{"id":658722,"date":"2026-04-23T12:05:41","date_gmt":"2026-04-23T10:05:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/r-v-lee-alexander\/"},"modified":"2026-04-23T12:05:41","modified_gmt":"2026-04-23T10:05:41","slug":"r-v-lee-alexander","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-lee-alexander\/","title":{"rendered":"R v Lee Alexander"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

MR JUSTICE FRASER: 1 This is an\u00a0appeal against sentence, following the grant of\u00a0permission by\u00a0the single Judge. The appellant has been represented before us by\u00a0Miss Turuduja-Austin, to\u00a0whom we are grateful for her helpful and succinct submissions. She also appeared for the appellant at\u00a0the proceedings below. 2 On 6\u00a0May\u00a02022 the appellant was sentenced in the Crown Court at Oxford by\u00a0the Honorary Recorder of Oxford, His Honour Judge Pringle QC, on one count of fraud, contrary to section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006, to\u00a0which the appellant had pleaded guilty on 5\u00a0April\u00a02022, so approximately one month earlier. There was a\u00a0basis of\u00a0plea, to\u00a0which we will come in due course. 3 The second count on the indictment, namely one of\u00a0blackmail, was not proceeded with by\u00a0the prosecution. On the single count to\u00a0which the appellant had pleaded guilty the judge sentenced him to\u00a0a\u00a0period of\u00a0imprisonment of\u00a0two years and nine months. The judge also imposed a\u00a0restraining order upon him, not to\u00a0contact either the victim of\u00a0the fraud or his cousin, who had also received messages from him during the course of the offending. 4 The facts of\u00a0the offending are as follows. The victim of the fraud was a\u00a0young woman of\u00a018\u00a0years old at the time, called Emily. In February 2020 she received a\u00a0communication from someone who was calling themselves Joe Avery. The appellant had created a\u00a0number of\u00a0fake accounts on the social media applications Snapchat and Instagram. He knew the victim because they had both attended the same school, but he had never spoken to\u00a0her. Joe Avery was one of\u00a0the false profiles that he\u00a0had created. The appellant and Emily communicated over the following days via social media, and a\u00a0few days later he\u00a0asked her if she was interested in modelling, and he sent her a\u00a0link to\u00a0something called Vision Models New. This account was designed to\u00a0look like Vision Models, which is a\u00a0genuine modelling agency based in London, but it had no connection with the genuine modelling agency and was a\u00a0wholly false link. 5 Emily added this link to her Snapchat account, and the appellant, by\u00a0now posing as\u00a0the agency, asked her to\u00a0send a\u00a0photograph of\u00a0her face and another of\u00a0her in a\u00a0bikini. Given that she was interested in a\u00a0modelling career and also believing that she was dealing with a\u00a0genuine agency, she sent those pictures of\u00a0herself. In fact, she was sending them to\u00a0the appellant, although she did not know this. Having received these pictures, the appellant, again pretending to be acting for Vision Models New, told her she was indeed suitable to\u00a0model lingerie. The following day the agency asked her to\u00a0send a\u00a0photograph of\u00a0her in her underwear, which she did. The Snapchat account for Vision Models New then asked her for a\u00a0topless photograph. She became suspicious of\u00a0this and messaged Joe Avery on Instagram to\u00a0check the bona fides of the agency, and asked him if it\u00a0was "Legit". He\u00a0was the person who had sent her the link in the first place and it\u00a0was understandable that she would ask him about this. He\u00a0reassured her that it\u00a0was a\u00a0genuine request from a\u00a0genuine agency, and so she sent Vision Models New a topless picture. She had by\u00a0this stage sent what she believed to\u00a0be\u00a0the agency a\u00a0number of\u00a0photographs of herself, including those of her in a\u00a0bikini, in underwear and now a photograph of herself topless. 6 She then received a\u00a0message via Snapchat from another profile called Molly Proctor\u00a0567. \u00a0This, again, was the appellant using another false profile, with the difference being that this time he was pretending to\u00a0be\u00a0a\u00a0female photographer employed by the modelling agency. This message asked Emily to send further topless photographs of\u00a0herself to\u00a0that account, which she did. 7 At\u00a0the beginning of\u00a0March the agency contacted her again. This time she enquired when she would receive payment for the photographs she had sent already. A\u00a0negotiation followed about how much she would be paid and a\u00a0number of\u00a0photographs, additional to\u00a0those she had already sent she would have to\u00a0submit. The agency told her she had to provide a\u00a0photograph of\u00a0herself fully naked in order to\u00a0receive payment, and she agreed to\u00a0do this. The agency agreed to pay her \u00a390 on the proviso that this time the photographs would include her face. Previous photographs had not. She sent the fully naked photographs which included her face, as requested, and also provided her bank details, but she did not receive any payment. 