A wealthy Cape Town couple, arrested after the FBI reported their alleged child pornography operation involving their own daughters aged three and eight, has been ordered to remain in Pollsmoor Prison after another unsuccessful bail bid.
The couple, who own and run a popular sports bar in trendy Camps Bay, were arrested last June in their luxurious Bloubergstrand home in a secure estate last June by a team of investigators from SAPS, the FBI and Homeland Security.
They stand accused of 25 counts of pornographic acts involving their children during February 2020 and April 2025. The charges include rape, attempted sexual assault, making and distributing pornographic videos of the children, taking nude photographs of the children, sexual grooming, using a child for child pornography, compelled self-assault, compelling a child to witness self-masturbation, possession of child pornography and abuse or neglect of a child.
In their most recent bail appeal, the couple told the Cape high court that the magistrate’s court had erred in refusing them bail, arguing that the court had wrongly found that they would endanger the safety of their children if released, that they would try to avoid their trial and would intimidate witnesses.
The case was first brought to the attention of the police in 2024 by FBI investigators who had come across the material on the internet. With Homeland Security and SAPS investigators, the team looked closely at the couple’s operations.
This court, as the upper guardian of minor children, finds the allegations of the state, in respect of the behaviour of the safety parent, of grave concern.
— Acting judge SI Smith
Detectives found that the pair were allegedly distributing child pornography on websites. The images identified the couple and their minor daughters (identified only as Minor Victim 1 and 2) engaging in explicit sexual conduct.
The couple were taken into custody on arrest. At their first bail application, they claimed to be suffering from Lyme disease ― an infection caused by tick bites ― and needed to be released. However, the court denied them bail.
During the raid, executed on a search warrant, the police seized laptops, cell phones and other evidence. The accused and their children were identified as being the people in the images received from the FBI.
The two daughters were placed in foster care for 10 days until the Cape Town Children’s Court placed them in the care of their aunt, declared by the court to be a safety parent. The children have been in her care since June 22 2025, and their parents have had no contact with them.
The couple told the court that they had been refused bail on insufficient evidence, and there had been undue consideration given to community perceptions, the well-being of their daughters and their own health issues.
They claimed the state did not have a strong case against them, that they needed to return to work and were willing to stand trial. They argued that it was their constitutional right to be presumed innocent and therefore given their freedom.
The state presented video and photographic evidence to the court in sealed envelopes due to the disturbing nature of the content. Medical reports on gynaecological examinations of the children were handed in as proof of sexual assaults having been perpetrated on them.
“The state has a strong prima facie case against both the appellants,” the court held, adding that the nature of the charges would “induce a sense of shock and public outcry, nationally and internationally”.
The couple argued that they are gainfully employed, have strong family ties in the country and “a multitude of friends in South Africa and abroad”.
A probation officer who interviewed the sisters told the court it would not be in the children’s interests to return them to the care of their parents, and that the bail court should view contact between the children and their parents “with extreme caution” and recommended no contact.
She advised the court that though the girls missed their parents, due to their innocence and young age, they “do not understand the seriousness of the offences perpetrated against them”.
In her final report, the probation officer advised that any contact between the couple and MV1 and MV2 “may further contribute to possible trauma and skewed development potential as they might be further exposed to emotional, manipulated and distorted norms around nudity”.
Acting judge SI Smith said: “This court, as the upper guardian of minor children, finds the allegations of the state, in respect of the behaviour of the safety parent, of grave concern.
“It is imperative that the National Prosecuting Authority, in conjunction with the police, the investigating officer and social worker, diligently monitor the situation to ensure not only the safety and well-being of MV1 and MV2, but also to ensure that the investigation by the authorities seized with bringing this matter to trial, is not impeded.”
Evidence handed to the court in a sealed envelope was not viewed, but a description of the contents was given during the bail hearing before being handed back to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for safekeeping.
“This court is not persuaded that the magistrate hearing the bail application has exercised her discretion wrongly by refusing bail for both the appellants,” the judge said.
The couple’s legal representative did not respond to a request for comment.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.