Advertisement
The Court of Appeal has convicted ZYTO practitioner Fernando Clark (66) of sexually assaulting three female clients, overturning his earlier acquittal after finding that the victims’ accounts were consistent, credible, and mutually reinforcing.
In its ruling issued Thursday, the appellate court concluded that the lower court had erred in its assessment of the evidence. While the Court of First Instance had acquitted Clark of all charges, the Court of Appeal found that the striking similarities in the testimonies of the three victims established a clear pattern of abuse and proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
The case, which spans incidents between August 2023 and March 2024 at Clark’s business, Organique Kreations, centered on allegations that he abused his role as a wellness practitioner to engage in sexual misconduct during consultations.
Prosecutors appealed the earlier acquittal, arguing that the lower court had failed to properly weigh the consistency in the victims’ statements. The Court of Appeal agreed, emphasizing that each of the three women independently described nearly identical behavior.
According to the judgment, all three victims reported being instructed to stand or move in specific ways under the guise of treatment, followed by escalating physical contact that crossed into inappropriate touching of intimate areas, including breasts and buttocks.
The Court found that this consistency was decisive. Rather than isolated or coincidental allegations, it pointed to a recognizable and repeated method of operation.
Abuse of trust
Clark operated as a ZYTO practitioner, offering alternative wellness consultations using a device that measures galvanic skin responses. Clients sought his services to assess stress levels and overall wellbeing.
The Court found that Clark used this setting to create a relationship of trust and dependency, which he then exploited. During sessions, he would gradually increase physical contact, at times pressing his body against clients or attempting to kiss them.
Judges ruled that these actions had no medical or professional justification and were clearly sexual in nature. The defense argument that the conduct formed part of legitimate treatment—or that consent had been given—was rejected.
The Court emphasized that even if clients had consented to general physical interaction as part of a consultation, that consent could not extend to sexually inappropriate behavior.
Witnesses corroborate pattern
The victims’ accounts were further supported by witness testimony. In one case, a victim’s sister, who was present during a session, confirmed that she saw Clark touch her sibling inappropriately. In another, a victim’s mother stated that she observed Clark pulling her daughter toward him and later heard her express discomfort.
These corroborating statements strengthened the conclusion that the incidents were not misunderstandings, but part of a broader pattern.
The Court also found that the victims were placed in a vulnerable position due to their reliance on Clark as a practitioner. This dynamic limited their ability to object or resist in the moment, particularly as the conduct occurred suddenly and under the pretense of treatment.
Professional ban
Clark was sentenced to six months in prison, fully suspended, with a probation period of three years. He must also complete 120 hours of community service, failing which he faces 60 days in detention.
In addition, the Court imposed a three-year ban on practicing as a welness practitioner, stating that this measure is necessary to protect future clients.
The Court noted that Clark denied all allegations and showed no insight into his actions, which weighed against him in sentencing. However, it also considered that he has no prior criminal record.
Compensation awarded
The Court also ruled in favor of one victim who filed a civil claim for emotional damages. Unlike the lower court, which had declared the claim inadmissible, the Court of Appeal found sufficient grounds to award compensation.
Clark was ordered to pay NAf 2,000 in damages for emotional harm, with a substitute detention of 10 days if the amount is not paid.
###
ADVERTISEMENT
