Four people linked to an OnlyFans management agency run by Czech influencer Adam Kajumi have been charged with human trafficking and pimping. The arrests came after a 2025 investigation by BIRN and Page Not Found into alleged exploitation in the digital sex industry.
Apolena Rychlikova
A central line of the police investigation concerns the alleged use of what anti-trafficking experts call the ‘loverboy’ method.
The term refers to a form of recruitment in which a perpetrator builds a romantic or intimate bond with a woman, promises care, money, protection, career opportunities or a shared future, and gradually uses emotional dependency to push her towards sexual exploitation. The pressure can develop over weeks or months. It may involve manipulation, isolation, control over money or accounts, threats, fear of public exposure, or the gradual shifting of boundaries that were originally presented as voluntary.
The so-called loverboy method is important for investigators because the case concerns online content and signed contracts, but the recruitment described by women was often personal, intimate and emotional. Police are examining whether the women’s consent was shaped by dependence, manipulation, threats and psychological pressure.
Contracts reviewed during our investigation show how control over women could be built into the business structure. BIRN/PNF were given access to multiple agreements linked to REACH OUT. They contained recurring mechanisms: access to women’s social media and pay-per-view platform accounts, control over payments, strict production obligations, confidentiality clauses, contractual penalties and claims over income even after cooperation ended.
Some contracts required the agency’s bank details to be inserted into those profiles. Money from the platforms would therefore flow first to the agency, which would then pay the women.
Several agreements contained high penalties. One contract required a model to deliver 20 photographs, four videos and four Instagram stories every week. The same agreement set a monthly payment of 35,000 crowns for the model, gave the agency a 50 per cent commission from social media income and included penalties of 500,000 crowns for failing to provide documents needed to calculate commission or for breaching confidentiality.
Other contracts contained similar structures. They gave the agency access to accounts, set rules for content production, imposed confidentiality obligations and allowed the agency to claim part of the income even after the formal cooperation ended.
In an earlier cooperation agreement seen by BIRN/PNF, the agency was entitled to 40 per cent of income from pay-per-view platforms and 20 per cent from social media income. Later versions of contracts became stricter. Penalties increased, access to accounts expanded, and in one amendment the agency could receive half of the income from an OnlyFans profile if gross monthly revenue exceeded 20,360 dollars.
Women also described their fear that the agency could withhold income. Some said they did not control the accounts opened in their names. Others said the agency controlled the main social media channels used to attract subscribers to their subscription profiles.
For investigators, the contracts will likely form important evidence. They show who had access to accounts, who received money first, who set production obligations, what penalties applied and what happened after women tried to leave.
Women also described how accounts built around one model could remain under the agency’s control after she left.
According to testimonies given to BIRN/PNF, profiles with thousands of followers could be renamed, given a new profile picture and used for another model while keeping the original audience. One model said she recognised her former Instagram profile after it began operating under the name of another woman.
In other cases, older videos featuring former models continued to direct users to accounts that had since been repurposed for new women. Content made by one group of women could therefore continue bringing traffic to profiles presenting another current model.
This gave accounts their own commercial value. A profile with an existing audience already had followers, history, algorithmic visibility and older viral content. A new model could enter a distribution channel built partly through the labour, exposure and sexualised image of women who no longer worked with the agency.
For women trying to leave, the commercial use of their image and previous content could continue after cooperation ended. Police are now investigating how accounts, access and content were managed inside the agency.
Several women also described the type of public content they were expected to produce for TikTok and Instagram. According to their accounts, the OFM agency’s marketing relied heavily on intentionally embarrassing, provocative or childish videos designed to generate attention and attract subscribers to OnlyFans.
The women said they found this content humiliating. Some said they were styled as naive girls saying absurd things in revealing clothing. The videos attracted online hate, ridicule and unwanted sexualised attention.
The consequences continued offline. Several women said they were mocked by colleagues, acquaintances or strangers in public. For some, the exposure and ridicule contributed to a deterioration in their mental health.
