Prosecutor seeks five years for osteopath over alleged client abuse

The Public Prosecution Service is seeking five years in prison for osteopath Robert de V. (49), who is accused of sexual abuse (ontucht) of two female clients in Voorburg and Rijswijk. He appeared before the Hague court on Wednesday.

In 2022 De V. was convicted of touching a client with back problems on her breasts, buttocks and pubic area. He received an immediate prison sentence of three days and a 180-hour community service order. He was also barred for two years from carrying out treatments that involve touching clients.

According to the prosecution, he carried on with his sessions and abused again, this time two women. The clients received somatic therapy meant to remove emotional blockages, in sessions that involved mind-altering substances. One woman told police he went further than touching her. She was allegedly first given a chocolate containing the active substance of magic mushrooms.

De V. denied most of her accusations. He said he avoids erogenous zones and asks clients which touch they find pleasant. “I was professional, and I was very careful with her,” he told the court. He admitted developing feelings for her, ending her treatment and then starting a sexual relationship. He called her accusations “disgusting” and “sick”.

A second client also reported him for touching various body parts. De V. admitted kissing her on the stomach in an “unguarded moment of joy” and said her other accusations were untrue and slanderous. According to De V., his partner was present at every session with this client and can confirm that nothing improper happened.

A written victim statement from one client was read out. “The sessions left me with a trauma for the rest of my life,” she wrote.

The prosecutor considers both clients’ statements reliable. She says they are backed by the experiences of two other women, who did not report him but spoke to police. She also counts the sexual relationship with one client as abuse. De V.’s lawyer argues there is not enough evidence.