Case Dismissed and Client Acquitted of UAH 3,400-8,500 Fine for Attempted Illegal Border Crossing

Introduction

In the autumn of 2025, Disputes Law Firm was approached by a client who unexpectedly received a court summons for administrative prosecution under Part 1 of Article 204-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (CAO). The case concerned an attempted illegal crossing of the state border of Ukraine outside designated checkpoints. This case became an example of how the absence of proper evidentiary basis on the part of controlling authorities and the presence of clear documentary confirmation of the tourist purpose of travel can lead to case dismissal.

Background

In late September, a man contacted our firm after receiving a court summons. He explained that back in July, while traveling from Kamianets-Podilskyi to Chernivtsi, he was stopped by officers of the State Border Guard Service at a checkpoint. After checking his documents, they released him and he continued on his way. The client believed the incident was closed, as he had openly explained the purpose of his trip and provided all necessary documents.

However, two months later, he unexpectedly received a court summons. The first court hearing was scheduled for September 18, 2025, and from the moment of his contact to the hearing time, we had only a few hours. A legal representation agreement was signed immediately. Given the lack of time for preparation and the need for detailed review of the case materials, counsel promptly filed a motion for postponement of the court hearing.

The court granted the motion, which provided an opportunity to thoroughly examine all documents. After reviewing the case materials, it became evident that the administrative offense report contained substantial deficiencies, and the accusation was not supported by proper evidence. A motion to dismiss the proceedings due to absence of corpus delicti of an administrative offense was filed for the next court hearing.

Defense Legal Position

The foundation of the defense position was that the client's actions lacked the subjective element of an administrative offense, specifically culpability in the form of intent or negligence. According to Article 9 of the CAO, an administrative offense is recognized as an unlawful, culpable act or omission. The absence of even one element of an offense precludes the possibility of holding a person liable.

The factual circumstances of the case indicated a tourist purpose of travel. Three days before the trip, the client purchased travel documents through an online platform for the route Kamianets-Podilskyi — Chernivtsi with an estimated arrival time of around nine in the evening. On the same morning when the journey took place, he booked a hotel room in Chernivtsi for overnight stay. The next day he planned departure to another city, which was confirmed by a boarding document purchased in advance.

The defense drew the court's attention to geographical and temporal inconsistencies in the case materials. The checkpoint where the vehicle was stopped is located 23 kilometers from the state border line. The distance from Kamianets-Podilskyi to the stopping point is approximately 30 kilometers, so the estimated arrival time should have been around eight in the evening. However, the report indicated the time of drafting as around eleven in the evening, while the inspector's report showed the vehicle stop time as around ten in the evening.

The key argument was the absence of any objective evidence of an attempted border crossing. The report did not show what specific actions the person took with the intent to attempt a border crossing. The mere fact of being 23 kilometers from the state border line while traveling on a highway toward a regional center cannot evidence such intent.

The defense emphasized that the client was traveling openly, through an official checkpoint, without any attempts to conceal his intentions. Upon request of the border service officers, he provided all necessary documents without objection and explained the purpose of his trip. After verification, he was released and allowed to continue along his route, which also indicates the absence of real grounds for suspicion of illegal border crossing.

According to Paragraph 1 of Article 247 of the CAO, proceedings in an administrative offense case cannot be initiated, and if initiated must be dismissed in the event of absence of the occurrence and corpus delicti of an administrative offense. It was on this basis that the defense requested the court to dismiss the proceedings.

Decision

During the court hearing, the judge thoroughly examined all case materials and defense motions. The court found that during the drafting of the administrative offense report, the border service inspector, in violation of Article 255 of the CAO, failed to collect any evidence that the person committed the offense provided for in Part 1 of Article 204-1 of the CAO.

The court noted that the report does not show what direct actions the person took with the intent to attempt a border crossing. The mere fact of being 23 kilometers from the state border line cannot evidence intent to illegally cross it. The report of the authorized border service officer only indicated that the person was traveling in a vehicle, and the passenger's document check was conducted at a checkpoint on the border between Khmelnytskyi and Chernivtsi regions.

The court established that other evidence did not confirm intent to cross the state border outside designated checkpoints. The administrative offense report and inspector's report alone, in the absence of other evidence, are clearly insufficient for a conclusion about the person's guilt in committing an administrative offense.

The court emphasized that to confirm illegal crossing or attempted crossing of the state border, the border service inspector, in accordance with Article 251 of the CAO, should have provided photographs, video recording of the event, etc. The circumstances set forth in the report are not confirmed by evidence submitted to the court, and therefore the report alone does not prove guilt in committing the offense.

The court concluded that the administrative accusation in this case is based on assumptions, and according to Article 62 of the Constitution of Ukraine, all doubts are interpreted in favor of the person being held liable. The court referenced the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, specifically the judgment in the case of "Kobets v. Ukraine," according to which proof must flow from a combination of indicia or irrefutable presumptions, sufficiently weighty, clear and concordant.

By court ruling, the administrative case proceedings were dismissed on the basis of Paragraph 1 of Article 247 of the CAO due to absence of corpus delicti of an administrative offense.

Conclusion

This case demonstrates the importance of timely and qualified legal defense in administrative proceedings. Despite the fact that contact occurred directly on the day of the first court hearing, a professional approach to analyzing case materials and constructing the legal position made it possible to achieve complete dismissal of proceedings.

Key success factors were: documentary confirmation of the tourist purpose of travel, identification of inconsistencies in temporal and geographical data in the report, absence of objective evidence of attempted border crossing on the part of the controlling authority, and reference to the constitutional principle of presumption of innocence and European Court of Human Rights case law.

The case confirms that for prosecution under Part 1 of Article 204-1 of the CAO, the mere fact of presence in a controlled border area is insufficient. It is necessary to prove the presence of all elements of the offense corpus delicti, specifically the subjective element — intent to illegally cross the state border. The absence of such evidence is an independent ground for dismissal of proceedings regardless of other circumstances of the case.