Can Bill No. 12191 regulate the decriminalisation of erotica in Ukraine?

Interview with Iryna Yakovets (Ірина Яковець)

Article 301 of the Criminal Code (CC) of Ukraine provides for punishment for the import, manufacture and distribution of pornography (involving adults) in the form of fines and imprisonment for up to seven years.

According to the Office of the Prosecutor General, in January-August 2025, there were 1,464 criminal cases in Ukraine related to the creation of pornography. However, not every one of them reaches the court.

Since the start of the war, courts have issued 247 verdicts under various parts of Article 301 of the CC. During this time, 287 people have been convicted. Most (about 150) were convicted for distributing their own content, while the rest were convicted for distributing someone else’s content. Almost all of the defendants (with the exception of four acquittals) were found guilty by the court.

So, we asked again the head of the Centre for Legal Support of Science and Technology Development at the Research Institute of Intellectual Property of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Doctor of Law Iryna YAKOVETS, to comment on the chances of a civilised regulation of the decriminalisation of erotic content in Ukraine with the help of the already well-known draft law No. 12191.

Legalife-Ukraine: Ms. Iryna, how did the discussion on the future Bill No. 12191 ‘On Amendments to the Criminal Code of Ukraine Regarding the Improvement of Certain Provisions on Criminal Offences Against Public Order and Morality’ begin? Who was involved in this, and what effect was this document intended to achieve?

Iryna Yakovets: The discussion surrounding Bill No. 12191 actually began with public and media outcry over the criminal prosecution of people who create and publish adult content (mainly on platforms such as OnlyFans or in private correspondence via messengers).

One of the ‘flashpoints’ was criminal proceedings under Article 301 of the Criminal Code (import, production, distribution of pornography), which sometimes involved private individuals who published their own materials on semi-commercial services or simply sent them to their friends by mutual consent. According to our legislation, even sending a photo/video from the ‘adult content’ category to a husband or wife is a criminal offence.

This sparked a wave of public debate: is it appropriate to prosecute adults who voluntarily create content? whether it is worth separating unacceptable socially dangerous phenomena (child pornography, coercion, violence, human trafficking, etc.) from cases involving adults who work legally or generally satisfy personal needs?

Various players joined the initiative: members of parliament (Mr. Yaroslav Zheleznyak (Ярослав Железняк), a member of parliament with relevant expertise, personally initiated and lobbied for certain amendments); the parliamentary law enforcement committee, which supported the document as a basis in December 2024; civil society, activists, several NGOs and initiatives (e.g., human rights organisations and technical initiatives documenting practical cases of persecution); the media and individual public cases (including petitions) — users of the OnlyFans platform and their supporters actively promoted the idea of decriminalisation, pointing out the disproportionality of punishments and the risks of harassment.

 What effect was planned to be achieved:

1. Decriminalisation of voluntary creation and distribution of adult content between adults in order to avoid criminal cases against those who publish erotic content voluntarily and without exploitation. This was supposed to be a step towards targeting criminal offences that really pose a danger to society (intimidation/distribution of child pornography, violence, coercion).
2. Streamlining the legal framework — specifying what is subject to criminal prosecution (in particular, child pornography — it was even proposed to increase the liability for such actions, cruelty, human trafficking, etc.) and what will be removed from criminal jurisdiction.
3.  Reducing the number of ‘police traps’ and unlawful or excessive criminal cases involving adults who consciously manage their own content.

Legalife-Ukraine: How long was this bill prepared?

Iryna Yakovets: Bill No. 12191 was officially registered on 11 November 2024. The preparation process included an initiative by members of parliament (the bill was initiated by Yaroslav Zheleznyak, Vladlen Neklyudov, Maxim Buzhansky, Kirill Nesterenko and Sergey Minko) (Железняк Ярослав Іванович, Неклюдов Владлен Михайлович, Бужанський Максим Аркадійович, Нестеренко Кирилл Олександрович та Мінько Сергій Анатолійович), expert discussions in committees, public debates and amendments. In other words, it was a process that took several months — in fact, throughout the second half of 2024.

