In conspiracy, an overt act may be preparatory and need not be criminal.

• A. Overt act must be criminal
• B. Overt act need not be criminal
• C. Overt act must be after the agreement
• D. Overt act must be completed before any liability

Answer: (B)

In conspiracy liability, the important idea is that there must be an agreement to commit a crime and evidence that the conspirators have moved from planning to action. An overt act is the step that shows the plan is being carried forward. That act does not have to be illegal by itself; it can be something lawful or merely preparatory that demonstrates progress toward carrying out the conspiracy. The act’s purpose is to prove that the conspiracy is real and underway, not to prove that the act itself was a crime.

So the correct view is that an overt act may be preparatory and need not be criminal, because what matters is the progression from agreement to action, not the illegality of every step taken. The other possibilities overstate requirements by insisting the overt act must be criminal or by imposing additional timing or completion constraints that aren’t universally required.