Reservation in exchange for money: liability for fictitious reservation of persons liable for military service at a company.

The practice of fictitious employment of those liable for military service is ceasing to be an isolated ‘scheme’ and is becoming a distinct area of focus for law enforcement agencies. An analysis of court rulings shows that the same scheme can be subject to different criminal law assessments, depending on who is involved and what role they play.

In August 2026, the acting head of the National Police, Maksym Tsutsikiridze, reported that, as part of criminal investigations, the circumstances surrounding the possible unlawful exemption of nearly 2,500 conscripts were being examined. He cited fictitious employment as one of the common schemes, whereby a person is registered as an employee of a company authorised to reserve conscripts, even though the conscript does not actually work there.

At the same time, unlawful deferment in itself does not automatically imply criminal liability for the person liable for military service. The investigation separately establishes who organised the scheme, how the employment was formalised, what documents were used to obtain the deferment, and what role the individual played in this.

In every such scheme, there are at least two potential subjects of criminal liability: the organiser of the fictitious employment and the person liable for military service who agrees to become an ‘employee on paper’. The classification of their actions can vary significantly — ranging from obstructing the lawful activities of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to evading conscription, abuse of influence, bribery, use of forged documents and aiding and abetting the misappropriation of public funds.

Let us consider several recent court cases.

From fictitious employment to obstructing the lawful activities of the Armed Forces of Ukraine

In the period 2025–2026, a distinct body of criminal proceedings emerged in which the organisation of fictitious employment of persons liable for military service, followed by the granting of exemption or deferral, is classified under Article 114-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine as obstruction of the lawful activities of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and other military formations during a special period.

In the judgements analysed below, the prosecution argues that, as a result of fictitious employment, a person liable for military service unlawfully gains the opportunity to avoid conscription and effectively ceases to be part of the available mobilisation pool.

Case No. 760/11286/26, heard by the Solomyanskyi District Court of Kyiv, is illustrative. The founder of a business entity and his accomplice organised the employment of conscripts at a critically important enterprise without them actually performing their duties.

For this arrangement, involving employment followed by military exemption, one of the prospective ‘employees’ was allegedly offered 6,500 euros. In addition, he was required to pay 2,800 US dollars for the formal recording of wages and the payment of taxes. The conscript handed over his personal documents and was registered for the post of hardware development engineer, after which the company submitted the information required for his military deferment. There was no expectation that he would actually perform the duties of an engineer.

Particularly telling is the evidence used to confirm the operation of the scheme.

The case file contained correspondence via Telegram, mobile phones, laptops, personnel orders and documents relating to the registration of other employees.

To establish the fictitious nature of the employment, the pre-trial investigation authority analysed not only formal employment documents but also the actual agreements between the participants, their correspondence, the flow of funds and the real purpose of hiring the individual.

The organisers’ actions were classified under Part 2 of Article 28 and Part 1 of Article 114-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine — obstruction of the lawful activities of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and other military formations during a state of emergency, committed by a group of persons acting in concert.

The court approved the plea agreements and, pursuant to Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, imposed a fine on each defendant. Prior to the conclusion of the agreements, one of the defendants had transferred 1 million hryvnias to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, whilst another had transferred 1.5 million hryvnias.

Link to the court ruling: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/136370748

A different mechanism can be observed in Case No. 357/5008/26, which was heard by the Bila Tserkva City and District Court in Kyiv Oblast. In this case, conscripts were fictitiously registered as college lecturers on a 0.75 FTE basis in order to obtain a deferment.

The individual submitted the necessary documents, wrote a job application and opened a bank account for their salary. After submitting the application, he was appointed as a lecturer on a 0.75-rate contract with a basic salary of 10,700 UAH. The documents required for the appointment were sent to him via WhatsApp. He then paid 17,000 UAH in ‘charitable donations’ into the college’s bank account, after which the information regarding his employment was forwarded to process the deferral.

The wording of the charge is particularly telling.

The unlawful granting of a deferment as a result of fictitious employment was linked to a reduction in mobilisation resources and the creation of obstacles to the recruitment of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. It is precisely because of this cause-and-effect structure that the fictitious employment was classified not as a mere breach of labour relations or documentation procedures, but under Article 114-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

The defendant was found guilty under Part 5 of Article 27, Part 2 of Article 28 and Part 1 of Article 114-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, the execution of which was suspended on probation.

Link to the court judgement: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/137192564

Both judgements demonstrate a similar structure of the charges; however, this approach is currently taking shape primarily at the level of the courts of first instance.

Fictitious employment, real liability

The most interesting question arises regarding the liability of the conscript himself.

The most direct example is provided by the judgement of the Bohunskyi District Court of Zhytomyr in case No. 295/11415/26.

The court established that the conscript, having no legal grounds for deferment, had arranged for fictitious employment as a vocational training supervisor. He did not attend work or perform any duties, yet timesheets and personnel records were drawn up in his name and his salary was paid. He subsequently used the document purporting to show his employment to obtain a deferment.

The man’s actions were subject to three separate criminal charges:

• Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine — evasion of conscription into military service during mobilisation.
• Part 4 of Article 358 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine — use of a document known to be forged.
• Part 5 of Article 27 and Part 4 of Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine — aiding and abetting the misappropriation of property through the abuse of official position by a public official under martial law.

Under Article 336, the parties agreed on a four-year prison sentence, whilst the final sentence for the aggregate offences was set at six years. At the same time, pursuant to Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the individual was exempted from actually serving the sentence, subject to a probation order.