After registration, the document was reviewed by the relevant committee at the end of 2024 (the committee supported it as a basis), and since then — in 2025 — it has been undergoing further refinement, including amendments, consultations with experts, human rights activists, and law enforcement officials. But in fact, the bill has been ‘stuck’ without movement — a typical duration for legislative initiatives that touch on sensitive social issues.

Legalife-Ukraine: What changes were made to this document and why?

Iryna Yakovets: According to the initial idea, the bill was supposed to include the removal of criminal liability for cases involving voluntary adult content, with a simultaneous reference to liability for: child pornography (content, distribution, storage in relation to minors); pornography without the consent of the person involved; pornography with elements of violence/cruelty, etc.

During the preparation process and after the first discussion in the relevant committee, this bill underwent several fundamental changes, mainly to balance the goals of decriminalisation and protection of vulnerable groups, as well as to distance itself from possible negative reactions from society on issues related to pornography.

The general direction of the changes boiled down to the following: instead of focusing on exemption from liability for ‘private’ pornography, it is provided for the criminalization of the import into Ukraine of work, images or other items, films and video productions, and computer programmes of a pornographic nature solely for the purpose of selling or distributing them to minors, or their manufacture, storage, transport or other movement for the same purpose, or their sale or distribution to minors. At the same time, the strengthening of liability for child pornography and the involvement of children in such activities has been retained.

In my opinion, the amendments introduced are essentially a compromise between two objectives: to create the conditions for excluding criminal prosecution of voluntary creators of adult content and ‘private pornography’; and not to weaken the tools for combating exploitation, child pornography, violence and human trafficking.

Legalife-Ukraine: Does the latest version of this document meet the planned tasks from the beginning of the discussion?

Iryna Yakovets: Answer: partially.

Positive aspects: the updated version aims to exclude criminal liability for cases of voluntary publication of erotic content by adults, which was one of the main goals of the initiators and the public part of the discussion. This meets the expectations of those who advocated decriminalisation.

Legal gaps remain: decriminalisation does not automatically guarantee safety for content creators; without platform regulation, KYC rules (Know Your Customer -  to verify customer identities), protection from exploitation, intellectual property rights and mechanisms to protect market workers, risks remain. Also, legislative changes in the criminal sphere, if adopted, do not resolve the issue of taxation of income from platforms. For example, recent actions by tax authorities regarding income from OnlyFans show that another part of state regulation — fiscal — is proceeding in parallel. If these two areas are not harmonised, people will receive ‘decriminalisation’ but not ‘amnesty’ from tax claims.

Thus, the bill is significantly closer to its initial goal (to exempt adult content creators from criminal liability), but in order for it to fully meet its objectives (protection of individuals, orderly economic activity, security), accompanying decisions are needed in the areas of civil law, privacy rights, and tax regulation.

Legalife-Ukraine: Can this version of Bill No. 12191 contribute to a civilised and rapid resolution of the issue of decriminalising erotic content in Ukraine in light of the recent actions - especially of the Ministry of Finance of Ukraine to prepare for the enforced collection of taxes from citizens self-employed on the OnlyFans platform?

Iryna Yakovets: In short: yes, but it is not enough.

How the bill helps:

It opens up the legal field: certain types of free activity are removed from the criminal level, thus eliminating the risk of imprisonment or criminal prosecution solely for creating adult content. This is a legally important first step for a civilized regulation of the sphere.

What else is needed for ‘civilisation’ and a quick solution:

1. Tax clarity and notification mechanisms: the state must clearly state how income received through foreign platforms is taxed. If the platform does not make tax deductions, national collection mechanisms (copyright tax, increased control, automatic exchange of information) must be clearly defined. The latest actions of the Tax Service show that the fiscal bloc is not waiting for Parliament — it is using the available data to calculate tax liabilities.
2. Registration/licensing mechanisms: artists/content creators should have simple civil law tools (registration as an individual entrepreneur, simplified forms of operation for platforms, etc.), as well as awareness of tax consequences.
3. Parallel regulatory changes: creation of mechanisms to protect intellectual property rights, mechanisms to combat non-consensual content, administrative penalties for certain violations.

Regarding enforced tax collection (recent experience): the tax service is already calculating debts (at the beginning of October 2025, according to reports, the amount for certain years reached ~384.7 million UAH). This means that the state is seeking to collect unpaid taxes — and this is a matter of fiscal responsibility. Even if criminal liability is abolished, tax (civil and financial) liability will remain. Therefore, decriminalisation is not a ‘tax amnesty’.

