Alexander Smirnov, the former FBI informant who admitted fabricating a bribery claim involving Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and Burisma, is now trying to undo that guilty plea with support from the Justice Department.
Justice Department Backs Smirnov Appeal
Smirnov’s lawyers are asking the courts to reopen a conviction that once appeared settled. He pleaded guilty in December 2024 and was sentenced in January 2025 to six years in prison. The Justice Department had prosecuted him under special counsel David Weiss. It later changed course after Donald Trump returned to office and began supporting Smirnov’s release as the appeal proceeded.
False Burisma Claim Drove Biden Probe
Smirnov told an FBI handler in June 2020 that Burisma executives had paid Joe Biden and Hunter Biden five million dollars each. He claimed the money was tied to protection from a Ukrainian criminal investigation. That claim was recorded on an FBI Form 1023, a document used to capture information from confidential human sources. The allegation later became part of House Republican scrutiny of the Biden family and their business connections.
Federal Charges Undercut the Timeline
The case took a sharp turn in February 2024, when Smirnov was arrested after returning to the United States via Las Vegas. A federal grand jury charged him in February with making a false statement and creating a false record. Federal prosecutors said Smirnov’s actual contacts with Burisma figures happened in 2017. That was after Biden left the vice presidency and after the events Smirnov had described.
Guilty Plea Included Tax Case
The judge imposed six years.
U.S. District Judge Otis D. Wright II sentenced Smirnov in Los Angeles on January 8, 2025. Smirnov received a six-year sentence after prosecutors argued that he had abused the trust placed in him as an FBI source.
The sentence landed at the top of the plea range. Prosecutors treated the false allegation about Biden as especially serious because it entered national politics during election cycles.
Russian Contacts Stayed Central
The prosecution also included claims that Smirnov had contacts with people linked to Russian intelligence. Investigators said he advanced new false information after meetings involving Russian officials. That issue gave the case a national security dimension. The concern was not only that Smirnov lied, but also that foreign disinformation may have moved through a law-enforcement channel into U.S. politics.
Release Request Marked Reversal
The Justice Department’s shift became public in April 2025 when prosecutors joined Smirnov’s lawyers in seeking release during the appeal. Prosecutors sought release pending the appeal, saying the government planned to review the case. The move put the department at odds with its earlier stance on prosecution. The same government that called Smirnov’s conduct criminal began supporting a step that could help him challenge the conviction.
Time Served Issue Leads Appeal
Smirnov’s appeal focuses partly on whether his plea agreement was properly applied at sentencing. His lawyers argue that the judge did not formally grant credit for time served as required by the agreement.
Furlough Status Adds Scrutiny
Smirnov’s custody status has also drawn attention. He was assigned to the low-security federal prison at Terminal Island near Long Beach, California, with a projected release date in 2029. The latest account says he was later placed on furlough and was not physically housed at the prison. It also says officials did not provide a forwarding address when outside parties attempted to locate him.
Courts Hold Final Decision
The next key decision rests with the appeals court. Judges must decide whether Smirnov’s sentence, plea, or both should remain intact. The outcome could shape the final legal record of the Biden Burisma bribery claim. Smirnov remains the only person punished in court over the false allegation that fueled years of political attacks.
For now, the official status is unresolved. Smirnov is pressing to have his guilty plea undone; the Justice Department has supported his appeal, and the courts must decide whether his confession remains legally binding.
