Improving Criminal Liability under Article 246 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine: ‘Illegal Logging of Forests’

The current state of law enforcement in the field of forest protection indicates the need for a comprehensive summary of existing experience and the identification of directions for improving legislative regulation. The issue of criminal liability for violations of forestry legislation is particularly relevant, as the lack of timely changes in this area contributes to the growth of illegal activities. Addressing this problem cannot be limited to merely recording deficiencies in law enforcement; it is essential to develop practical proposals for improving criminal law norms that would prevent abuse, eliminate gaps in the qualification of offenses, and ensure an adequate level of forest protection.

Practice shows that the norms of criminal liability regarding illegal logging do not meet modern challenges. In particular, certain provisions of Article 246 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine are imperfectly formulated and contain gaps. This complicates the qualification of illegal logging and the proof of offenders’ guilt, causes conflicts with specialized legislation, and creates grounds for varying interpretations in judicial practice. Such shortcomings result in low effectiveness of applying criminal law norms and reduce the preventive effect of punishment.

The analysis of the provision on illegal logging presented below aims to more clearly define the elements of the crime associated with illegal logging, taking into account practical law enforcement problems. The study is intended to ensure uniform application of the law by courts and law enforcement agencies. In addition, it seeks to strengthen the preventive function of criminal liability by providing the law with greater clarity and unambiguity.

Counteracting criminal offenses in the field of forest use has always been one of the leading priorities of law enforcement agencies. Illegal logging consistently constitutes the largest share of crimes against the environment considered by courts. According to statistics, almost every second criminal case in this category is related to the violation provided for in Article 246 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

A representative example is the year 2021, which can be considered more objective for analysis than 2022, when the full-scale invasion significantly affected data reliability. Specifically, out of 5,400 registered environmental crimes in 2021, 2,862 cases concerned illegal cutting of trees and shrubs. This confirms not only the scale of the phenomenon but also its problematic nature for environmental protection and natural resource management. According to statistical data from the Office of the Prosecutor General, in 2022, 502 criminal proceedings under Article 246 of the Criminal Code were sent to court, in 2023 — 588, and in 2024 — 585. However, it should be understood that even the statistical data on registered crimes do not reflect the real situation, so analyzing court and law enforcement statistics does not provide an accurate picture. A large segment of illegal logging remains latent (hidden; unrecorded by the registering authorities for various reasons). According to various experts, environmental crimes (primarily illegal logging and “fish” poaching) exhibit latency at a level of 90–98%. If, according to statistical reports, environmental crimes account for less than 1% of all crimes committed in our country, then considering latent cases, their share is approximately 17–22%. This is one of the main indicators of the societal danger of these crimes.

Amending Article 246 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine will contribute to increasing the efficiency of the State Environmental Inspectorate, forest protection, and law enforcement agencies in combating illegal logging. To fulfill the tasks of forest protection and conservation, it is necessary to improve the state’s fight against criminal manifestations in this field, including through appropriate legislative amendments.

As of September 2025, Article 246 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine reads as follows:

Article 246. Illegal logging or illegal transportation, storage, or sale of timber

1. Illegal felling of trees or shrubs in forests, protective or other forest plantations, transportation, storage, or sale of illegally felled trees or shrubs causing significant damage — shall be punishable by a fine of one thousand to one thousand five hundred non-taxable minimum incomes of citizens, or arrest for up to six months, or restriction of liberty for up to three years, or imprisonment for the same term.

2. The same actions committed repeatedly or by a group of persons by prior conspiracy — shall be punishable by restriction of liberty for three to five years or imprisonment for the same term.

3. Actions provided for in part one of this article, committed in nature reserves or on territories or objects of the nature reserve fund, or in other specially protected forests, — shall be punishable by a fine of one thousand five hundred to two thousand non-taxable minimum incomes of citizens, or restriction of liberty for three to five years, or imprisonment for the same term.

4. Actions provided for in parts one, two, or three of this article that caused severe consequences — shall be punishable by imprisonment for five to seven years.

