Bribes and "protection": How law enforcement profits from Ukrainian OnlyFans models

In December 1917, the U.S. Congress finally approved the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, which introduced the federal-level “Prohibition” – a complete ban on the production and consumption of alcohol. Its adoption was preceded by decades of struggle: religious organizations fought for the moral standards of Americans, industrialists for the sobriety of factory workers, and suffragettes for men to spend time with their families instead of in saloons.

Prohibition officially came into effect in January 1920, but it did not stop alcohol consumption. Bars and saloons went underground, while the supply and production of alcohol continued illegally and without tax payments. This business became so profitable that it fueled the rise of organized crime and forever associated the 1920s in the U.S. with the mafia.

In 1933, Congress passed the 21st Amendment to the Constitution, repealing Prohibition. Americans realized that the fight for morality had bred even greater immorality: the mafia, police protection of illegal bars, and corruption.

A century later, on another continent, Ukraine’s law enforcement system entered the fight for societal morality. Over the past three years alone, police have spent around 5 million UAH on expert analyses of pornographic content involving adults in cases related to the production and distribution of pornography, which remains a criminal offense in Ukraine.

Law enforcement’s focus on this issue is only growing. Since the beginning of 2025, the number of cases opened under Article 301 of the Criminal Code (punishment for the production and distribution of pornographic content involving adults) has increased by 13% to 1,500 proceedings. The exact number of such cases that have gone “unnoticed” by law enforcement remains unknown.

On the OnlyFans platform alone, in 2023, nearly 8,000 Ukrainians posted mostly pornographic content, collectively earning 131.75 million USD from this activity. For comparison, the total income for 2020-2022 was 111 million USD. Porn production has become a small industry, within which an organized business has emerged and is developing – OnlyFans agencies.

To avoid criminal liability, agency owners and individual OnlyFans models pay law enforcement for “protection.” Sometimes, the size of these payments can amount to tens of thousands of dollars.

Journalists obtained a recording of a conversation between police officers and one of the OnlyFans models, in which they demanded a bribe to avoid opening a criminal case. How did it end?

OnlyFans, Taxes, Court

Angela (name changed at the woman’s request) is a resident of Horodenka, a town in the Ivano-Frankivsk region. In 2022, she registered a page on the OnlyFans platform and began posting content, including pornographic material. Initially, the woman worked through an OnlyFans agency – an intermediary that managed the page. For their services, the agency took nearly 90% of the page’s revenue.

“There was a manager who handled everything, and I just uploaded content. I didn’t have access to the page. In 2022, the page earned 120,000 USD, and I got about 16,000 USD from that,” Angela recounts.

Later, the girl ended her collaboration with the agency and hired a manager to independently administer the page.

In the fall of 2024, the State Tax Service (STS) received information about Ukrainians who earned money on the OnlyFans platform between 2020 and 2022 and began sending them so-called “happiness letters,” requesting them to declare their income and pay taxes. Angela received such a letter as well.

However, the tax liability amount in the letter – 18% personal income tax and 1.5% military tax – exceeded the money she received “in hand.” This is because the STS only records the page’s turnover and does not account for the portion of income the woman paid to intermediaries versus what she kept for herself.

“When the letter came (from STS, – EP), I took all my bank statements and paid taxes on what was credited to my card. At first, the tax service accepted everything and said they had no questions, but then, about two weeks later, they said: ‘No, Kyiv wants you to pay the full amount from the letter,’” the woman recalls.

After that, Angela’s lawyer corresponded with the STS regarding the debt for some time, but the tax service did not back down from its demands. Finally, on October 8, 2025, she decided to challenge the tax demands in court and filed a lawsuit.

However, while Angela was seeking fairness in tax calculations with the state, representatives of law enforcement unexpectedly found her.

“There’s No Such Thing in Our District”

The day after the woman filed her lawsuit, a man she knew contacted her, whose relative works in the local police. He connected Angela with this relative, who later messaged her on a messaging app.

The man introduced himself as Myroslav Rozhko. A person with this name works as the head of the investigative department of Police Station No. 2 in Horodenka, as stated in the declaration registry.

