HAC Appeals Chamber upholds 4.5-year prison sentence for lawyer Panasenko

Court leaves decision regarding convicted lawyer unchanged

The Appeals Chamber of the Higher Anti-Corruption Court rejected the appeal and upheld the verdict handed down to lawyer Oleksiy Panasenko. The decision finding him guilty under Part 4 of Article 27 and Part 3 of Article 369 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine has entered into force. The charges related to instigating the promise of an improper benefit to an official holding a responsible position.

The judge sentenced him to 4.5 years of imprisonment. In addition, Panasenko is banned from practising law for three years.

Details of the criminal proceedings

According to the established facts, the lawyer induced a citizen, against whom criminal proceedings were ongoing, to promise a prosecutor from the Office of the Prosecutor General a sum of 5,000 US dollars. According to the prosecution, this money was intended as a reward for the prosecutor's actions in the case, specifically for his application to the court to release the woman from criminal liability.

Court materials indicate that Panasenko insisted on concluding a contract with his client under which the transfer of funds was to be formalised as payment for his legal services. The investigation was initiated by the NABU and the SAP, which opened proceedings based on a statement from the aforementioned citizen.

Procedural aspects and the significance of the precedent

During the hearing, the court ruled to place Panasenko under custody. The chosen sentence was close to the lower limit of the statutory penalty, yet it entails actual imprisonment and a ban on legal practice. The time spent in custody since 19 January will be credited towards the total term of the sentence.

This case is of significant importance to the legal community, as the court qualified the contract for the provision of legal assistance as an instrument for concealing the actual transfer of an improper benefit. The legal position is that the distinction between a legitimate fee and a cover for a bribe is determined not by the form of the documents, but by the presence of evidence of an agreement to transfer funds to a specific official. In similar situations, the key to a defence is confirming the scope and reality of the legal services performed or envisaged by the contract.