In other words, Bill No. 12191 may become a key component of a civilised approach (eliminating the risk of criminal prosecution), but without parallel regulation of taxes, business registration rules and protective measures, the effect will be incomplete and may create other problems (massive tax debt accruals, uncertainty among content creators).

Legalife-Ukraine: How would you comment on these latest actions by the Ministry of Finance and the Tax Service?

Iryna Yakovets: Here we need to talk about two sides of the same coin — about legal-technical and political-economic aspects.

Legal and technical: in general, the tax service is operating within its powers: if Ukrainian citizens received income from foreign platforms (OnlyFans, etc.) and did not pay the appropriate taxes, the State Tax Service has the right to assess liabilities and apply collection procedures. The question is what methods and procedures are used — from automatic exchange of information with foreign taxpayers to verification of electronic payments.

In addition, the tactic of ‘mass assessments’ can be counterproductive without parallel taxpayer support services: if people who have not previously declared their income receive large fines, this can create social tension and cause problems in the implementation of court decisions. Therefore, I am in favour of combining ‘fiscal pressure’ with an information/amnesty campaign under certain conditions (for example, voluntary declaration under a simplified procedure with reduced fines).

Political and economic: on the one hand, the actions of the Ministry of Finance/State Tax Service demonstrate a desire to fill the budget (the amount of debt is hundreds of millions of hryvnias), which is important in wartime. On the other hand, these actions, in isolation from legislative reforms (decriminalisation, civil rules), may signal policy inconsistency: the state simultaneously says ‘do not criminalise’ but will ‘fine’ financially. For effective and predictable regulation, the following steps should be combined: legislation (Criminal Code) → civil/administrative regulation (Code of Administrative Offences/Civil Code) → fiscal clarity → information campaigns and access to income legalisation.

I would advise the Ministry of Finance and the State Tax Service to publish clear methodologies on how income from platforms is determined (data sources, periods, tools for interacting with foreign payment providers); consider a voluntary declaration programme with mitigated sanctions; coordinate with the Ministry of Justice and parliament to ensure that fiscal initiatives are accompanied by legislative changes regarding criminal and civil liability.

Legalife-Ukraine: In your opinion, do we need a domestic analogue of the OnlyFans platform?

Iryna Yakovets: My position is that yes, it is useful and appropriate, but under certain conditions and with clear regulation.

Advantages of a national platform:

1. Better regulation and control — a national platform is easier to oblige to comply with Ukrainian legislation (age verification, data protection, blocking of materials that violate the law).
2. Tax administration — the platform can act as an agent that withholds taxes and transfers them to the budget, which greatly simplifies collection and makes the procedure transparent for creators.
3. Social guarantees — with the appropriate contracts in place, creators can receive social protection, pension contributions, insurance, etc.
4. Protection from exploitation — a local vendor can more easily cooperate with services in the fight against human trafficking, coercion, and child exploitation.

Risks and conditions under which launch makes sense: Censorship and repression: it is necessary to ensure that the national platform does not become an instrument of state pressure or censorship; legal protection of users is vital. Privacy and security: the platform must have high standards of protection for personal data and payment data (encryption, a policy of ‘not transferring data to law enforcement agencies without a court order’). Content regulation: clear rules prohibiting child content and violence, a fast complaint and moderation mechanism. Economic model: the platform must have a transparent pricing policy and payment mechanisms, with the option of withholding tax/deductions. Alternative: if the state does not want to create its own platform, it should introduce regulatory rules that will force foreign platforms to work transparently with Ukrainian users (cooperation on child protection and provision of data for fiscal control in accordance with legal procedures).

We could launch a ‘national platform’ project as a pilot in the format of a public-private partnership with a clear set of rules (data protection, tax mechanisms, security standards), while simultaneously adopting legislation that separates criminal liability from entrepreneurial activity or people’s personal lives (i.e., implementing both Bill No. 12191 and related acts).

Legalife-Ukraine: Thank you very much for the conversation and your comments!

Interview by the Legalife-Ukraine portal