Client was suspected of exploiting a Ukrainian asylum seeker. He helped her find clients, made appointments for her and took her to the clients.

In the court's opinion, extra caution is required when a prostitute is staying in an AZC in a country foreign to her, is in an asylum procedure and does not have a command of the Dutch language.

However, she stated that she was not dependent on client, but was an adult woman who could manage on her own in the Netherlands. In addition, she apparently enjoyed prostitution work, determined her own rates, determined which sexual acts she wanted to perform, and the earnings were divided equally between her and client.

The court took this into account in its opinion that it could not be established conclusively that the woman had been in a situation that was not equal to the circumstances in which an 'independent prostitute' in the Netherlands normally finds herself. The court ruled that it could not be proven that there had been (the intention of) exploitation and acquitted the client of human trafficking.

Read the full statement here.

The defendant(s) in this case are assisted by: