Child pornography accused couple kicked out after arrest, bail unable to proceed

A couple charged with possessing and distributing child pornography were evicted from their rented home following their arrests.

Darren Wilken and his 25-year-old girlfriend, Tiona Moodley, appeared together for the first time at the Randburg Magistrate’s Court in Gauteng on Tuesday.

Couple charged with child pornography, money laundering

The pair face charges for manufacturing and distributing child pornography, as well as money laundering.

Wilken also faces additional charges, including contravening the Drug Trafficking Act, possession of stolen property, acquisition and use of proceeds from unlawful activities, and fraud.

The 35-year-old suspect was arrested on 17 January during a search-and-seizure operation at his Midrand residence in Gauteng.

ALSO READ: South Africa battles rising child pornography cases

Moodley, a web designer, was apprehended days later in Houghton, Johannesburg, on 23 January.

Their arrests followed the discovery of over 10 million images and videos of child pornography at Wilken’s home during the operation.

Electronic devices containing child sexual abuse material, along with drugs and cash, were seized, according to the South African Police Service (Saps).

Schedule offence under dispute

Attorney Johan Eksteen, representing Wilken, challenged the state’s opposition to bail under a Schedule 5 offence, which places the onus on the accused to prove that granting bail is in the interests of justice.

Eksteen argued that the charges of money laundering did not justify escalating the case to a Schedule 5 offence, maintaining that it should fall under Schedule 1, which generally allows bail unless there are compelling reasons to deny it.

“[The state] must come with facts then say under which section of the [Proceeds of Crime Act] they charged the accused so he can answer to them,” the lawyer said.

Moodley’s legal representative, Advocate Cronje Kriel, echoed the same sentiments, questioning the grounds for the charges against his client.

“With the second applicant in this matter, we do not know what Acts the state would rely on to allege that, firstly, she was involved with child porn and secondly, why she laundered money,” Kriel said.

READ MORE: Man who raped, created and shared porn images of girlfriend’s minor child to spend Christmas behind bars

Prosecutor Colleen Ryan noted the defence’s request for a certificate from the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) clarifying the schedule under which the accused were charged but highlighted the state was not aware of the dispute until Tuesday.

Ryan also revealed that preliminary investigations uncovered more than 20 counts of money laundering, involving funds moving in and out of Wilken’s bank accounts.

“The state has, in this very short time it had the opportunity to investigate this matter with the financial aspects involved, found a minimum of 24 counts of money laundering.”

Bail unable to proceed

Ryan further informed the court that the bail hearing could not proceed because Moodley’s address had not yet been verified.

“We were only furnished with the address this morning, and that address has not yet been verified,” she said.

Kriel, in response, disclosed that the couple’s landlord had terminated their rental agreement following Wilken’s arrest, forcing Moodley to seek alternative accommodation.

“Both accused lived together in a rental property. The arrest of the accused basically turned into a media circus, and everybody went crazy.

“The effect was that the landlord, with immediate effect, terminated the lease agreement of accused one and two. “

READ MORE: Man who kidnapped, raped two girls and forced them to make child pornography found guilty

He explained that Moodley initially planned to stay with a family member, but the relative declined to have their address mentioned in court.

The defence has since approached another family member.

“We found ourselves in a position that, due to the circumstances of this specific case, it became impossible to live at the residence they had,” the advocate added.

The case has been postponed to 3 February to allow the investigating officer time to verify both of the accused’s addresses and for the hearing of their bail applications.

The couple will remain in custody.