What Was Charged
The client was charged under Article 30(3) and Article 228.1(4)(g) of the Criminal Code — attempted trafficking of psychotropic substances on a large scale. The penalty range was 10 to 20 years’ imprisonment. During a personal search, four packages of amphetamine with a total weight of 3.84 grams were seized. The client was held in custody from the moment of arrest. The defense’s task was to challenge the intent to sell and secure a reclassification to Article 228(2) of the Criminal Code. I’ve written in detail about what fundamentally distinguishes these two offenses in my article on the difference between possession and trafficking under Articles 228 and 228.1.
The Prosecution’s Main Argument
The investigation relied heavily on the packaging: four packages wrapped in different colors of electrical tape. The standard reasoning goes that different color coding indicates goods prepared for different buyers. The case also included the results of a phone inspection: it contained information that the investigation characterized as evidence of involvement in illegal drug trafficking. That characterization was critically important — it was vague and not tied to anything concrete. The investigation never established the origin of that data.
How the Defense Built Its Position
The work proceeded along two tracks: a written defense position and preparing the client for questioning in court. In the written position, each of the prosecution’s arguments was addressed individually: Packaging — the Plenum of the Supreme Court states directly that a conclusion of intent to sell must be based on specific evidence, not assumptions. Several packages are equally explainable by the convenience of dosing for personal use. The phone — the case contained no established instance of the substance being handed over to anyone. The findings from the phone inspection were not tied to any specific intent to sell the seized substances. Absence of investigative surveillance measures — there was no controlled purchase and no documented instance of a handover. The arrest occurred during a chance encounter with police officers who had no prior intelligence about any sale. In parallel, preparation continued for the court examination. The public prosecutor asked questions aimed at exposing contradictions: where such a quantity came from, why four packages, what the information on the phone was. The client answered consistently and without contradiction: the substance was purchased through dead drops for personal use, was never handed to anyone, and any coordinates received were used personally. The court found this testimony credible and unrefuted.
The Outcome
The court reclassified the act from Article 30(3) and Article 228.1(4)(g) to Article 228(2) of the Criminal Code and imposed a suspended sentence of 3 years. The client walked out of the courtroom a free person, having spent nearly five months in pretrial detention. In its verdict, the court stated directly: “the quantity of psychotropic substances alone cannot indicate intent to unlawfully sell them.” Packaging is not evidence. A phone with no established origin of data is not evidence. Circumstantial indicators without direct evidence of intent are an insufficient basis for classification under Article 228.1 of the Criminal Code. This is precisely why, in cases like this, it’s critical to bring in a defense attorney at the earliest possible stage: I’ve written a separate guide on what to do immediately after an arrest on a drug-related charge, “Detained Under Article 228 of the Criminal Code: What to Do Before Questioning.”