In summary, although conspiracy is a complex crime, the common denominator is that criminal conspiracies require agreements, intent to accept, intent to achieve an illegal purpose and, as a general rule, require at least one unwavering act to promote conspiracy. Under common law, the crime of conspiracy was capable of achieving infinite growth, capable of dealing with any new situation and criminalizing it when the magnitude of the threat was sufficient for society. The courts therefore acted in the role of the legislator to create new crimes and, according to the report of the Legal Commission 76 on conspiracy reform and criminal law, the 1977 penal code gave rise to a legal offence and abolished all but two kinds of conspiracy to conspiracies: conspiracy to defraud and conspiracy to corrupt public morals or public outrage. The right to conspiracy was used in the Nuremberg trials for members of the Nazi leadership accused of participating in a “conspiracy or common plan” to commit international crimes. It was controversial because conspiracy was not part of the European civil law tradition. Nevertheless, the crime of conspiracy continued in the international criminal justice system and was included in the international penal code against genocide. he is guilty of conspiracy to commit the offence or offences in question. The problem with this tendency to view conspiracy as an ongoing criminal enterprise is that it obscures the idea of an act of agreement. Many people may be involved in reels of a single conspiracy whose nature and adherence they did not know. The result may be that individuals are convicted in cases where the traditional need for personal guilt does not exist. The model criminal code attempted to reformulate the definition of conspiracy in order to avoid this consequence. For each defendant, he asks whether and with whom he agreed to commit the parts of the illegal system as a whole, thus confirming the central importance of the agreement in a conspiracy charge (MPC, 1960, commentary on Article 5.03). A number of public criminal codes have now adopted this approach.
The agreement is the most important element of a conspiracy. In some legal systems that must be charged with conspiracy, it is only necessary to enter into an agreement to commit a crime.  First, in support of such an argument, it is argued that conspiracies pose a particular threat to society because of the increased power in the number and pooling of talent. It is also said that the formation of a group hinders detection, because the evidence of the conspiracy is limited to the conspirators themselves, whose dislike to testify in court increases with the size of the group. Finally, it is speculated that it is precisely the act of convergence that crystallizes and hardens the intentions of people who alone could be less determined. On the other hand, we can find a single conspiracy, where the success of each person depends on the durability of the hub, which in turn depends on the success of all the rays. In this situation, it can be said that each intervention contributes to the distinct objectives of all other spokespersons. In the case of Anderson v. Superior Court, 78 Cal. App.
2d 22, 177 P.2d 315 (1947), a woman who referred pregnant women to a doctor for abortion was charged with conspiracy to abort with him and others who expelled pregnant women. She was also charged with illegal abortions performed on the women she mentioned, as well as for abortions performed on women designated by others who made such transfers. The court found that the evidence led to a conspiracy between all the referrals and the doctor, because the accused knew that the other cases had been purchased from him, and because his activity continued and therefore the commission of the woman depended on the continuation of all these sources of dismissal.