The growing role of organized criminal groups – characterized by high adaptability and the ability to exert both violent and corrupt influence on key areas of state functioning, including the penitentiary system, law enforcement agencies, and even military formations – necessitates the improvement of criminal law mechanisms for counteraction. This problem becomes particularly acute under martial law, amid the rise of hybrid threats and the increasing risk of vulnerable social groups (in particular, minors and veterans) being drawn into criminal activity. At the same time, the current criminal legislation of Ukraine – especially the provisions of Articles 255-1, 255-2, and 255-3 of the Criminal Code – remains inconsistent and fragmented in its treatment of qualifying circumstances, which complicates law enforcement and reduces the effectiveness of countering criminal influence. The purpose of this article is to conduct a comprehensive study of the system of qualifying (especially aggravating) circumstances of crimes related to criminal influence, taking into account contemporary challenges, judicial practice, and foreign experience, and to develop well-grounded proposals for improving the current criminal legislation of Ukraine. The research applies the comparative legal method (to analyze the legislation of Armenia, Georgia, and the draft Criminal Code of Ukraine), the systemic-structural approach (to classify and assess existing qualifying circumstances), and the legal forecasting method (to justify proposals for legislative amendments). This methodological framework has made it possible to identify systemic flaws in the current regulation and to propose ways to address them. The study reveals the absence of a coherent approach to defining qualifying circumstances in Articles 255-1 to 255-3 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. A number of socially dangerous factors are only partially considered or omitted entirely. These include: the commission of a crime in places of deprivation of liberty; its commission by a military serviceman or with the involvement of a serviceman or veteran; and the use of official position. The article analyzes Armenia’s approach to systematically codifying such elements and substantiates the need to differentiate criminal liability depending on the status of the subject of criminal influence being addressed. As a result, it is proposed to amend Articles 255-1, 255-2, and 255-3 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine by introducing new qualifying circumstances; to extend the especially aggravating circumstance of participation by a high-status subject of criminal influence to all related offences; and to provide for differentiated liability under Article 255-3 depending on the status of the person to whom criminal influence is sought.