36-year-old Johannes L. from Sint Willebrord was sentenced to thirty-four months in prison for forcing a boy (14) to perform sexual acts. L. pretended to be a young girl on Snapchat and managed to get in touch with the boy. A second suspect, Hans R. (66), was also tried and sentenced to twelve months in prison.
The lawsuits over the abuse, two weeks ago, took a lot of time. During the hearing, Johannes L. could remember little of what exactly had happened in 2022. He stated several times that he knew nothing more and stated that his memory failed him after two years.
Hans R. managed to stir up all kinds of things. He performed extensive sexual acts with the boy twice. But he would never have known the boy was underage. He waited for the victim blindfolded and wearing a balaclava and would not have noticed that the boy was only fourteen.
No doubts in victim statement
In an indecent case, evidence is often difficult, because it usually involves the perpetrator’s word against that of the victim. Yet the judge and the public prosecutor have no doubts.
The statements of the 14-year-old victim and his parents are consistent and, according to the public prosecutor, reliable. “Because they are detailed, consistent and supported by other evidence.”
Everything was orchestrated
The court blames the gentlemen for sexually and mentally abusing the boy. “Johannes L. deceived a child and forcibly sent it to a much older man for sexual acts. A man who was completely unknown to the victim, but also to the suspect.”
According to the court, L. is the director, purely to satisfy his own sexual desires. He would not have thought for a moment about the consequences for the victim.
Blackmail with nude photos via Snapchat
Johannes L. came into contact with the 14-year-old victim via Snapchat in 2022, where he pretended to be a young woman. L. managed to get the victim to send sexual photos of himself.
Ultimately, L. threatened to make the photos public. This could be prevented if the boy performed sexual acts. In exchange for these actions, the boy would also have sex with a young woman.
L. planned these ‘dates’ with the then 66-year-old Hans R., who, according to the court, should have taken more responsibility to investigate the age of the victim.
“R. heard the victim, a fourteen-year-old child, talking. That could have already been reason to doubt the age of consent.”
Given the seriousness of the situation, the court believes that only a prison sentence is appropriate. The two men must also pay 20,000 euros in compensation to the victim.
