I saw this extraordinary case on Reddit on the basis for a conviction in a prostitution case. Swedish Soccer goalkeeper Magnus Hedman was reportedly convicted on a charge of buying sexual services because a court found that, even though he did not pay for the services, he should have known the woman was a prostitute by her thick make-up and dress. Hedman insisted that he was drunk at the time at a friend’s party and simply had consensual sex.
The court of appeal reversed a lower court acquittal of Hedman. Hedman had gone to his friend’s house and had sex with one of the Romanian women at the party.
He insisted that he did not pay the woman for sex and the lower court found insufficient evidence that Hedman knowingly had sexual intercourse with a woman he knew to be a prostitute. However, given their dress, accents, and make-up and willingness to have sex, the court ruled that “it must have been clear to Magnus Hedman or at least have seemed possible that they were paid escort girls.”
That is a pretty thin basis for a conviction, particularly for a sports star who is likely accustomed to having woman willing to have one-night stands. It is particularly problematic when you overturn a district court. In the United States, such factual findings are difficult to overturn on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous.
He was ordered to pay fines in the case.
Source: The Local