Weekly analysis for 01 — 07 September

Strengthening Liability for Organising Fraud Call Centres

Event

On 2 September 2026, Draft Law №15353 “On Amendments to the Criminal Code of Ukraine to Strengthen Liability for the Organisation of Fraudulent Electronic Communications Organisations (Fraud Call Centres) and Participation Therein” (“Draft Law”) initiated by the President, was registered in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.

The Draft Law proposes to supplement the Criminal Code of Ukraine (the “CC”) with a new Article 255-4, “Establishment of, Leadership of, or Participation in a Fraudulent Electronic Communications Organisation”.

According to the Explanatory Note to the Draft Law, the proposed strengthening of criminal-law mechanisms for combating organised fraud conducted through fraud call centres is presented as a step towards aligning Ukrainian legislation with the country’s European integration commitments. In particular, the Draft Law is positioned as implementing several key international and EU obligations: Directive (EU) 2019/713 on combating fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment, which requires Member States to criminalise preparatory and organisational activities aimed at the unlawful acquisition, possession, or processing of authentication data; Directive (EU) 2022/2555 (NIS2) and Directive 2013/40/EU on attacks against information systems, which oblige states to counter the unlawful use of electronic communications infrastructure and information systems for criminal purposes, including organised misuse of telecommunications networks; the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, which requires the criminalisation of the use of computer systems in the context of organised criminal activity and other cyber-enabled offences.

CPLR’s assessment 

The proposed Article 255-4 of the Criminal Code appears to disregard the existing architecture of the General Part of the Criminal Code governing liability for complicity in criminal offences.

1. The EU instruments referred to in the Explanatory Note do not required the introduction of a separate offence targeting organised fraud. Ukrainian criminal law already covers fraud committed through the unlawful use of information and communication technologies and fraud committed by an organised group. Such conducts are punishable by imprisonment for a term of 6 to 12 years, with confiscation of property (paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 190 of the Criminal Code).

Neither the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime nor the relevant EU directives require Ukraine to introduce a separate offence for organised fraud. EU Directive 2013/40 on attacks against information systems merely calls the states to ensure more severe penalties where attacks are committed by a criminal organisation. Directive 2019/713 on combating fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment requires Member States to provide for a maximum term of imprisonment of at least five years where the relevant offences are committed within the framework of a criminal organisation. These requirements are already met under the current Criminal Code. According to Articles paragraph 4 of Article 28, Articles 190 and 255, fraud committed within a criminal organisation is prosecuted cumulatively, with criminal liability and sentencing determined accordingly.

At the same time, Ukraine is required to align its legislation with the EU acquis on combating organised crime. Pending the adoption of a new thematic directive, the applicable EU instrument remains Council Framework Decision 2008/841of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised crime. The Framework Decision requires the criminalisation of participation in, and conspiracy to participate in, a criminal organisation or structured association. For the purposes of the Framework Decision, a “criminal organisation” means a structured association, established over a period of time, of more than two persons acting in concert to commit offences punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 4 years, in order to obtain, directly or indirectly, a financial or other material benefit. The definition of organised criminal activity contained in Article 28 of the CC of Ukraine does not fully align with this concept. 

2. The proposed defines an “fraudulent electronic communications organisations” as a stable association of three or more persons, formed in advance for the systematic acquisition of another person’s property or property rights through deception or abuse of trust using electronic communications, with its members acting pursuant to a common plan and division of functions. Thus, the note to Article 255-4 reproduces the defining features of an organised group under the Criminal Code: participation of three or more persons; prior organization; stability of the association; a common purpose of committing criminal offences, a common plan; division of functions among participants. The only distinguishing element is the use of electronic communications as a means of committing fraud. However, this cannot serve as a basis for recognising a new type of organised group, nor can it justify casting doubt on the application of Articles 29 and 30 of the Criminal Code, which govern the grounds of criminal liability of accomplices.

3. In six paragraphs of the proposed Article establish liability for approximately ten distinct acts, including:

– establishing a fraudulent electronic communications rganisation;

– leading such an organisation;

– leading a structural unit of such an organisation;

– participating in such an organisation while being aware of the unlawful nature of its activities;

– providing means, services, information or other assistance to such an organisation while being aware of the unlawful nature of its activities and without being a member thereof;

– intentionally recruiting another person to participate in such an organisation;

– intentionally recruiting another person to assist in its activities;

– disseminating information for the purpose of such recruitment, where the person is aware of the unlawful nature of the organisation’s activities;

– facilitating the establishment of such an organisation;

– facilitating its operation; 

– intentionally creating conditions for persons who established, led or participated in such an organisation to evade criminal liability, where the act is committed by an official who is aware of the unlawful nature of the organisation’s activities and abuses their authority or official position.

However, there is no legislative need to establish separate criminal liability for conduct that already falls within the existing framework of complicity in criminal offences, including establishing or leading an organised group, aiding and abetting through the provision of means, services, information or other assistance, or facilitating the establishment or operation of such an organization. Such conducts  already comprehensively regulated by the Criminal Code. In particular, paragraphs and 5 of Article 27 (forms of complicity) and paragraph of Article 29.

Nor is there any need to expressly specify that a person “was aware of the unlawful nature of the organisation’s activities”, “intentionally recruited” another person, or “intentionally created conditions” for other to evade liability. The nature of the acts described already presupposes that they must be committed intentionally, as follows directly from Article 24 of the Criminal Code. If the authors of the Draft Law believe otherwise, they would have to apply the same approach consistently throughout the provision by referring, for example, to “intentionally establishing”, “intentionally leading” and “intentionally providing” assistance, etc.

4. The mere introduction of a separate provision in the CC establishing liability for the organisation and operation of fraud call centres will not, in itself, improve the situation. By creating an overlapping and potentially competing legal framework alongside paragraphs 3 and 5 of Article 27, paragraph 2 of Article 29, Article 30, and paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 190 of the CC, the proposed new Article would significantly complicate the legal classification of the relevant conduct. This, in turn, would prolong pre-trial investigations and, even more significantly, the judicial examination and appellate review of the cases concerned. 

If criminal legislation is amended in response to every new challenge by creating offence-specific organisational provisions, the Criminal Code will soon be replete with dozens of new articles addressing the establishment of and participation in organised groups engaged in human trafficking, robbery, aggravated robbery, extortion, smuggling, money laundering, illegal exploitation of subsoil resources, and other forms of criminal activity.