Fraud or influence peddling — the answer to this question often determines whether a person receives a suspended sentence or actual imprisonment. The situation is typical. Someone takes money and promises to «fix the issue» with a judge, investigator, or tax authority. After the funds are handed over, they are detained.
The facts are the same, yet there are two articles. Article 190 of the Criminal Code is a crime against property. On the other hand, Article 369-2 of the Criminal Code is a corruption offense. Below, I explain how the Supreme Court distinguishes between these elements, where its practice is ambiguous, and what the defense should do in such a case.
Why qualifications matter more than it seems
Probationary period. For fraud, the court may release the offender from serving the sentence on probation (Art. 75 of the Criminal Code). For abuse of influence, it cannot, unless the parties have concluded a plea agreement. Likewise, sentences below the minimum (Art. 69 of the Criminal Code) and release from liability under Articles 45–48 of the Criminal Code are not available.
Register of corrupt individuals. A sentence under Article 369-2 of the Criminal Code enters the NACP public register and remains there until the criminal record is expunged. For an entrepreneur, this is a reputational blow that goes far beyond the case itself. In addition, if the money was paid in the interests of the company, criminal law measures may also be applied to it (Article 96-3 of the Criminal Code).
Investigation tools. Most covert investigative actions are permitted only in cases involving grave crimes (Part 2, Article 246 of the Criminal Procedure Code). Therefore, at the outset, the investigation often registers «extortion» under Part 3 of Article 369-2 of the Criminal Code. It is this exact article that paves the way for control over the commission of a crime and audio and video surveillance.
The stakes can be clearly seen in the example of the case № 588/1279/21. The district court reclassified the actions of the head of the tax inspection under Part 1 of Article 190 of the Criminal Code and released him on probation. However, on June 18, 2026, the Supreme Court canceled these decisions upon the prosecutor's appeal. Now the official faces up to eight years of imprisonment with confiscation again.
What is the real difference between the articles
Outwardly, both crimes are similar: money in exchange for a promise. Therefore, the decisive factor is the person's intent at the moment they receive the funds.
Fraud involves deception. The person has no intention from the outset of influencing anyone, but rather wants to keep the money for themselves. The crime is completed as soon as they receive it.
Influence peddling completed from the moment of the promise or receipt of the benefit. Whether there was actual influence does not matter. The Joint Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court in the case № 554/5090/16-к went even further. The subject of this crime can be anyone whom the payer considers capable of influencing an official. Friendly or family ties also fall under this concept.
Hence the asymmetry of proof. For Article 369-2 of the Criminal Code, it is enough for the prosecutor to show that the applicant believed in the influence. For fraud, it is necessary to prove the opposite: the accused had no intention of exercising influence. That is why the investigation readily chooses the corruption article—it is easier to prove.
At the same time, the classical approach has not disappeared anywhere. Back in 2002, the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Ukraine pointed out that if a person takes money «for transfer» to an official, but actually wants to misappropriate it, this is fraud.
What the Supreme Court says and where it is inconsistent
Fraud must be proven. Key recent ruling — dated October 21, 2025, in the case No. 165/1148/21. The lawyer took 400 US dollars for influencing a judge to lift the seizure of a car. The courts convicted him under both articles at once. The Supreme Court overturned this decision and explained: these qualifications are mutually exclusive, and the intent to deceive must be proven by the prosecution.
The Supreme Court drew attention to two more circumstances. First, the judge was supposed to consider the motion on the same day, so the opportunity to influence existed. Second, on the recording, the lawyer promised to return the money if there was no decision. Both facts call the version of fraud into question.
However, this resolution should not be read more broadly than it is. Doubt regarding deception does not automatically make an act trading in influence. In addition, the argument about returning the money is double-edged. It destroys the fraud version, but at the same time reinforces the version of influence.