Note 1: In this article, significant damage is considered as damage exceeding twenty or more times the non-taxable minimum income of citizens, or other significant damage to the environment in terms of ensuring effective protection, proper conservation, rational use, and restoration of forests.

Note 2: Severe consequences are considered as consequences exceeding sixty or more times the non-taxable minimum income of citizens.

(Article 246 with amendments introduced in accordance with Law No. 1019-VIII of 18.02.2016; as amended by Laws No. 2063-VIII of 23.05.2017, No. 2531-VIII of 06.09.2018; with changes introduced according to Law No. 2708-VIII of 25.04.2019)

Analysis of the law enforcement practice of this article revealed several shortcomings:

The amounts of fines for committing an offense are too low

The sanction of Article 246 of the Criminal Code, which establishes liability for illegal logging or other illegal actions with timber, was last amended on January 1, 2019. Since then, significant socio-economic changes have occurred, necessitating a review of the level of criminal law sanctions.

Firstly, as noted, this crime is latent, as offenders often conceal their activities. The act is not detected immediately, but only when signs of illegal logging are observed or reported to law enforcement agencies, forest protection, or the environmental inspectorate. A significant portion of illegal logging remains outside official statistics, and illegally harvested timber enters the legal market through document forgery or accounting manipulation schemes. This increases the societal danger of the crime, as valuable forest resources are effectively destroyed, environmental and state damage is caused, and a shadow timber market is formed.

Secondly, the economic aspect is significant. In 2019, the average salary was 9,205.19 UAH, the minimum — 4,173 UAH, whereas in 2025, these figures increased to 26,499 UAH and 8,000 UAH, respectively. That is, the real purchasing power of the population and the economic scale of damage have somewhat increased, while the size of fines for illegal logging has remained almost unchanged, currently ranging from 17,000 to 25,500 UAH. Is such a fine sufficient as a deterrent? In 2019, this amount was comparable to several months’ salary of an average worker, but in 2025 — only one average salary. Thus, the fines established by the Criminal Code no longer fully serve the preventive function of punishment.

Thirdly, the growth of economic benefits from illegal logging due to inflation may exceed the level of fines. Sometimes the sale of illegally harvested high-value timber, e.g., oak, may bring higher profits than the fines provided by law. This creates a situation where it is rational for the offender to take the risk and commit the crime, as even if illegal activity is detected, the punishment will not be commensurate with the damage and profit gained.

Therefore, there are grounds to assert that strengthening sanctions in the form of fines under Article 246 of the Criminal Code is urgently needed. It is advisable to increase the minimum fine to at least 51,000 UAH (3,000 non-taxable minimum incomes) and the maximum to 102,000 UAH (6,000 non-taxable minimum incomes), which corresponds to current economic realities and the societal danger of this crime.

The subject of the crime is poorly defined

The subject of the crime includes trees and shrubs growing in forests, protective and other forest plantations, in nature reserves, or on territories and objects of the nature reserve fund. Trees are perennial plants with a clearly defined solid trunk and branches forming a canopy. Shrubs are also perennial plants but have several woody branches growing from the ground surface. Both types of plants are natural resources. Accordingly, the first characteristic of the subject of the crime is the integrity of trees and shrubs, i.e., the presence of root system, trunk, and canopy.

The legislator defined the subject of this article as “trees and shrubs growing:

• in forests, protective and other forest plantations;

• in nature reserves or on territories and objects of the nature reserve fund;

• in other specially protected forests.”

Part 1 of Article 246 of the Criminal Code states that illegal logging must occur in forests, protective, and other forest plantations. The definition of “forest” is provided in Part 1 of Article 1 of the Forest Code of Ukraine, but the categories “protective and other forest plantations” require clarification. Several questions arise: did the legislator mean “protective plantations” or “protective forest plantations,” and how do the listed objects relate to each other in terms of scope?

