Article 301 of the Criminal Code — filming or distribution of pornographic materials: what is provided for by law

Online platforms have blurred the line between private and public: one careless step can put you at risk of a criminal case under Article 301 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. For the court, intent, audience reach, and digital traces (metadata, payments, logs) often become decisive. Below is how these factors are assessed in practice, what sanctions are actually imposed, and what to do in the first hours so you do not worsen your position.

Scope of Article 301 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine

What actions it covers (importation, production, storage, distribution)

Article 301 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine establishes liability for the importation into Ukraine, production, storage, transportation, or other movement with intent to sell or distribute, as well as the actual sale/distribution of works, images, or other items of a pornographic nature. The key element is the intent to sell or distribute for acts such as production, storage, or transportation; for direct sale/distribution, it is sufficient to prove the fact of transfer or making the materials available to other persons.

The law also singles out more dangerous forms, including acts involving films and video products, pornographic computer programs, and distribution among minors. Special attention is given to coercing a person to participate in the creation of pornographic materials—this conduct is also covered by the disposition of the article.

For proper qualification, it is important to distinguish pornography from erotica. In practice, expert opinions (art-history, psychological, linguistic, etc.) may be used to assess the degree of naturalism and whether sexual content predominates. The context and the method of circulation are also evaluated: public pages, paid subscriptions, “closed” channels, or private correspondence.

Object and subject of the offense

The protected interest is public order and morality in the sphere of circulation of sexual content. The предмет (subject matter) of the offense is pornographic works, images, or other items, including digital files, videos, and programs. The subject (offender) is a sane natural person who has reached 16 years of age. The subjective element is direct intent; for a number of forms, the additional purpose/intent to sell or distribute must be proven.

Parts and qualification

Part 1 (basic form)

Part 1 covers: importation, production, storage, or transportation of pornographic materials with intent to sell or distribute; their sale/distribution; and coercion to participate in the creation of such materials. A typical example is organizing and providing access to pornographic content via personal pages or channels where systematic activity and commercial purpose are proven, or where there is mass free distribution.

Part 2 (qualifying circumstances)

Heightened liability applies where the pornographic materials concern films or video products, pornographic computer programs, and where there is distribution among minors. Courts additionally assess whether the person understood the recipients’ age and the nature of the audience: publicity, availability without age restrictions, targeting of minors, and similar factors.

Parts 3 and 4 (repeat offense, group, large income; other qualifiers)

Qualifying features may include repeat offending, commission by prior conspiracy by a group of persons, or obtaining income in a large amount. In practice, “large income” is usually assessed using statutory benchmarks tied to non-taxable minimum incomes, and repeat offending is evaluated either through prior conviction for a similar offense or through multiple proven episodes, depending on the legal construction applied by the prosecution and the court.

Separately, child pornography is regulated by Article 301-1 of the CCU and carries significantly harsher sanctions. If materials depict minors or if creation/distribution involves minors, the actions are generally qualified under the special provision.

Sanctions and punishment under Article 301

Fines and non-custodial sanctions in basic cases

Under Part 1, alternative punishments may be applied: a fine (within the statutory range), probation supervision, or restriction of liberty for up to three years. In cases without aggravating circumstances, courts often choose a fine or another non-custodial sanction, taking into account the defendant’s conduct, the scale of distribution, and sincere remorse.

To understand the fine amount, note the commonly used conversion for the non-taxable minimum income of citizens (NMDG): a frequently used reference point is 17 UAH per 1 NMDG (1,000 NMDG ≈ 17,000 UAH; 4,000 NMDG ≈ 68,000 UAH). In a specific case, however, the calculation should be checked against the current statutory approach and judicial practice.

Harsher penalties for distribution among minors

Part 2 provides stricter liability, including higher fines and the possibility of custodial sentences (depending on the precise statutory wording and the proven circumstances). Distribution among minors is treated as more socially dangerous, which affects sentencing and may lead to additional restrictions (for example, a ban on certain activities).

Imprisonment and confiscation in qualified cases

Under Part 3, punishment may include imprisonment (within the statutory range) and an additional penalty such as a ban on holding certain positions or engaging in certain activities for a defined period. Courts may also apply confiscation of equipment and data carriers used for production or distribution.

In exceptional situations, where there is a combination of mitigating factors, a court may impose a milder punishment than the minimum provided by the sanction (application of Article 69 of the CCU), but this requires detailed reasoning in the judgment.

Online-context specifics

Distribution via the internet and social networks

Most circulation now occurs online, so “distribution” is increasingly proven through social networks, messengers, and cloud services. Relevant factors include the number of subscribers/participants, regularity of posting, paid access, reposts, and mass mailings. Even private chats do not automatically exclude qualification if reach is substantial or activity is systematic.

Additional risks arise where minors may access content or where platforms lack effective age restrictions. To identify a distributor, investigators typically establish account ownership, IP addresses, devices, and payment methods.

Content creation (video/photo)

Creating photo or video content may not, by itself, fall under Part 1 unless intent to sell or distribute is established. Where there are signs of monetization (paid subscriptions, selling access, advertising) or mass circulation via public channels, proving intent to distribute becomes significantly easier.

If minors are involved or materials depict minors, Article 301-1 generally applies, with much harsher consequences.

