Apart from the children involved in the production of the Azov films, 386 children were said to have been rescued from exploitation by purchasers of the films. In Canada alone, 24 were rescued[citation needed] while six were rescued in Australia.[citation needed] "More than 330 children"[19] were stated to have been rescued in the US. This high number has been questioned, since full details of the charges for 54 of the total of 76 arrests in the US had been publicly released as of 14 November 2013, and these details account for fewer than 15 persons exposed as children to current or historical sexual contact.[citation needed] An additional 75 to 100 children were surreptitiously indecently photographed, mostly by two arrested men who were school employees. The definition of "rescued child" used was that "the children were either being sexually abused or they were being sexually exploited by having videos taken of them in exploitative positions."[20] The 'exploitative positions' always included nudity or genital exposure.
This case involves 176 films which the prosecution alleged were child pornography and which were sold, distributed imported and exported worldwide through Azov films incorporated by Mr. Brian Way. Way claimed these videos and photographs were nudist films of young boys at play and are not child pornography. He argued there were no sexual acts depicted in these films. The main question to be answered was whether such material constituted child pornography for the purposes of the Canadian Criminal Code (Section 163.1 (1) (ii) of which provides child pornography material qualifies as such where the dominant characteristic of the material is the depiction of sexual organs and/or anal regions of children under 18, for a sexual purpose).
azov films boy
All of the assets in Way's residence and those of Azov films was seized. The value of the assets seized (estimate $6,000) was deducted from the forfeiture order of $26,000. The order was changed to a fine of $20,000.
iii. Did Mr. Way knowingly direct his film editor and one of his cameramen to import, produce, distribute and export child pornography for the benefit of a criminal organization operating under the names, 4P5P Inc and Azov films?
The court set out the formula of most 176 films videos as the following: that almost of the people that appear in the films are boys between 10 to 18 years of age. They are clothed and then naked. They are engaged in a variety of activities that include swimming, wrestling, showering, exercising, fixing a moped, and general play. Before the films begin, there is text that scrolls down the screen explaining nudism and asserting that the film in question is a nudist film. This is accompanied by soft music and background scenery. Thereafter, the boys arrive on camera. They are clothed. Sometimes they perform an activity or go on an outing. They then disrobe and do an activity or activities while all of them are nude. Sometimes the activities involve outdoor activities like swimming, running through the woods, chopping wood or exploring on the beach. At other times the activities are indoors in saunas, showers, swimming pools or blow up pools or in a small sparsely furnished apartment used for many activities such as getting dressed in costumes, eating, play fighting and sitting on a couch. A significant portion of each film includes the boys naked. Toward the end of the movies the boys put their clothes back on. Sometimes there is an interview with the boys at the end of the movie. In some cases, members have access to accompanying pictures. In almost all of the films, there are no adults or girls present. There are no sexual acts. Occasionally the boys look into the camera as though for direction. There is no obvious storyline, the camera work in most cases is poor and there is little dialogue. The dialogue is not in English.
On the evidence the court noted that generally the earlier films (before December 2006 and the time of a police investigation) are shorter, contain less nudity and have fewer close-up images of the nude boys. The activities are usually not sexualized. But from 2007 the films changed and the court found the following characteristics made those films child pornography given:
vii. some of the films are accompanied by close up nude photographs of the boys. The accompanying photographs are often images taken at close range in poses that emphasize their genitals. They provide a sexual context to the nude films; and
In terms of the issue of sexual stimulation the court confirms it found the enterprise was acute to and responded to the requirements of the viewers in terms of increased nudity-while also displaying an awareness that some of their activity might be considered illegal (i.e. as child pornography). It knew where the customer would place value (i.e. on nudity of the boys). In communications between Mr Way and those within the enterprise they discussed for example videos with see through wet underwear as selling particularly well-because the underwear was see through. The court noted as the client base expanded so did the amount of nudity -and they responded to the demand for increased nudity as the area where the customer placed value. By 2011, revenues reached approximately $1.6 million. Azov films had a sizeable group of viewers in 92 different countries. The increasingly large revenues the court reasoned was as a response of the many customers for more nudity-including a focus below the waist material. The court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that given
In sum the court was satisfied both that the dominant characteristic of the films was the depiction of the genitals and anal regions of the boys and for a sexual purpose that those films are therefore child pornography.
Regarding the final question (possession) the court the prosecution must establish that the image or images were in the possession of the accused i.e. his knowledge and control. But it is not necessary that he know they are child pornography. The prosecution must prove that the accused intended to make computer files containing child pornography available to others or have actual knowledge that the file sharing program makes files. The court agreed Mr. Way had knowledge of the existence of the films and photographs and the control necessary to find him in possession of the child pornography. It noted the films were marketed on his website. He advertised the films on his website and they were sold in many countries. The court found that Mr. Way made, was in possession of, advertised on his website to distribute, sold and distributed, imported and exported child pornography and that he was paid from money earned as a result of selling films including those at issue.
Search azov films crimean boys naked PhotosSearch azov films crimean boys naked XXX VideosSearch azov films crimean boys naked HD VideosSearch azov films crimean boys naked Indian VideosSearch azov films crimean boys naked MP4 VideosSearch azov films crimean boys naked Indian ImagesSearch azov films crimean boys naked Leaked VideosSearch azov films crimean boys naked Leaked PicsSearch azov films crimean boys naked XXX Posts 2ff7e9595c
Comments