8 What then occurred was as follows. The appellant contacted Emily, not disclosing that he\u00a0was the person behind this behaviour in obtaining the photographs, and said that he\u00a0had hacked into the computer system of\u00a0the agency and obtained her photographs as a result of \u00a0that exercise. He\u00a0said he\u00a0had both topless and nude photographs of\u00a0her and would both post them online and distribute them around the town where she lived for everyone to see unless she sent more nude photographs to him, and he said she should also be prepared to do "what I\u00a0tell you". There were some explicit sexual references in some of these messages. Luckily, rather than give in to these threats as\u00a0some victims of such threatening behaviour sometimes do, she wisely contacted the police, and the appellant was arrested and the officer seized two mobile telephones. 9 In interview, the appellant fully denied being involved in this behaviour and claimed to police merely that he had received a\u00a0topless photograph of\u00a0her from an online friend who he\u00a0called Harry Corbin. He also claimed that Joe Avery, which was the name of\u00a0the original fake profile, was another online friend who lived in Manchester. A\u00a0few weeks later, at the end of March 2020, the victim's cousin received the following message from the Joe Avery Instagram account: "Your sister was a\u00a0joke, getting people arrested for something they didn't do. My mate messaged her saying, 'I'll help you out with something', then got him arrested for making bullshit up. Ha ha ha… Did you know about it? …airing me now. Calm I'll just block you then I don't chat to Lee anymore but it's a joke. He's got a girlfriend and Emily accusing him of blackmailing her, what a\u00a0joke." 10 The same day another friend of\u00a0the victim received a\u00a0message from Joe Avery warning him to\u00a0be\u00a0careful around her because she had \u201cpeople arrested for no reason\u201d. 11 The appellant was then interviewed for a second time by police. He provided a prepared statement in which he stood by\u00a0the claims made in his initial interview, and then answered "no comment" to\u00a0all questions. It\u00a0was necessary, therefore, for the investigation to\u00a0interrogate his electronic devices, and this was done and a\u00a0detailed forensic investigation followed. The two mobile telephones taken from his address were analysed. The results clearly demonstrated that the two phones used in the behaviour we have recounted were the two phones seized from the appellant, and also that the Instagram and Snapchat of\u00a0Joe Avery, Molly Proctor 567 and Vision Models New had all accessed the internet via an IP\u00a0registered to\u00a0the appellant's home address. This led to the appellant eventually accepting responsibility for what he had done and pleading guilty some time later. He entered a basis of\u00a0plea which accepted the count of\u00a0fraud on a full facts basis and also stated that that plea, "included the facts of\u00a0the blackmail". This means that he\u00a0accepted sending the messages demanding other nude photographs from the victim and threatening to\u00a0distribute the ones that he\u00a0had fraudulently obtained. 12 The court had before it for sentencing both a Pre-sentence Report and a\u00a0psychiatric report. The Pre-sentence Report noted that the offences were sexually motivated and that "The Digital Media Investigator Report suggests the index offence was not an\u00a0isolated incident." 13 In paragraphs\u00a0115 and 116\u00a0it is stated that: "Mr Alexander creates numerous real and fake personas online via Snapchat and Instagram and uses them to coerce, harm and blackmail females into sending him naked and sexual images of themselves. He pretends to\u00a0be\u00a0females and males and adopts images and accounts from other Snapchat and Instagram users and pretends to\u00a0be\u00a0these persons. He has pretended to be a fashion modelling agency as well as a\u00a0photographer working for these companies, all with the intention of\u00a0obtaining naked images of females." 14 The Psychiatric Report found that he\u00a0suffered from social phobia and potentially also atypical autism, also known as Autistic Spectrum Disorder. This was mild. He was 22 and had no previous convictions. 15 The parties were agreed that culpability was high. Given the sophistication, amount of\u00a0planning, the continuation of\u00a0the deception, and indeed, the initial explanation given to\u00a0the police in two interviews, such a\u00a0conclusion is, in our judgment, inescapable. 16 In his sentencing remarks the judge said he\u00a0had taken account of\u00a0the guidelines for fraud but he could not factor in any monetary factor. He did, however, have regard to\u00a0the high impact the offending had on the victim and the serious detrimental effect on the victim in terms of harm. It was agreed that the appropriate discount for the guilty plea was 10\u00a0per cent. The sentencing judge took a figure of three years and applied the 10 per cent discount to\u00a0arrive at\u00a0the sentence of\u00a0two years and nine months\u2019 imprisonment. 