The parties agreed to meet the next morning. The man did not come alone but with a colleague named Mykola (likely Mykola Stoyko – deputy head of Police Station No. 2, according to his declaration). The meeting took place in a car.

The editorial team has an audio recording of that conversation. Below is the direct speech.

— (Likely Stoyko): We have a situation, which is why we’re here. We have materials for a criminal case…

— (Angela): Criminal?

— (S): Criminal, yes, and for a month now, certain measures have been taken regarding you.

— (A): Regarding what?

— (Rozhko): Well, maybe it’s not you. At the moment, based on the materials, it’s established that it is you.

— (S): Materials of the criminal case… You… well, they’re already charging you… let’s say, in a few days… with the distribution and posting of pornographic works on the internet. This is prohibited in Ukraine; maybe you didn’t know and weren’t aware. In some countries, it’s allowed, but here it’s forbidden, and it’s a serious article of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

— (A): Okay, but I’m curious about which platform, which internet, where exactly?

(Shows a photo of the woman)

— (S): But don’t tell anyone about this meeting, that we came to see you. Right now, we…

— (A): It’s been going on for a month, right?

— (S): The criminal case, yes… And so on. This is just a part of what there is.

— (A): And where am I here?

— (S): Pardon?

— (A): Where am I here? (according to the woman, most photos didn’t show her face)

(Likely showing a photo where the woman’s face is visible)

— (A): What do the photos mean?

— (S): Photos of a pornographic nature, expert analysis…

— (A): You can’t open a criminal case based on photos.

— (S): You can… If they contain certain body parts, which a special expert determines… There are photos of a pornographic and non-pornographic nature. At the moment, these photos are of a pornographic nature. There’s a special expert for this, who has a state-issued certificate and provides a conclusion that these works are pornographic, understand? There’s a Cyberpolice department created in Frankivsk that deals with this, there’s a special prosecutor’s office that approved this, and they send it to us since you live in the area serviced by the police station in Horodenka.

— (A): Got it.

— (S): What do you have to say about this?

— (A): And what do you have to say?

— (R): Our next steps should be… to come here, conduct a search at your place, seize your phones, all equipment, everything you have. Involve more expert analyses… Then we’ll go to court. Have you looked at the sentences? Do you know what’s provided for this?

— (A): It’s unlikely they’ll jail someone like me… (laughter) No one gets jailed, I know that, guys. This is such nonsense, of course.

— (R): It usually results in fines ranging from 200,000, as far as I remember. 100, 120, 200, depending on the case. You know all this.

— (A): And what should I do to avoid this?

— (R): As I said: there’s the Cyberpolice, which provides operational support. He (likely Stoyko) probably needs to go there to the guys and tell them to put this on pause. And how they put it on pause, for a certain period, whether you’re here or not, but you’re not doing anything here, so that nothing is found on you, no phone with such photos of yours…

— (A): But I don’t have anything, everything is clean! These photos are from 2022, guys.

— (S): And besides, if they found phones of children who downloaded these videos and photos to their phones, that’s already another article.

— (A): But look, these photos, you can see they’re from 2022. So what? You’re saying, like, don’t do it, but I’m not doing it, this was in 2022.

— (S): You don’t understand: the fact that they already exist means they exist. You can’t take that back or erase it, understand?

— (A): Okay, but even if they came with a search… I don’t have anything. They’d hand me, for example, a suspicion notice. And what, go to court over photos from 3-4 years ago?

— (S): Yes, even if they’re ten years old.

— (R): Look, there are charges for photos, for storage, creation, and distribution.

— (A): Well, I know this Article 301. But it’s written in such a way: erotica, porn… Porn is when there’s penetration of a man into a woman…

— (S): And not only a man. It can be… It’s penetration, in general… even where it’s with a hand…

— (A): And why did they inform you? They should have come themselves, and it shouldn’t matter to them, right?

— (S): It doesn’t matter to them, but it matters to us. For us, it’s a bit… There’s no such thing in our district, that’s the thing…

— (R): Officially, officially there isn’t.

— (A): Will I be the first? (laughter)

At the end of the meeting, the law enforcement officers did not name a specific bribe amount for “putting the criminal case on pause” but suggested that the woman determine the amount herself so they could supposedly ask the Cyberpolice if they would agree to it. The woman asked for time to think it over. However, the police urged her to make a final decision on the day of the meeting.

