The HACC convicted a lawyer of incitement to promising an improper benefit to a public official holding a position of responsibility. The bribe was intended to secure a favorable decision in a criminal proceeding on behalf of a client.
The defendant is Oleksii Panasenko, a lawyer at the Prykhodko and Partners law firm.
The prosecution's case rested on the finding that the lawyer, acting with direct intent, incited his client to offer a $5,000 improper benefit to a prosecutor of the Prosecutor General's Office. The defendant devised a criminal scheme to fabricate evidence that would create artificial grounds for dismissing his client from criminal liability. The bribe was to be disguised as payment for legal services under a sham contract.
The bribe was offered in exchange for the prosecutor taking the following steps in the client's interest: severing the materials concerning her into a separate proceeding and filing a motion with the court to release her from criminal liability under Article 255(6) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The purported grounds for the release were to be pre-fabricated documents falsely documenting the “exposure” of a criminal organization.
The charges were brought under Article 27(4) and Article 369(3) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Given the gravity of the offense and the discredit brought to the legal profession, the prosecution sought six years' imprisonment and a three-year ban on practicing law.
The defense rejected all charges. Defense counsel argued that the prosecution was misreading Article 369(3): in their view, liability under that provision arises only upon actual delivery of the benefit, not at the stage of a promise. The defense maintained that the $5,000 was not a bribe for the prosecutor but a lawful legal fee for assisting with a plea agreement procedure. The defense also denied any incitement, arguing that the client had acted as a law enforcement agent without genuine criminal intent.
After examining the case materials, the HACC panel found the lawyer guilty of inciting his client to promise an improper benefit to an PGO prosecutor. The court found that the defendant had resorted to psychological manipulation, artificially created a sense of urgency, and made a show of his connections in the prosecutor's office. He also instructed his client on how to backdate fabricated evidence and deliberately concealed the bribe behind an official legal fee through a sham legal services agreement.
On January 19, 2026, the HACC sentenced the lawyer to four years and six months' imprisonment and a three-year ban on practicing law.
The verdict has not yet entered into force.
