But there’s one problem: making porn is illegal in Ukraine.
Ukraine has reached a paradoxical legal and fiscal juncture with regard to the adult-content economy. On one hand, the production, distribution or possession of pornography is criminalised under Article 301 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, penalised by up to five years’ imprisonment. On the other hand, the state tax authorities have identified substantial revenues flowing from Ukrainian creators active on platforms such as OnlyFans, yet the full tax potential remains untapped due to the criminal status of the activity.
Members of the Ukrainian parliament have issued data establishing the scope of the fiscal mismatch. According to MP Yaroslav Zhelezniak, more than 5,000 Ukrainians operated on OnlyFans in the period 2020‑22 and earned in excess of USD 120 million, though they were barred from legally declaring and paying income tax on that activity because it was illegal. (Українські Національні Новини (УНН)) The state tax service reports a tax debt of UAH 384.7 million (≈ USD 9.3 million) for Ukrainian creators for the years 2020‑22. (EADaily) The paradox becomes sharper when one notes that the platform OnlyFans itself has paid VAT (a “Google tax”) in Ukraine: the owner company registered as a VAT payer, and adult-service providers such as the parent of Pornhub likewise have begun tax registration in Ukraine. (babel.ua)
One of the key protagonists of the tax‑reform drive, MP Danylo Hetmantsev (chair of the parliamentary Finance, Tax & Customs Policy Committee), has openly called for decriminalising pornography on the basis that the current legal regime amounts to “a festival of hypocrisy” in which the state both prosecutes content creators and simultaneously extracts taxes from the income generated by that same sector. (komersant.ua)
From a fiscal viewpoint the ‘legitimate’ gains from changes would appear modest but meaningful in the context of Ukraine’s current war-state budget pressures. The independent Ukrainian think-tank Better Regulation Delivery Office (BRDO) estimates that full decriminalisation and regulation of the adult-content economy could yield approximately USD 12.3 million additional tax revenue annually, equivalent, they note, to the operational cost of the national anti-corruption court or 24,000 FPV drones for use in combat. (firstpost.com)
Ukraine’s budget gap is huge: the Kyiv School of Economics (KSE) Institute estimates a deficit of USD 53 billion per annum for 2025-28, reliant on foreign sponsors and frozen Russian assets. In that light every incremental domestic revenue stream has salience. (firstpost.com)
What then does decriminalisation mean in practical and structural terms? If adult-content creation were removed from criminal law, then practitioners would be able to declare income, pay personal income tax (currently 18 %) plus a 1.5 % “military duty” levy, and remove the legal risk of prosecution under a penal statute. Legalife-Ukraine, a Ukrainian legal-commentary outlet, notes the absurdity of the status: creators may pay taxes on earnings generated from an activity that the law labels criminal, leaving either under-reporting or corruption risks to flourish. (Легалайф-Україна)
Corruption and enforcement costs are additional dimensions. Opposition to the current law among advocates is less about moral judgement of sexual content than about the diversion of law-enforcement and judicial resources to prosecute consensual adult content and the space it creates for extortion or uncontrolled enforcement practices. Ukrainian press coverage cited thousands of cases under Article 301 in recent years; prosecutions range from fines to suspended sentences while underlying economic activity continues largely underground.
From a geopolitical and governance perspective the question arises whether decriminalising adult content aligns or conflicts with broader normative agendas such as human rights, digital economy, public morality and corruption control. Independent Ukrainian economists argue that goods and services which “don’t hurt anyone” should not be banned. Decriminalisation proponents in Kyiv present their reform as both fiscal and governance-driven: regularising an informal sector diminishes the space for tax evasion, corruption, and arbitrary enforcement.
Yet political resistance remains. The war‑time context complicates both the moral and regulatory calculus. Critics argue that Ukraine should prioritise war economy, defence readiness and moral consensus rather than liberalising sexual content at a time of national emergency. Others fear a legal shift now risks undermining public support, especially among socially conservative views prevalent in Ukraine’s electorate. The law has not yet been changed despite the draft submitted by Zhelezniak and others. (firstpost.com)
Evaluating the risk-reward trade-off: On the reward side, decriminalisation offers a clear pathway to additional tax revenue, improved legal clarity, and reduced enforcement cost. The USD 12 million-odd figure is small compared to a USD 53 billion annual deficit, but in absolute terms it is a non‑negligible sum in wartime resource-scarce Ukraine. On the risk side, there is a reputational dimension, potential backlash among conservative or clerical constituencies, and the possibility that regulatory frameworks could lag, leaving quasi-legal producers exposed to abuse or exploitation unless carefully managed.
Another structural risk is that decriminalisation alone does not guarantee full tax compliance: models and platforms may still off-shore income, use multiple accounts, or fall outside domestic tax enforcement. Indeed, data show Ukraine’s State Tax Service has flagged a tax debt of UAH 384.7 million from only the 2020‑22 period. (odessaonline.com) Without systemic reform of reporting, enforcement, and registration frameworks the change might lead to legalisation without full fiscal capture.
Finally, the broader strategic context of Ukraine under war and foreign-aid dependence must be kept in view. Legal reform here is not a silver-bullet but a component of a broader governance and resource-mobilisation strategy. The impetus appears pragmatic: as MP Zhelezniak noted, collecting taxes from a sector the law deems criminal “is stupid” and inconsistent.
In conclusion, Ukraine’s potential removal of its pornography ban (or the criminal penalty on production/distribution) represents a technically modest but symbolically meaningful reform. It offers additional revenue, legal coherence and governance benefits. The hurdles are political, moral and administrative. If Ukraine moves ahead, it would demonstrate a wartime government willing to adapt regulatory structures to economic reality rather than assume moral stasis. The outcome will depend on legislative momentum, public acceptance and a credible enforcement‑and‑taxation regime for what has hitherto been a semi-clandestine economy.
Authored By: Global GeoPolitics
If you believe journalism should serve the public, not the powerful, and you’re in a position to help, becoming a PAID SUBSCRIBER truly makes a difference. Alternatively you can support by way of a cup of coffee:
buymeacoffee.com/ggtv
Leave a comment