On June 11, 2026, the HACC found lawyer Yurii Donets guilty of trading in influence under Article 369-2(2) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

He was sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment and a 3-year ban on practising as a lawyer. The court simultaneously discharged Donets from serving the sentence due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.

Background: In April 2021, the NABU detained lawyers Yurii Donets and Yurii Zontov and served them with suspicion notices for inciting the provision of a $100,000 bribe to a DACK judge in exchange for a favorable ruling in a case involving Axe Capital Insurance Company LLC, which had been assessed a UAH 54 million fine. According to the investigation, Donets proposed to the company's liquidator Serhii Kovalenko that he could “sort things out” through his connections — he was acquainted with Yurii Zontov, the brother of former DACK Chairman Pavlo Vovk.

Through meetings and messenger exchanges, the parties agreed on a bribe of $100,000, transferred in installments. The lawyers were detained after the final tranche. Their actions were classified as fraud on a particularly large scale and incitement to bribery — the money was found at Donets's apartment and at an apartment Zontov used as an office.

The case was initially tried against both lawyers. In September 2025, however, following Zontov's enlistment in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, his case was separated into distinct proceedings and his trial suspended.

During closing arguments, the prosecution maintained that Donets's guilt was fully proven.

In the prosecutor's view, the evidentiary basis is comprehensive: covert investigative action recordings captured discussions of the amounts and progress reports on “sorting things out” through Donets's associate Zontov. On this basis, the prosecutor had asked the court to convict Donets under Articles 190(4) and 369(3) of the Criminal Code and sentence him to 7 years' imprisonment with asset confiscation.

The defense denied guilt, arguing the case was the result of a premeditated NABU provocation, and asked for a full acquittal, citing the inadmissibility of evidence due to allegedly unlawful searches and procedural violations.

In his final statement, Donets expressed deep remorse: “I am aware of my guilt and sincerely regret what happened. The worst part is that my actions have harmed my family.”

He explained his conduct as a desire to help an acquaintance to whom he felt a moral obligation, acknowledged that he had abused his influence, but denied any intent to commit fraud or incite the provision of an unlawful benefit. He asked the court to deliver a just decision that would take into account his sincere remorse and give him a chance to move forward with his life.