17 The grounds of\u00a0appeal, which have been very well put before us today, are that this should have been a\u00a0Category\u00a05\u00a0harm case and that the guidelines for a Category\u00a05A offence should have been used. There are three grounds, which are as follows: (1) The judge took too high a\u00a0starting point. (2) He\u00a0failed to\u00a0take account of\u00a0relevant mitigating factors, including the mental health difficulties the appellant has. (3) The overall sentence is manifestly excessive. 18 We deal first with the guidelines. When dealing with harm, there are five categories, all identified or specified by\u00a0money value of the fraud in question. However, the guidelines expressly state that harm is initially assessed by\u00a0the actual, intended or risk loss. There is then a\u00a0second aspect to\u00a0this exercise which is to consider harm B, namely victim impact. This permits movement upwards within the category or, indeed, within the next category above. Here, this is an\u00a0unusual fraud offence because there is no express financial impact. The victim here was not someone who suffered a\u00a0financial loss, and what in fact she provided cannot be equated to any\u00a0money value. The impact on her was something far greater, and in a\u00a0sense, something that money cannot buy or put right, namely the supply to\u00a0another of\u00a0intimate photographs, including fully naked photographs that she would not have sent to this person at all, absent of\u00a0the fraud. It was a fraud by representation, with those fraudulent representations being repeated numerous times and in more than one guise as\u00a0a\u00a0course of\u00a0conduct. The victim did not suffer financial harm per se, but she suffered great harm. 19 The fact that there is no financial impact does not mean that one automatically starts the categorisation exercise in Category\u00a05\u00a0based on value or perceived value of loss or gain, and then go on to consider whether or not to\u00a0move up a\u00a0category at stage\u00a0B\u00a0of\u00a0the harm analysis. Because of\u00a0the high impact, it\u00a0was common ground that this could be categorised as\u00a0a\u00a0Category\u00a04\u00a0case which has a\u00a0starting point of\u00a018\u00a0months and with the top of\u00a0that range being three years. We have carefully considered the correct approach. We consider the harm suffered here can equate the offence to one falling into Category\u00a03 or Category 4. Using table 1, which we consider to\u00a0be\u00a0the most suitable table, that would give under Category\u00a03\u00a0a\u00a0starting point of\u00a03 years with a\u00a0range of\u00a018\u00a0months to\u00a04 years, and as\u00a0we have observed, the top of\u00a0Category\u00a04\u00a0is a\u00a03-year figure. 20 We have also considered the authority of\u00a0R\u00a0v\u00a0Falder\u00a0[2018] EWCA Crim 2514 and is a\u00a0judgment of\u00a0this court presided over by\u00a0Holroyde\u00a0LJ, now Vice President of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. That is a\u00a0very different case and considers a\u00a0large range of\u00a0far more serious offences, but within those committed by\u00a0the defendant in that case are similar frauds. We quote from paragraph\u00a014: \u201cThe applicant targeted victims whom he\u00a0knew to\u00a0be\u00a0both young and vulnerable\u00a0\u2013 for example, by\u00a0picking out girls who posted on a website devoted to those suffering from anorexia. He began by offering his chosen victim money in exchange for naked photographs of\u00a0herself. In order to\u00a0make the offer more acceptable he\u00a0used a\u00a0variety of\u00a0deceptions. He posed, for example, as a female artist who had suffered from depression who found therapymaking life sketches from photographs. Once his selected victim had been induced to provide initial images, the applicant asked for more. He continued to offer (but never actually to make) payment.\u201d 21 Mr\u00a0Turuduja-Austin has drawn our attention to\u00a0the distinguishing features of that case compared to this one, namely that the offences took place over a\u00a0longer period, there were far more victims and that the defendant (appellant in this case) is ten years younger. She does, however, very sensibly accept that there are similarities and the offences in that case that were charged as\u00a0section\u00a01 fraud offences attracted sentences after plea of\u00a0three years' imprisonment. In the instant case before us there are significant aggravating factors. The deception went on for a\u00a0period of\u00a0time, included threats and intimidation, and as\u00a0put in the basis of\u00a0plea, that accepted the facts of\u00a0the blackmail but also involved lying to\u00a0the police during two separate interviews. 22 The appellant is young and does have some limited personal mitigation, but in our judgment, these would, putting it at its best for the appellant, balance out or reduce the aggravating factors. It must also be remembered that guidelines are exactly that, guidelines, and are not rigid tramlines into which sentencing for an\u00a0offence must be forced. They are to\u00a0guide the sentencing judge, who is expected realistically to\u00a0take account all the relevant factors of any particular offence. No set of\u00a0guidelines can accurately predict all aspects of any specific offence that may be committed, and they do not provide rigid boxes into which all offences must be forced regardless of\u00a0their facts. The test for this court is whether the sentence passed is manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. 23 In our judgment, neither of\u00a0these is demonstrated in the appellant's favour. The judge arrived at a\u00a0sentence within the range that was properly open to\u00a0him on the unusual facts of\u00a0this offence. 24 It\u00a0is not manifestly excessive, and therefore, we dismiss the appeal. __________<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Sources officielles :<\/strong> consulter la page source<\/a><\/p>\n

Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

MR JUSTICE FRASER: 1 This is an appeal against sentence, following the grant of permission by the single Judge. The appellant has been represented before us by Miss Turuduja-Austin, to whom we are grateful for her helpful and succinct submissions. She also appeared for the appellant at the proceedings below. 2 On 6 May 2022 the appellant was sentenced in…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[8238],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[32183],"kji_subject":[7612],"kji_keyword":[15181,7633,10958,13148,7652],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-658722","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-court-of-appeal-criminal-division","kji_year-32183","kji_subject-fiscal","kji_keyword-agency","kji_keyword-appellant","kji_keyword-fraud","kji_keyword-photographs","kji_keyword-victim","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nR v Lee Alexander - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-lee-alexander\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"ru_RU\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R v Lee Alexander\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"MR JUSTICE FRASER: 1 This is an appeal against sentence, following the grant of permission by the single Judge. The appellant has been represented before us by Miss Turuduja-Austin, to whom we are grateful for her helpful and succinct submissions. She also appeared for the appellant at the proceedings below. 2 On 6 May 2022 the appellant was sentenced in...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-lee-alexander\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"13 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-lee-alexander\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-lee-alexander\\\/\",\"name\":\"R v Lee Alexander - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-23T10:05:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-lee-alexander\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-lee-alexander\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-lee-alexander\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/avocats-en-droit-penal-a-paris-conseil-et-defense-strategique\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"R v Lee Alexander\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"width\":2114,\"height\":1253,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"R v Lee Alexander - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-lee-alexander\/","og_locale":"ru_RU","og_type":"article","og_title":"R v Lee Alexander","og_description":"MR JUSTICE FRASER: 1 This is an appeal against sentence, following the grant of permission by the single Judge. The appellant has been represented before us by Miss Turuduja-Austin, to whom we are grateful for her helpful and succinct submissions. She also appeared for the appellant at the proceedings below. 2 On 6 May 2022 the appellant was sentenced in...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-lee-alexander\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f":"13 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-lee-alexander\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-lee-alexander\/","name":"R v Lee Alexander - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-23T10:05:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-lee-alexander\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"ru-RU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-lee-alexander\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-lee-alexander\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/avocats-en-droit-penal-a-paris-conseil-et-defense-strategique\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"R v Lee Alexander"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"ru-RU"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"ru-RU","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","width":2114,"height":1253,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/658722","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=658722"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=658722"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=658722"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=658722"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=658722"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=658722"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=658722"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=658722"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}