{"id":621975,"date":"2026-10-03T15:44:34","date_gmt":"2026-10-03T12:44:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/korabelov.info\/2026\/10\/621975\/a-mother-of-two-was-punished-for-selling-pornography-on-telegram\/"},"modified":"2026-10-03T15:44:37","modified_gmt":"2026-10-03T12:44:37","slug":"a-mother-of-two-was-punished-for-selling-pornography-on-telegram","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/korabelov.info\/en\/2026\/10\/621975\/a-mother-of-two-was-punished-for-selling-pornography-on-telegram\/","title":{"rendered":"A mother of two was punished for selling pornography on Telegram"},"content":{"rendered":"

A native of the village of Lypetske in the Odesa region<\/strong>, who was officially unemployed and raising 2<\/strong> minor children, decided to earn some money through Telegram. One sale brought her only 1,200 hryvnias<\/strong>, but ended with a criminal case<\/a>, a fine and procedural costs totaling 37,565.60 hryvnias<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

As established by the Peresypskyi District Court of the city of Odesa<\/strong>, in March 2026<\/strong> the woman<\/strong> used a Telegram account named “Hari Krishna”. There she began communicating with a previously unknown man and offered him to buy a pornographic video for 1,200 hryvnias<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

On 17 March 2026<\/strong> at 17:05<\/strong> the man transferred the money to her bank card. Already at 17:06<\/strong> he received the video file.<\/p>\n

And then the most interesting part of the story begins. In the published verdict the man is hidden under the designation PERSON_7<\/strong>, and the court does not explain at all how law enforcement found out about the private correspondence and the sale of the video.<\/p>\n

So the question remains open: was this an ordinary buyer who, after the purchase, suddenly decided to go to the police, or was the man involved from the very beginning in documenting the crime?<\/p>\n

There is no confirmation of the second version in the verdict<\/strong>, so it cannot be claimed that this was a controlled purchase or a staged buyer. At the same time, the scheme itself \u2014 an unknown man finding a seller, agreeing on specific content, transferring money, receiving the file, after which this very sale becomes an evidentiary episode of a criminal case \u2014 leaves that version open.<\/p>\n

In court the woman<\/strong> did not argue. She fully admitted her guilt, confirmed that she sold a pornographic video via Telegram for 1,200 hryvnias<\/strong>, expressed remorse and said she would not do it again.<\/p>\n

The court took into account that the woman had no prior convictions, was officially unemployed, was supporting 2<\/strong> minor children, sincerely repented and assisted in the investigation.<\/p>\n

On 24 September 2026<\/strong> she was found guilty under part 2<\/strong> of Article 301<\/strong> of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.<\/p>\n

The punishment \u2014 a fine of 34,000 hryvnias<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

In addition, 3,565.60 hryvnias<\/strong> in procedural costs were added. Thus, the sale of the video for 1,200 hryvnias<\/strong> cost the woman 37,565.60 hryvnias<\/strong> \u2014 more than 31 times<\/strong> the income received.<\/p>\n

At the same time, the court ordered the return of the Motorola moto g06 and Xiaomi Redmi 14<\/strong> phones, the SIM card and the bank card to her. The seizure previously imposed on the Motorola was lifted.<\/p>\n

The verdict can still be appealed to the Odesa Court of Appeal within 30 days<\/strong> from the day it was pronounced.<\/p>\n

And the theory about a possible “decoy buyer” did not arise out of nowhere. Korabelov.info has already written about real cases where law enforcement officers themselves bought porn content to document the crime. In 2023<\/strong> an operative during a controlled purchase purchased<\/a> content from a girl for 5,110 hryvnias<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

In another case, police conducted as many as 7<\/strong> operational purchases of webcam shows and spent<\/a> 14,983 hryvnias<\/strong> of budget funds on them.<\/p>\n

So the question of who the buyer for 1,200 hryvnias in the Khrystyna Balyk case really was<\/strong> remains unanswered. The verdict does not say a word about an operative purchase. But previous practice shows: situations where law enforcement themselves enter such accounts, agree to a purchase and pay for content to document a crime have already occurred in Ukraine.<\/p>\n

Earlier we wrote:<\/strong><\/p>\n