Status doesn't solve anything. In the case № 161/14431/20 An employee of the regional police department took 1,200 US dollars purportedly for an investigator. She knew that the matter was not within her competence and was not going to pass anything on. The courts qualified this only as fraud, and the Supreme Court agreed with them.
The boundaries of «influence» are blurred. In 2025, the Supreme Court demanded to establish precisely at whom and in what manner the influence was to be directed (No. 554/7470/16-k). Instead, in 2026, other panels emphasized that the official's surname in the indictment is not mandatory (No. 752/18192/15-kFormally there is no contradiction, but in practice the boundary is blurry. It is precisely in this space that the defense operates.
The trap of incitement. Even admitting to fraud does not always remove a client from the corruption field. If they convinced a person to give money «for a judge,» incitement to offer an unlawful benefit is added (Articles 27 and 369 of the Criminal Code). Thus, in the case № 686/4784/18 The lawyer received four years of imprisonment. There is only one safeguard here: to show that the behavior was merely informative, not instigative. For example, the person simply did not refuse to «help.».
When cheating is not a win
The defender's instinct is to drag the case into Article 190 of the Criminal Code. However, this is not always correct. The sanction of Article 369-2 of the Criminal Code does not depend on the amount: under Part 2, it is up to five years for any amount of benefit.
Instead, large-scale fraud is punishable by imprisonment for a term of three to eight years. In particularly large amounts—from five to twelve years with confiscation. In addition, it is considered completed at the moment the money is received, even if the person was detained a minute later.
Therefore, in cases involving large sums, the position must be carefully calculated. Sometimes it is more profitable to fight for the absence of the *corpus delicti* altogether or for Part 2 of Article 369-2 of the Criminal Code without extortion. This is exactly what happened in the case № 991/492/19After the exclusion, the sentence demand was reduced from five years to two and a half.
How the defense can prove its version
Intent is not visible on the video recording. It is reconstructed from objective facts, so the defense must look for them first.
Contacting the official. Did he even exist at all? Billing and correspondence show whether there were contacts between receiving the money and the detention. However, the official's mere testimony that no one approached him is not enough. In case No. 554/5090/16-k, the investigator also denied this, and the conviction under Article 369-2 of the Criminal Code was upheld.
Official's competence. Could he make the desired decision? Job descriptions and regulations often show that the issue is decided automatically or has already been decided.
Behavior after receiving funds. Calls, meetings, and prepared documents indicate the intent to influence. Money immediately spent on oneself indicates misappropriation.
Full records of covert investigative actions. Request primary media, not transcripts in the records. The investigator selects phrases in favor of the prosecution, whereas the full recording provides context.
Grounds for covert investigative (search) actions and provocation. Check whether there were grounds for the «grave» article at the time the covert operations were authorized. Also, find out who initiated the meetings, when the applicant approached law enforcement, and whether his interest was genuine.
Statute of limitations and a backup plan. The limitation period for Part 1 of Article 190 of the Criminal Code is only three years. It was precisely the limitation period that exempted the defendants from punishment in the two aforementioned cases. If the evidence base is too weak for the defense, a plea agreement with a probationary period has also been possible in a corruption case since 2024.
Separately, regarding businesses that paid «to resolve the issue» themselves, such a payer risks liability under Part 1 of Article 369-2 of the Criminal Code, even if the intermediary turned out to be a fraudster. Exemption is possible only on the condition of a voluntary report to law enforcement, so timing is crucial.
Conclusions
Fraud or abuse of influence is a matter of intent at the time of receiving money, rather than the person's status or the mere fact of the promise. The Supreme Court is consistent in its general formulas, but inconsistent in the details. Therefore, the outcome of a case often depends on how well the parties worked with the facts.
The prosecution must prove deception if it insists on fraud. At the same time, doubt does not automatically turn a case into a corruption case. The defense, meanwhile, should first calculate the consequences of both options—considering the amount, the statute of limitations, and the availability of probation. The best window for the defense is the first days of the investigation, when the investigation chooses a «heavy» article for the sake of covert operations.
