Darren Wilken and Tiona Megan Moodley appear at the Randburg Magistrate’s Court in Johannesburg on 28 January 2025. Picture: Nigel Sibanda / The Citizen
Darren Wilken and his co-accused, Tiona Moodley, have been denied bail and will remain in custody pending the start of their child pornography trial.
The pair appeared before the Randburg Magistrate’s Court in Gauteng on Friday to hear the outcome of their bail applications.
The duo is facing a range of serious charges, including possession and distribution of child pornography, money laundering, fraud, contravention of the Drug Trafficking Act, acquisition and possession of unlawful proceeds, plus possession of stolen property.
During court proceedings, the magistrate considered the affidavits of Wilken and Moodley, both of whom denied all charges against them and indicated their intention to plead not guilty at trial.
The accused also refuted claims that they posed a flight risk.
The magistrate acknowledged the prosecution’s argument that the case against Wilken stemmed from a sextortion complaint filed by an underage girl in the United States.
According to the state, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) launched a probe into the matter, which led them to a website named Dankmegaz — allegedly owned and operated by Wilken.
ALSO READ: Dodgy transactions and BMW with ‘Kids NA GP’ licence plate: Details of child pornography case shared
It was alleged that the website contained explicit images of young children and teenage girls, which were being sold.
“Applicant one [Wilken] also explained the statement, in which was stated that he will continue with his business as he had, it should not be placed in a context that creates an impression with unlawful actions if released on bail.
“He does not dispute that the charges are serious, but submits that the allegations do not support the principle argued by the investigating officer,” the presiding officer said.
The magistrate emphasised that, at this stage, no determination could be made regarding the guilt or innocence of Wilken and Moodley.
Wilken attempted to downplay the financial allegations against him, contending that investigating officer Hendrikus Johannes Boshoff had provided a vague description of his bank transactions.
He claimed to earn R50 000 per month from his online business.
However, the magistrate dismissed this argument, citing detailed records from Wilken’s FNB bank account, which showed transactions ranging from R20 000 to R477 000 between January 2023 and December 2024.
READ MORE: Child pornography: Girlfriend ‘was in misogynistic relationship’ with co-accused, court hears
“The court finds this to be far from vague. There’s a transactional history of the income received from the account and the state provides this transactional history of income to show that it is improbable that he earns R50 000 per month,” she said.
Additionally, the magistrate ruled that Wilken failed to provide sufficient evidence linking the funds to his stated source of income.
“Consequently, the origin of the monies cannot be verified, and his claim is not supported by enough evidence to be accepted.”
Further evidence presented in court included WhatsApp conversations between Wilken and Moodley discussing the websites and financial transactions.
“I do find that there’s a likelihood the applicants will endanger public safety or a particular person, as the evidence from past conduct shows possession of pornographic material that was made available and sold to the public,” the magistrate stated.
She also noted that R647 300 in cash was found at Wilken’s former home in Midrand, raising more concerns that he might evade trial.
The magistrate further took into account that Wilken is wanted in three other countries for similar offences.
“The court notes that the inquiries about his extradition are likely to result in the applicants fleeing to countries without extradition treaties with South Africa or other requesting jurisdictions in order to avoid trial.
“There is still a high chance of absconding because international travel is easy.”
As a result, the magistrate denied bail, ruling that neither accused had proven that their release would be in the interest of justice.
The case was postponed to 24 March.
Download our app
