Online Solicitation of a Minor Lawyer Virginia

An online solicitation charge in Virginia is built from words that already exist in writing. The controlling statute is Va. Code § 18.2-374.3, which addresses the use of communications systems to facilitate certain offenses involving children. Subsection B punishes using such a system to procure or promote the use of a minor for an act violating § 18.2-370 or § 18.2-374.1, a Class 6 felony. Subsection C punishes an adult who uses a communications system to solicit, with lascivious intent, a child he knows or believes is under 15, a Class 5 felony that carries five-year and 10-year mandatory minimums in the age-gap and repeat cases the statute describes. Subsection D reaches solicitation of a child 15 to 17 where the offender is at least seven years older, also a Class 5 felony, with a one-year mandatory minimum for repeat violations. Subsection D1 treats lascivious electronic exposure to a child 15 or older as a Class 1 misdemeanor. Subsection E covers solicitation of a child under 18 for offenses under §§ 18.2-361, 18.2-374.1, or 18.2-374.1:1, a Class 5 felony. Convictions under subsections C, D, and E are Tier II registrable offenses, and subsection B is Tier I. Mr. Sris, Owner and Founder of Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C., is a former prosecutor whose firm has practiced criminal defense since 1997 and handles these charges throughout Virginia. Reach our location at (888) 437-7747.

On this page

What an Online Solicitation of a Minor Charge Means in Virginia

Virginia treats online solicitation as a communications offense first. The conduct the Commonwealth must prove under Va. Code § 18.2-374.3 is the use of a communications system, and the grading turns on the intent shown and on the age of the child involved. Subsection C asks what the accused knew or believed about age rather than what the age actually was. That drafting choice is the reason these cases frequently grow out of law-enforcement operations in which no actual child was involved at any point. A profile, a persona, and a stated age can supply the belief the statute describes even when the person on the other end of the conversation was an adult investigator.

Grading matters from the first appearance. Subsection B, aimed at procuring or promoting the use of a minor for an act violating § 18.2-370 or § 18.2-374.1, is a Class 6 felony. Va. Code § 18.2-370, taking indecent liberties with children, is itself a Class 5 felony. Subsections C, D, and E are Class 5 felonies, and two of them attach mandatory minimum terms in the circumstances the statute sets out: five years and 10 years under subsection C in the age-gap and repeat cases, and one year under subsection D for repeat violations. Subsection D1, lascivious electronic exposure to a child 15 or older, is a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Registration follows the subsection of conviction rather than the label used in conversation about the case. Va. Code § 9.1-902 defines registrable offenses by Tier, and tier assignment frequently turns on the offense date. Convictions under subsections C, D, and E fall in Tier II, while subsection B falls in Tier I. Because § 18.2-374.3 was amended in 2025 by 2025 Va. Acts ch. 261, the version of the statute that governs a prosecution depends on when the conduct is alleged to have occurred.

How Mr. Sris and the Firm’s Of Counsel Attorneys Handle These Cases

Work on a § 18.2-374.3 case starts with the record the Commonwealth already holds. Mr. Sris and the firm’s Of Counsel attorneys reconstruct the full conversation rather than the excerpt attached to the charging papers, because the sequence of messages, who introduced each topic, and how any stated age entered the exchange all bear on the knowledge or belief element in subsections C and D. Chat logs, platform records, device extractions, and the investigator’s own reports are compared against one another for gaps and for material left out.

The defense team also examines how the communication was obtained. Search warrants for accounts and devices, the scope of any consent, and the chain of custody for extracted data are reviewed, and suppression is raised where the record supports it. Where an operation involved an adult investigator rather than a child, the analysis focuses on what the statute requires the Commonwealth to establish about belief, and on whether the exchange as a whole supports the lascivious intent the subsection demands.

Grading and collateral consequences are addressed at the same time, not afterward. Whether conduct falls under subsection B, C, D, D1, or E changes the felony class, whether a mandatory minimum is in play, and whether a conviction is Tier I or Tier II under Va. Code § 9.1-902. Those differences shape every negotiation, so the firm identifies the subsection the evidence supports and the statutory version applicable to the alleged offense date before any resolution is discussed.

