Ex-sex trafficking victim became perpetrator, Prosecutors say
A woman from Purmerend who was once a victim of forced prostitution became a trafficker herself, prosecutors say. Along with a Utrecht couple, she is accused of sexually exploiting vulnerable young women in Alkmaar and Purmerend, according to the Public Prosecution Service (OM).
The male suspect, previously convicted of human trafficking, is already serving a four-year prison sentence. His 33-year-old wife now faces trial, with prosecutors seeking a 34-month sentence for her role in the exploitation. Earlier this week, the 28-year-old Purmerend woman stood trial, with the OM demanding 30 months in prison—half of which would be conditional.
According to the OM, the Purmerend suspect was once trapped in the same brutal cycle of exploitation by the Utrecht man. But instead of breaking free, she turned into a perpetrator, recruiting and abusing other women. While some former victims engage in trafficking due to trauma or coercion, prosecutors argue she acted on her own, fully aware of her crimes.
The case began in early 2021 when one of the victims reported being sexually exploited. Police launched an investigation into the Utrecht man, who preyed on broken and vulnerable young women. His conviction in April 2023 confirmed his role as a trafficker.
As the investigation progressed, authorities scrutinized his wife’s involvement. In November 2023, a new report of sexual exploitation surfaced—this time implicating the Purmerend woman. Both women were arrested on human trafficking charges.
The Utrecht man’s wife played an active role in the exploitation. Prosecutors say she encouraged her husband to tighten his grip on one of the victims, forcing her to work for two years under strict quotas. The victim was required to earn up to 2,000 euros per day. Chat messages between the couple revealed they profited significantly from prostitution and used the earnings for home renovations.
Investigators painted a grim picture of how the Purmerend suspect operated. She initially befriended vulnerable young women, showering them with gifts, paying for outings, and offering them shelter. Once trust was established, she demanded repayment. To coerce compliance, she recorded sexually explicit footage of the victims and threatened to release it online. If they resisted or tried to leave, they risked losing their homes and facing public humiliation.
The victims were forced to perform sexual acts with multiple clients. The two female suspects handled online advertisements, managed payments, and coordinated bookings. The Utrecht man's wife even helped enhance a victim’s appearance by editing photos before posting them on prostitution websites.
One of the victims revealed the extent of the exploitation. She worked for the Utrecht couple for two years, generating up to 2,000 euros daily. “I had one day off per week. Do the math—that’s 720,000 euros. Almost a million. It makes me sick. I worked more than any of the other girls,” she testified. Chat records showed that the couple pushed her to the limit. When she mentioned menstruation, the wife coldly instructed her to “just use a sponge, keep working, and ignore it.”
The prosecution dismissed any notion that the victims engaged in prostitution voluntarily. These young women were reportedly targeted precisely because they had no other means to survive. The prosecutor stated: “A victim’s ability to speak confidently or act assertively says nothing about whether she can truly stand up to her trafficker. These women may appear ‘streetwise’ when dealing with clients, but that only highlights the pressure to meet impossible targets. The reality of their captivity remains hidden.”
The OM emphasized the extreme dependence of victims in such cases. “This form of human trafficking is marked by severe violations of physical and psychological integrity. The perpetrators’ greed outweighed any concern for their victims, whose lives turned into a living nightmare.”
Despite the severity of the crimes, the passage of time reportedly played a mitigating role in sentencing. The prosecution requested 34 months of imprisonment for the Utrecht woman. “There’s no doubt that they saw the victim as nothing more than a cash cow, wringing every cent out of her to renovate their house.” The OM also supported the victim’s demand for 482,000 euros in damages. “That’s a conservative estimate—1,000 euros per day, when chat records show she often earned even more. Given the duration and intensity of her ordeal, this level of compensation is entirely justified.”
The prosecution stressed the importance of victims coming forward. “We want to make it clear that reporting these crimes is worthwhile. The justice system stands behind victims, and failure to impose serious sentences could discourage others from speaking out. Without reports, the hidden suffering continues.”
Regarding the Purmerend woman, the OM acknowledged her past victimization but held her accountable for her later actions. “She was initially forced into this life. But even after the Utrecht man was arrested, she continued exploiting others.” Prosecutors demanded a 30-month sentence, with half suspended and a two-year probation period. Conditions include mandatory psychological treatment for the trauma she also endured.