A few hours later, Rozhko made two more calls. During the first, he recounted a supposed conversation with Cyberpolice representatives, who allegedly said that “half the fine needs to be paid.” However, he did not specify which fine and advised looking up corresponding amounts in court rulings under Part 3 of Article 301 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

As a rule, in similar cases, courts sentence suspects to probationary terms of 1-2 years. Part 3 of Article 301 of the Criminal Code does not provide for fines at all. The penalty under this article is imprisonment for 3 to 7 years with a ban on holding certain positions or engaging in certain activities for up to 3 years.

Moreover, no part of Article 301 of the Criminal Code provides for penalties in the form of fines in the amounts of 100, 120, or 200 thousand UAH, as mentioned by the officers to Angela during the meeting. Part 1 provides for a fine of 17-68 thousand UAH, and Part 2 – 34-85 thousand UAH.

During the second call (a recording of which is available), Rozhko was more specific and finally named the fine amount. Below is the direct speech.

— (Rozhko): That’s why I told you to look at the rulings, because they give less than the minimum there.

— (Angela): I don’t understand anything.

— (R): I told you to look at the rulings. But I think you definitely need to give a thousand.

— (A): Uh-huh, a thousand dollars.

— (R): Yes, yes.

— (A): Well, Myroslav, what can you tell me? I won’t have any guarantees that in two months they won’t come to me again.

— (R): No, no, these ones won’t come, that can’t happen.

During the preparation of this material, journalists reached out to several OnlyFans models, including those who had experience with corrupt payments to law enforcement. According to them, amounts for closing or not opening a criminal case can range from 5-10 thousand USD or even more – depending on the page’s turnover and the “appetite” of the officers.

Failed Operation

Angela reported the bribe demand by the police to other law enforcement agencies and members of parliament who advocate for the decriminalization of adult pornography production, including the author of the respective draft law, Yaroslav Zheleznyak.

As it became known, employees of the “K” department of the Security Service of Ukraine (SSU) agreed to take on Angela’s case and were ready to catch the police officers red-handed. SSU representatives even instructed the woman on how to behave and what to say so they could document the fact of the bribe demand. However, they failed to apprehend the officers.

After some time, Rozhko and Stoyko stopped contacting Angela. According to sources familiar with the case, after the publicity, Myroslav Rozhko and Mykola Stoyko were allegedly planned to be transferred to combat units. However, this information could not be confirmed: the press service of the Ivano-Frankivsk region police reported that the respective employees had not been transferred and continue to work in their positions (as of October 17).

Journalists attempted to get comments from Rozhko and Stoyko. The former said he was on vacation (and was on vacation on October 10, when his meeting with Angela took place). He mentioned having health issues and being unable to talk, then hung up without even listening to the questions.

Stoyko answered the call and said he was too busy, asking to call back later. When attempts were made to contact the men again, their phones were out of range.

Journalists also reached out to the press service of the Ivano-Frankivsk region police to find out whether the regional Cyberpolice had opened a criminal case under Article 301 of the Criminal Code against a resident of Horodenka, but as of the publication of this material, no response was received.

***

Adult pornography has long ceased to provoke condemnation in Ukrainian society. This is not surprising, as according to Pornhub data, Ukraine consistently ranks in the top 20 countries worldwide by volume of consumed adult content.

The state itself views pornography as any other legal phenomenon, taxing the income derived from it. It taxes not only companies like Fenix International Ltd (owner of the OnlyFans platform) or Aylo (owner of the largest network of porn sites, including Pornhub). Now, the STS also collects taxes from the porn models themselves.

At the same time, the state continues its “crusade” for societal moral values. For these purposes, it does not hesitate to spend hundreds of hours of law enforcement and expert work time, paying 500 UAH per hour for viewing adult content.

It must be acknowledged that the ban on pornography in Ukraine does not work and has long turned into a profitable business for certain law enforcement officers. They extort thousands of dollars for “turning a blind eye” to “violations of traditional intimate communication norms,” and in some cases, even propose payment “in kind.”

What to do when the consequences of the state’s fight for morality are more immoral than what it is fighting against?

Author: Yaroslav Vinokurov