The sentence was handed down on the basis of a plea agreement. The defendant pleaded guilty, provided incriminating evidence against other participants, compensated for the losses incurred and transferred 500,000 UAH to the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

Link to the court decision: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/138640601

However, such a classification is not automatic, as can be seen from the judgement of the Lutsk City and District Court of Volyn Oblast dated 31 August 2026 in case No. 161/16501/26.

According to the case file, the man allegedly paid 5,000 US dollars in exchange for assistance in securing a job at a lyceum. He was immediately informed that he would not actually be required to work. To formalise the appointment, he handed over documents and a bank card with an access code, after which he was appointed as a full-time teacher, although he did not conduct any lessons. During the period of this employment, he was unjustifiably paid over 136,000 UAH.

At first glance, the situation appears very similar to a previous case; however, Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine was not applied at all in this instance.

The man was convicted under Part 1 of Article 369-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine — granting an unlawful advantage in order to influence decision-making — and under Part 5 of Article 27 and Part 4 of Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine as an accomplice in the misappropriation of public funds. The final sentence was five years’ imprisonment, the execution of which was suspended for a probationary period of two years.

Link to the court judgement: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/139373166

Another approach can be seen in Case No. 569/12181/26 of the Rivne City Court.

A person liable for military service paid the director of a private college 26,470 UAH to secure a teaching post with a view to subsequently obtaining a deferment.

As is apparent from the judgement, the purpose of this employment was not so much to perform teaching duties as to create a formal basis for subsequently obtaining a deferment from conscription during mobilisation.

Nevertheless, the man’s actions were not classified under Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, but under Part 1 of Article 368-3 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine as the provision of an unlawful benefit to an official of a private-law legal entity. The court imposed a fine.

Link to the court decision: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/137822042

Digital traces, money and HR documents: how the scheme is exposed

Practice shows that proving fictitious employment is not usually limited to checking the employment contract. On the contrary, on the face of it, HR documents are most often drawn up correctly. The investigation therefore seeks to establish whether an employment relationship actually existed.

In such cases, the investigation checks whether the person attended work, performed their duties and produced any results from their work. In educational institutions, timetables, teaching loads, registers and attendance records are also analysed.

A significant part of the evidence base consists of digital communications. The case files contain correspondence and calls via Telegram, WhatsApp and Signal, as well as the sharing of passports, diplomas, military registration documents and extracts from ‘Reserve+’, and discussions regarding the cost of employment and the timeframes for processing reservations.

In some cases, the scheme was documented even before it was completed, using special investigative techniques. Those liable for military service were recruited to cooperate confidentially, after which, under the supervision of law enforcement officers, they handed over documents and pre-identified funds for employment and reservation arrangements. During controlled meetings, agreements were recorded regarding the cost of the ‘service’, the procedure for securing employment and the timeframe for processing the deferral.

The flow of funds is also being investigated. The investigation is establishing who actually received the wages, whether the ‘employee’ handed over their bank card to the organisers, and who used the funds.

Questioning also remains crucial. Law enforcement agencies are interested not only in the statements of the organisers or the conscript themselves, but also in those of employees at the company or educational institution who can confirm whether they saw that person at work, who actually performed their duties, how timesheets were drawn up, and who was responsible for processing the paperwork. Such testimony is cross-referenced with correspondence, bank transactions and seized documentation.

Therefore, the key factor is not how convincing the personnel documents appear, but whether they correspond to the actual circumstances of the person’s employment.

A plea bargain as a means of mitigating punishment

In cases involving fictitious employment and the unlawful obtaining of a deferral, a plea bargain can have a significant impact on the final outcome for the accused. This does not mean exemption from criminal liability, but rather the opportunity to agree in advance with the prosecutor on the type and severity of the sentence. Where there are valid grounds, this may result in a more lenient sentence or exemption from actually serving the sentence, subject to a probationary period.

Cooperation with the investigation takes on particular significance in multi-count and corruption cases. Incriminating testimony regarding other participants, corroboration of such information with evidence, and compensation for the damage caused may all be significant. Information about organisers, intermediaries, the method of transferring funds, or the registration of fictitious employees may have real procedural value for the investigation.

Voluntary compensation for wages paid without justification or other losses is also taken into account when agreeing the terms of a plea bargain. Separately, in practice, significant donations to the Armed Forces of Ukraine are sometimes made. Such a donation does not replace compensation for damages and does not in itself constitute grounds for exemption from liability, but may be taken into account alongside remorse and cooperation with the investigation.

Therefore, the most favourable situation for the accused arises not simply from the fact of an admission of guilt, but when it is combined with incriminating testimony, genuine cooperation with the investigation, compensation for the damage caused, and other actions that demonstrate a change in the person’s behaviour following the commission of the offence.

Once the plea agreement has been approved, the scope for appealing against the sentence is significantly reduced, as the individual agrees to the facts of the charge and the consequences set out in the agreement.

As a result, fictitious employment is looking less and less like a ‘safe’ way to obtain a deferral that exists only on paper. Depending on the participant’s role, a single scheme may give rise to risks under Articles 114-1, 191, 336, 358, 368-3 or 369-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

Case law in this category of cases is still developing. However, even now, the decisive factor for law enforcement agencies is not whether a person is listed as an employee in an order, but whether they were actually an employee.

This article was co-authored with Yulia Basyuk.
Published on the ‘Yurydychna Gazeta’ website at the following links: