With the assistance of a professional trafficking network, the defendant B on six occasions recruited Nigerian women to bring them to Duisburg, Germany for prostitution. On three of these occasions, the women were brought to Germany over Belgium and France. In two cases, women were brought to Germany over Turkey, Greece, Belgium and France, and in one case the trafficking occurred over Egypt and Belgium.
Each of the women were lured to Germany with the prospect of good jobs and earnings. In return for the unauthorised entry into Germany, the women had to pay large sums of money to their traffickers (approximately EUR 50,000 per person). The women were not aware they would be forced into prostitution to repay these debts.
To ensure that the women would meet the demands of the smugglers and comply with the defendants' instructions, they were put under pressure by being made to swear a "juju oath” before leaving Nigeria. The women were believers of “juju magic” and were afraid of being "cursed" by a “juju priest”.
With the threat of the “curse” and by using her position as the women’s only contact in Germany, the defendant B led the women to take up their work as prostitutes. The accused forwarded the women's income to the smuggling network. From the trafficked women’s earnings, the accused received about EUR 25,000 per woman.
Defendants B, C and D were each convicted at trial in the District Court of Duisburg. Defendant B was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. Defendant C was sentenced to one year and six months’ imprisonment, suspended. Additionally, the Court ordered that defendants B and C jointly pay EUR 22,400 to witness G, one of their victims. The Court decided to suspend the decision to impose a sentence upon defendant D, herself a trafficking victim.
NigeriaGermany
Belgium
France
Türkiye
GreeceLandgericht Duisburg [District Court of Duisburg]
At trial, the defendant B’s account of the facts differed from the accounts given by the other witnesses and defendants. For example, defendant B claimed that she had only granted loans to the witnesses and that she did not have anything to do with the women being smuggled into Germany. She also claimed that the women knew even before they left Nigeria that they would work as prostitutes in Germany. The court rejected the defendant B’s account, particularly on the basis of the plausible, credible and consistent statements of the other defendants and witnesses. In addition, large sums of money and a book of accounts were seized during apartment searches, which B had failed to adequately explain at trial.
The three defendants were each found guilty of the charges against them.
Please note that decisions of courts of the federal states are not directly binding nationwide.
According to witness E, defendant B was 28 years old at the time of the offences.
Defendant D was 18 years old at the time of the offending. Defendant D did not have a school-leaving qualification nor vocational training. Defendant D helped B to induce witnesses G and H to take up and continue prostitution. In addition, she collected the money earned by G and H for a certain period of time. D obtained no financial benefit from assisting B. She was in a vulnerable position because she was very young, B was her only contact person in Germany, she had no financial independence, and she felt obliged to obey B because she had taken out a “juju oath”. The Court formed the impression that D was easily influenced by B.
Strafgesetzbuch § 232
Human trafficking
B was charged under Stragesetzbuch § 232 I 1 Nr. 1 lit. a), II Nr.1, III 1 Nr. 3
Strafgesetzbuch § 232a
Forced prostitution
B was charged under Stragesetzbuch § 232a I Nr. 1, III, IV
Strafgesetzbuch § 232
Human trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation
B was charged under Stragesetzbuch § 232 I, III Nr. 3, IV Nr. 1 (as it was in effect from 19 February 2005 to 15 October 2016; since amended).
Defendants B and C were ordered jointly to pay EUR 22,400 plus interest to witness G.
Stragesetzbuch § 232
Human trafficking
C was charged under Stragesetzbuch § 232 I 1 Nr. 1 lit. a)
Stragesetzbuch § 232a
Forced prostitution
C was charged under Stragesetzbuch § 232a I Nr. 1
Stragesetzbuch § 223
Bodily injury
C was charged under Stragesetzbuch § 223 I
C was sentenced to one year and six months' imprisonment, suspended. The fact that C did not obtain any financial benefit of his own through the offending was considered by the court to be a mitigating factor.
Defendants B and C were ordered jointly to pay EUR 22,400 plus interest to witness G.
Strafgesetzbuch § 232a
Accessory to forced prostitution
D was charged under Strafgesetzbuch §§ 232a I Nr. 1 and 27
The German Jugendgerichtsgesetz [Youth Courts Law] was applied in sentencing D on the basis that she possessed the mental maturity of a juvenile. The Court took into account in sentencing D that she had herself been one of the victims. The Court considered that the imposition of a juvenile sentence was not necessary and that education measures would suffice. The decision to impose a juvenile sentence on D was therefore suspended.
This case is noteworthy because one of the victims later became one of the traffickers (defendant D). In sentencing defendant D, the District Court of Duisburg considered a number of factors that made defendant D vulnerable. She was very young, defendant B was her only contact person in Germany, she had no financial independence, and she felt obliged to obey B because she had taken out a “juju oath”. The Court formed the impression that D was easily influenced by B. The Court applied the Jugendgerichtsgesetz [Youth Courts Law] to D on the basis that she possessed the mental maturity of a juvenile, and ultimately suspended the decision to impose a juvenile sentence upon her.