Firstly, based on the article’s title and the content of the disposition, it can be concluded that the reference is to protective forest plantations, not just any other plantations. Considering Part 1 of Article 4 of the Forest Code, which states that the forest fund includes forest plots, including linear protective plantations of at least 0.1 hectare, it can be concluded that protective plantations of smaller size do not fall under the objects where a criminal offense under Part 1 of Article 246 can be committed.

Secondly, the Forest Code does not use the term “protective forest plantations” at all; it instead uses the category “protective forests” (Clause 1, Part 1, Article 39). As a result, the Criminal Code introduces a division of forest fund objects that is not reflected in the Forest Code. This is unacceptable, as the protective norms of Article 246 of the Criminal Code should ensure the enforcement of regulatory norms of the Forest Code, not clarify or supplement them.

Thirdly, the phrase “and others” after “protective” implies treating “protective forest plantations” as a distinct type of “forest plantations.” This allows them to be considered part of the general category by volume. However, a question arises: what is the point of highlighting a part alongside the general concept if the legislator did not give it a special legal status? A similar situation occurs with the term “forest plantations.” The Forest Code does not define it; the definition appears in Clause 5.22 of DSTU 3404-96 “Forestry. Terms and definitions,” where forest plantations are understood as “a group of trees in which not only mutual influence on each other occurs but also on soil and atmosphere.” From this, it can be concluded that “forest plantations” is narrower than “forest” and reflects a specific ecosystem, e.g., an oak or pine stand. However, even here, the question arises: what is the purpose of distinguishing “forest plantations” alongside “forest” in the disposition? In this case, it would be logical to define “linear protective plantations” in the law, emphasizing their particular level of legal protection due to their ecological and other functions within ecosystems.

Thus, the legislator did not define any essential features that would separate “protective forest plantations” or “other forest plantations” from the concept of “forest” as distinct objects of criminal law protection. They have neither a special status nor enhanced protection. Therefore, it seems logical to abandon excessive detailing of crime locations in Part 1 of Article 246 and limit it to a general reference to “forest” or “forest fund objects.” This would harmonize protective and regulatory norms, eliminate terminological confusion, and prevent interpretive conflicts.

Hence, the terminology used cannot be considered logical, as it does not fully correspond to the Forest Code or the Law of Ukraine “On the Nature Reserve Fund of Ukraine.” From a legislative technique perspective, the simultaneous use of “forest” and “forest plantations” seems unjustified, as in this context they can be considered synonymous.

It is also necessary to highlight issues with distinguishing reserves from other objects and territories of the nature reserve fund in the article’s text. According to Article 3 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Nature Reserve Fund of Ukraine,” the fund is divided into two categories: natural territories and objects (including natural and biosphere reserves, national and regional landscape parks, wildlife preserves, natural monuments, protected tracts), and artificially created objects. Therefore, separating reserves from other territories and objects of the fund in the article’s text is also unjustified.

As a result, actions related to illegal acquisition of already harvested or stored timber, as well as timber felled by strong winds, cannot be qualified as a crime under Article 246 of the Criminal Code.

Using the term “specially protected forests” in Part 3 of the article is inexplicable, as it does not exist in specialized legislation. Article 60 of the Law of Ukraine “On Environmental Protection” refers to natural territories and objects subject to special protection but does not mention forests as a separate object of special protection. Possibly, “specially protected forests” could refer to forests within nature reserve fund territories, recreational, resort, or health zones, or red-listed tree species. Alternatively, these could be particularly protective forest plots with restricted use. In any case, the justifications for this definition are merely interpretive and create conflicts in law enforcement practice. Therefore, it is reasonable to propose removing this definition from the article.

Shortcomings of the objective side of the criminal offense

Article 246 of the Criminal Code only provides a single method of committing the crime — felling, which generally means separating the trunk from the root using tools (axe, hand or chainsaw). Sometimes this method includes uprooting trees. It also encompasses actions aimed at destroying or toppling trees by any means: cutting, uprooting, etc. Therefore, the concept of “forest felling” is broader. It can be: 1) complete separation of a tree or shrub from its roots by any means (cutting, felling, toppling with machinery, etc.); 2) uprooting — removal of trees with roots; 3) damaging a tree or shrub to the point of growth cessation (e.g., detaching main branches from the trunk).

It is appropriate to replace the term “porubka” with “rubka,” as this is the definition used in forestry legislation.

Legislators overlooked damage to trees leading to partial or full cessation of growth, which may occur during the crime. This usually happens inadvertently: during felling, skidding, and timber transportation. An inexperienced logger cannot always predict the fall of a felled tree, so selective felling can damage other trees, break tops, tear skeletal roots, or break trunks. Although caused unintentionally, these consequences fall under the offender’s intent, even though there is no pragmatic purpose to damage other trees. Such acts are never legally independent but are always a byproduct of illegal logging.

According to Note 3 of the “Rates for calculating the damage caused to forests by illegal logging and damage to trees and shrubs” (approved by Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 665 of 23 July 2008), trees damaged to the point of growth cessation include trees with broken trunks, stripped bark over 30% of circumference, damaged crowns over half their length, damaged or broken skeletal roots over half the trunk perimeter, and fallen trees or those tilted over 30 degrees. The title of this act indicates a distinction between illegal logging and damaging trees/shrubs to the point of growth cessation, supporting improvements to the disposition of Article 246.

Foreign experience confirms the appropriateness of legislative changes. For example, Article 109 of the Criminal Code of Latvia criminalizes not only illegal felling but also destruction or damage of trees, effectively removing them from the ecological system, causing loss of commercial value, and leading to death. This highlights the need for criminal law provisions covering both illegal logging and intentional damage.

Hence, it is advisable to amend Article 246 to define intentional damage to trees and shrubs to the point of growth cessation as an independent (alternative) form of socially dangerous act alongside illegal logging. This includes uprooting, excavation, removal, including by explosives, and burning roots.

Intentional or hooligan motives, such as peeling bark or cutting trunks with knowledge that the plant will die, require criminalization. Unintentional damage occurring during logging operations should be handled administratively, e.g., minor damages to trees during skidding or felling do not constitute criminal acts.

The threshold for significant damage, as a regulator of criminal liability, can be increased

The socially dangerous consequences of the crime under Article 246 are significant damage. According to the article’s note, significant damage exceeds twenty times the non-taxable minimum income, or other significant damage to the environment. As of 01.01.2025, this threshold is 30,280 UAH, while severe consequences under Part 4 exceed 90,840 UAH.

Forest damage rates in 2025 (Cabinet Resolution No. 665) depend on trunk diameter, e.g., a tree 26–30 cm in diameter costs 6,835.35 UAH, 30.1–34 cm — 9,170.74 UAH, 34.1–38 cm — 11,677.02 UAH, 38.1–42 cm — 14,341.54 UAH, 42.1–46 cm — 17,012.38 UAH, 46.1–50 cm — 19,676.86 UAH. Species is not considered, nor is motivation. Thus, illegal logging of two trees of 47 cm and 35 cm diameters qualifies for criminal liability.

Raising the threshold for significant damage is justified to reduce over-criminalization of minor illegal logging, improve efficiency, and align with European practices, where criminal liability applies only to significant forest damage.

Transport, storage, and sale of illegally felled timber

Due to structural flaws in Part 1 of Article 246, independent liability for transport, storage, or sale is practically impossible. Law enforcement cannot reliably prosecute these offenses. A separate study is planned to address this issue.

Conclusions

Article 246 in its current version does not meet modern environmental protection standards and conflicts with specialized legislation. Its vague wording complicates criminal liability application for certain illegal logging types. Effective counteraction requires simultaneous improvement of criminal law provisions and amendments to specialized laws, ensuring harmonized enforcement by competent authorities.

---

The publication is produced by NGO «ForestCom» with the support of the Askold and Dir Fund as a part of the Strong Civil Society of Ukraine –  a Driver towards Reforms and Democracy project, implemented by ISAR Ednannia, funded by Norway and Sweden. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of NGO «ForestCom» and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the Government of Norway, the Government of Sweden and ISAR Ednannia.