Role of technology and evidence

The prosecution’s position often depends on the quality of the digital evidence base: forensic imaging of devices, file metadata (EXIF, timestamps), access logs, correspondence, payment traces, and platform logs. Key issues include chain of custody, relevance and admissibility of evidence, and the lawfulness of covert actions, temporary access orders, and searches. Serious procedural defects can undermine the entire evidentiary structure.

Case law / examples

Examples from judgments

1. Fines for a first episode: where the audience is limited, minors are not involved, and the defendant demonstrates remorse, courts may impose substantial fines without actual imprisonment, sometimes together with an activity ban.
2. Actual imprisonment: where systematic distribution, significant proceeds, repeat offending, or conspiracy is proven, courts may impose custodial sentences within the relevant statutory range, sometimes with confiscation of equipment and an activity ban.
3. Online channels: administering paid groups/channels where pornographic content is distributed is typically qualified under Part 1 or Part 2 depending on the type of materials and the audience; paid subscriptions and advertising are commonly treated as indicators of commercial circulation.

When cases were dismissed or penalties reduced

Cases have been closed or milder sanctions imposed where: intent to sell/distribute was not proven; expert examination classified materials as erotic rather than pornographic; evidence was obtained with substantial procedural violations (defective covert actions/searches, lack of a proper warrant, material deadline breaches); or the court applied Article 69 of the CCU due to a combination of mitigating factors.

Defense approach and key arguments

Procedural violations and inadmissible evidence

The defense typically audits: (1) the lawfulness of each investigative action; (2) continuity of the chain of custody for devices; (3) compliance of protocols and warrants with CPC requirements; (4) authority and timelines for covert actions; (5) methods used to attribute accounts and devices to a person. Evidence obtained unlawfully should be challenged as inadmissible, which can materially change the case outlook.

Lack of intent to sell/distribute; insufficiency of evidence

Production/storage without intent to sell or distribute should not be qualified under Part 1. The defense may emphasize the absence of commercial purpose, one-off or accidental transmission, a narrow circle of recipients, the personal context, and the absence of payment/subscription mechanisms. Where the prosecution relies on indirect indicators, these should be tested against expert opinions, technical data, and witness testimony.

Cooperation with the investigation

Courts commonly view lawful cooperation as a mitigating factor: appearing on summons, providing documents through counsel, not obstructing procedural actions, and demonstrating remorse. Importantly, do not take steps that could be interpreted as destruction of evidence or obstruction; any interaction with devices, accounts, and cloud storage should be assessed with a lawyer first.

What to do if you are accused under Article 301

How to behave upon detention

Invoke Article 63 of the Constitution of Ukraine: do not give explanations without a lawyer; demand counsel and copies of procedural documents. Record the list of seized items and data carriers and ensure it matches what is actually taken. Do not agree to “voluntary” access to cloud storage, messengers, or accounts without legal assessment and a clear understanding of the consequences. If investigators request passwords/2FA, consult a criminal defense lawyer first.

First steps — contact a lawyer

Verify qualification early: whether the materials are truly pornographic (and not erotic), whether intent to sell/distribute is proven, and whether re-qualification risks exist (including under Articles 301-1, 301-2, or Article 182 of the CCU in privacy-related scenarios). Ask counsel to audit admissibility: lawfulness of covert actions, temporary access, and search; account attribution; expert methodology. Build a defense plan: involve a digital forensics specialist where needed, file motions to exclude unlawful evidence, and assemble mitigating factors to reduce risks of preventive measures and sanctions at the pre-trial investigation stage.

FAQ

What exactly falls under Article 301 of the CCU?

Importation with intent to sell/distribute; production; storage/transport with the same intent; direct sale/distribution of pornographic works, images, and other items; as well as qualifying forms involving films/video products, pornographic computer programs, distribution among minors, and coercion to participate in creating such materials.

What are the minimum and maximum fines?

The range depends on the specific part applied. For Part 1, fines are set in NMDG (commonly referenced as 1,000–4,000 NMDG in practice materials). For Part 2, fines are higher. Using the frequently cited conversion of 1 NMDG = 17 UAH, 1,000 NMDG ≈ 17,000 UAH and 5,000 NMDG ≈ 85,000 UAH. For a specific case, rely on the current statutory approach and judicial practice.

Is it possible to avoid imprisonment?

In less aggravated cases, courts may impose fines or other non-custodial sanctions, and in exceptional circumstances may apply Article 69 of the CCU (a milder punishment). However, for repeat offending, group conduct, significant income, or cases involving minors (or materials depicting minors), custodial outcomes are substantially more likely.

What if evidence was obtained unlawfully?

Insist on an admissibility review: violations in covert actions, temporary access, searches; defects in protocols; breaks in the chain of custody. Inadmissible evidence must be excluded; without it, the prosecution’s case may lose probative value.

Can this article apply to online sharing of intimate photos?

It can, if the content is recognized as pornographic and distribution or sale is proven. Depending on the facts, liability under Article 182 of the CCU (violation of privacy) may also be relevant, especially in “revenge porn” scenarios. Where minors are involved, qualification generally shifts to Article 301-1 with significantly harsher sanctions.

Legal assistance

In Article 301 cases, the first hours are decisive: investigators move quickly to secure digital traces (devices, accounts, payments), and careless statements or “voluntary” access to accounts can seriously worsen your position. Contact Pravovyi Lider for a confidential initial consultation. We will assess the situation, outline immediate steps, review qualification risks, and audit the admissibility of digital evidence (searches, covert actions, chain of custody, account attribution) to build an effective defense strategy.