Preparation continues on both tracks. Motions practice, consultation with digital forensic examiners where the record calls for it, and preparation of the client for each court date proceed alongside any negotiation. Mr. Sris and the firm’s Of Counsel attorneys set out the realistic range of outcomes in writing, so that decisions are made with the same information the defense team is working from.

The Attorneys Who Would Handle the Case

The firm has practiced since 1997. Mr. Sris, its Owner and Founder, is a former prosecutor, and that background shapes how a § 18.2-374.3 file is read: which subsection the evidence actually supports, what a prosecutor is likely to treat as the strongest part of the record, and where the proof of belief or intent thins out. He is admitted in Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, and New York.

Mr. Sris and the firm’s Of Counsel attorneys practice in criminal defense and handle charges under § 18.2-374.3 in courts across Virginia. Cases are staffed so that the attorney appearing at a hearing has worked from the same discovery, message logs, and forensic material as the rest of the defense team.

Communication is treated as part of the work. Clients are told what stage the case has reached, what the next filing or hearing is expected to decide, and what the charged subsection means for grading and for registration under Va. Code § 9.1-902. The firm maintains 24/7 phone intake so that a case can be opened outside court hours.

If you are facing an online solicitation charge in Virginia, request a consultation. Reach our location at (888) 437-7747.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does Va. Code § 18.2-374.3 prohibit?

The statute addresses the use of communications systems to facilitate certain offenses involving children. Subsection B punishes using such a system to procure or promote the use of a minor for an act violating § 18.2-370 or § 18.2-374.1, a Class 6 felony. Subsection C punishes an adult who solicits, with lascivious intent, a child he knows or believes is under 15, a Class 5 felony. Subsection D covers solicitation of a child 15 to 17 where the offender is at least seven years older, also a Class 5 felony. Subsection D1 makes lascivious electronic exposure to a child 15 or older a Class 1 misdemeanor, and subsection E, covering solicitation of a child under 18 for offenses under §§ 18.2-361, 18.2-374.1, or 18.2-374.1:1, is a Class 5 felony.

Can a person be charged when no actual child was involved?

Subsection C is written around what the accused knew or believed about the child’s age rather than around the age of a real person. Because the belief element controls, these cases frequently arise from law-enforcement operations in which no actual child was involved and an adult investigator maintained the persona of a minor. If you are facing a charge from an operation of that kind, the defense usually centers on how age entered the conversation, whether the messages support the belief the statute describes, and whether the lascivious intent element is met by the exchange read as a whole rather than by isolated lines quoted in a report.

How do subsections C and D differ?

Subsection C applies to an adult who uses a communications system to solicit, with lascivious intent, a child he knows or believes is under 15. It is a Class 5 felony and carries five-year and 10-year mandatory minimums in the age-gap and repeat cases the statute describes. Subsection D applies where the child is 15 to 17 and the offender is at least seven years older; it is also a Class 5 felony, and it carries a one-year mandatory minimum for repeat violations. The believed age and the age difference between the parties therefore change both the subsection charged and the sentencing exposure attached to it.

Does a conviction require sex offender registration?

Va. Code § 9.1-902 defines registrable offenses by Tier, and the subsection of § 18.2-374.3 under which a conviction enters controls the result. Convictions under subsections C, D, and E are Tier II registrable offenses. A conviction under subsection B is Tier I. Tier assignment frequently turns on the offense date, so the date alleged in the charging document matters alongside the subsection charged. Because registration consequences differ by subsection, the subsection named in any proposed resolution should be reviewed before a plea is entered rather than afterward. Ask your attorney to confirm which subsection and which Tier a proposed disposition would produce.

Does the 2025 amendment to the statute affect a pending case?

Va. Code § 18.2-374.3 was amended in 2025 by 2025 Va. Acts ch. 261. Which text of the statute governs a prosecution depends on when the conduct is alleged to have occurred, so the first step is to fix the offense date from the charging documents and the investigative record. Counsel then compares the statutory language applicable to that date against the conduct charged, since the subsection, the grading, and the Tier assignment under Va. Code § 9.1-902 all follow from the correct version. If your case involves conduct near the boundary of an amendment, raise that question early, before any resolution is discussed.

This page provides general information and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each case. Results may vary.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.