Adrian P. was a child when Markus R. filmed him naked. "My friends and I saw it as a game. Markus promised us that he wouldn't show anyone the films, and he told us not tell anyone about them. Not even our parents," says Adrian P., who is now 19.
Markus R., from Germany, moved to Transylvania in 2001 to work for a German timber company, according to Romanian media reports. Back home, he had been charged with sexual abuse of children and served a prison sentence. But in Romania, he reinvented himself as a businessman eager to be involved with the community. He gave karate lessons and organized outings for local boys, buying them pizza and lemonade.
azov films boys
Northern Romania is a poor region. Many children here grow up with absent fathers, who've left to work in Germany or France. "R. was a substitute father," recalls a resident. But once he'd gained the trust of local boys, he began to film them -- playing naked in a wading pool in his home.
Markus R.'s nemesis was Dan Puskas, a criminal police officer in Zalau. In 2010, he was informed of R.'s activities by the families of R.'s victims. He placed R. under observation for several weeks and questioned a number of witnesses. R. was eventually arrested by a special squad while attempting to flee to Germany with several children in tow. The squad seized toys, camera equipment and around 200 videos of naked boys play-fighting. "Anyone who films this sort of material is sick," says Puskas.
Adrian P. was a child when Markus R. filmed him naked. "My friends and I saw it as a game. Markus promised us that he wouldnt show anyone the films, and he told us not tell anyone about them. Not even our parents," says Adrian P., who is now 19.
This case involves 176 films which the prosecution alleged were child pornography and which were sold, distributed imported and exported worldwide through Azov films incorporated by Mr. Brian Way. Way claimed these videos and photographs were nudist films of young boys at play and are not child pornography. He argued there were no sexual acts depicted in these films. The main question to be answered was whether such material constituted child pornography for the purposes of the Canadian Criminal Code (Section 163.1 (1) (ii) of which provides child pornography material qualifies as such where the dominant characteristic of the material is the depiction of sexual organs and/or anal regions of children under 18, for a sexual purpose).
All of the assets in Way's residence and those of Azov films was seized. The value of the assets seized (estimate $6,000) was deducted from the forfeiture order of $26,000. The order was changed to a fine of $20,000.
iii. Did Mr. Way knowingly direct his film editor and one of his cameramen to import, produce, distribute and export child pornography for the benefit of a criminal organization operating under the names, 4P5P Inc and Azov films?
In the present case most of the boys were aged between 10 and 18 years but were not engaged in sexual acts, nor was there fondling or sexual touching. Accordingly the court observed the determination (as a film, video or picture that has as its dominant characteristic, the depiction of a sexual organ or anal region of a person under eighteen for a sexual purpose) can be difficult in such circumstances. It also noted there was little guidance in the area as to possible criteria. The court in the present case suggested non-exhaustive factors that could be used to decide if the dominant characteristic of an image is the depiction of sexual organs or anal regions, or that the depiction is for a sexual purpose. In determining whether the dominant characteristic is the depiction of the genital or anal area, the court considered the following three factors:
The court set out the formula of most 176 films videos as the following: that almost of the people that appear in the films are boys between 10 to 18 years of age. They are clothed and then naked. They are engaged in a variety of activities that include swimming, wrestling, showering, exercising, fixing a moped, and general play. Before the films begin, there is text that scrolls down the screen explaining nudism and asserting that the film in question is a nudist film. This is accompanied by soft music and background scenery. Thereafter, the boys arrive on camera. They are clothed. Sometimes they perform an activity or go on an outing. They then disrobe and do an activity or activities while all of them are nude. Sometimes the activities involve outdoor activities like swimming, running through the woods, chopping wood or exploring on the beach. At other times the activities are indoors in saunas, showers, swimming pools or blow up pools or in a small sparsely furnished apartment used for many activities such as getting dressed in costumes, eating, play fighting and sitting on a couch. A significant portion of each film includes the boys naked. Toward the end of the movies the boys put their clothes back on. Sometimes there is an interview with the boys at the end of the movie. In some cases, members have access to accompanying pictures. In almost all of the films, there are no adults or girls present. There are no sexual acts. Occasionally the boys look into the camera as though for direction. There is no obvious storyline, the camera work in most cases is poor and there is little dialogue. The dialogue is not in English.
On the evidence the court noted that generally the earlier films (before December 2006 and the time of a police investigation) are shorter, contain less nudity and have fewer close-up images of the nude boys. The activities are usually not sexualized. But from 2007 the films changed and the court found the following characteristics made those films child pornography given:
vii. some of the films are accompanied by close up nude photographs of the boys. The accompanying photographs are often images taken at close range in poses that emphasize their genitals. They provide a sexual context to the nude films; and
In terms of the issue of sexual stimulation the court confirms it found the enterprise was acute to and responded to the requirements of the viewers in terms of increased nudity-while also displaying an awareness that some of their activity might be considered illegal (i.e. as child pornography). It knew where the customer would place value (i.e. on nudity of the boys). In communications between Mr Way and those within the enterprise they discussed for example videos with see through wet underwear as selling particularly well-because the underwear was see through. The court noted as the client base expanded so did the amount of nudity -and they responded to the demand for increased nudity as the area where the customer placed value. By 2011, revenues reached approximately $1.6 million. Azov films had a sizeable group of viewers in 92 different countries. The increasingly large revenues the court reasoned was as a response of the many customers for more nudity-including a focus below the waist material. The court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that given
In sum the court was satisfied both that the dominant characteristic of the films was the depiction of the genitals and anal regions of the boys and for a sexual purpose that those films are therefore child pornography.
Regarding the final question (possession) the court the prosecution must establish that the image or images were in the possession of the accused i.e. his knowledge and control. But it is not necessary that he know they are child pornography. The prosecution must prove that the accused intended to make computer files containing child pornography available to others or have actual knowledge that the file sharing program makes files. The court agreed Mr. Way had knowledge of the existence of the films and photographs and the control necessary to find him in possession of the child pornography. It noted the films were marketed on his website. He advertised the films on his website and they were sold in many countries. The court found that Mr. Way made, was in possession of, advertised on his website to distribute, sold and distributed, imported and exported child pornography and that he was paid from money earned as a result of selling films including those at issue.
We start with the evidence the government provided about what Silva would have encountered on the Azov website when he placed his orders. There was testimony that indicated a customer perusing the Azov Films' website would encounter a brief description of the material for sale. The jurors were then presented with the website pages for the films listed in the indictment.
In addition, the website pages included descriptions that conveyed that these specific films would show the boys engaging in various types of activities but without offering any semblance of a plot or storyline. And the descriptions for each of the films went on to describe the activities in which the boys would be engaging using language that the jury clearly could have perceived as indicating the presence of sexually explicit content.5
Given the cumulative force of these reasons, a rational jury could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Silva had knowledge that the contents of the materials he ordered and received were of a kind that would bring such materials within the Act's coverage, whether or not Silva knew at that time that such contents rendered the films contraband as a legal matter. The District Court therefore did not err in denying Silva's motion for a judgment of acquittal.
Search azov films crimean boys naked PhotosSearch azov films crimean boys naked Unrated VideosSearch azov films crimean boys naked XXX VideosSearch azov films crimean boys naked Indian VideosSearch azov films crimean boys naked MP4 VideosSearch azov films crimean boys naked Indian ImagesSearch azov films crimean boys naked Leaked VideosSearch azov films crimean boys naked Leaked PicsSearch azov films crimean boys naked XXX Posts 2ff7e9595c
Comentarios