$6 thousand for “resolving the issue”: a lawyer was exposed in Khmelnytskyi region for trading in influence

In Khmelnytskyi region, law enforcement officers exposed a lawyer from Kamianets-Podilskyi, who, according to the investigation, demanded 6 thousand US dollars from his client for allegedly “resolving the issue” with the prosecutor and the court.

This is a classic scheme of the so-called “trading in influence”, which, despite its prevalence in the criminal environment, has a clear legal qualification and entails serious liability.

Free defense attorney — with “paid” conditions

According to the regional prosecutor’s office, in October 2025, the lawyer was appointed as a public defender in a case of illegal smuggling of persons across the state border.

However, instead of properly fulfilling his professional duties, he made a financial demand to the client. For $6,000, the lawyer promised to:

– influence the prosecutor to conclude a plea bargain;

Exposure after the transfer of part of the funds

The client, finding himself in a dependent position, formally agreed to the conditions, but turned to law enforcement agencies.

Later, the lawyer received part of the agreed amount — $2,000. It was after this that he was exposed.

Qualification — extortion and trading in influence

The lawyer was notified of suspicion under Part 3 of Article 369-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine — receiving an unlawful benefit for influencing a decision-making process by a person authorized to perform state functions, combined with extortion.

The sanction of this article provides for severe punishment, including imprisonment.

Precautionary measure – detention

The court has already chosen a preventive measure for the suspect – detention with the alternative of posting bail.

A blow to the trust in the profession

This case once again raises the issue of professional ethics of lawyers, especially those who provide defense on behalf of the state. Taking advantage of a client’s vulnerable position to gain undue advantage not only violates the law, but also undermines trust in the entire legal aid system.

The right to defense cannot be an instrument of pressure or enrichment – and such cases should receive a strict legal assessment.