ukraine" (2000), several editions of the textbook "Criminal law of Ukraine: General part" (2001 , 2003) considered a wide range of issues related to the characteristics of the institution of the multiplicity of criminal offenses, their concepts, signs and types, problems of punishment, other legal consequences. 
Much attention was paid to Professor M.I. Bazhanov devoted himself to the study of single criminal offenses as structural elements of the multiplicity of criminal offenses. In particular, under his scientific guidance, two dissertations of candidates of legal sciences were prepared and successfully defended, devoted to the specified torts: in 1990 - I. О. Zinchenko: "Compound crimes in Soviet criminal law: concepts, types, some problems of qualification and construction of sanctions" and in 2002 by Ye. V. Shevchenko: "Crimes with derivative consequences". 
Thus, there is no doubt that M. I. Bazhanov's contribution to the study and development of the doctrine of the multiplicity of criminal offenses is extremely important, and his scientific concepts and expressed ideas are still relevant for the doctrine of criminal law today.