An Adelaide cafe owner offered a teenage employee $200 to have sex with him and told her to bend over so he could see her bottom.
Miguel Dantas De Sa, now 28, was found guilty of indecently assaulting the waitress after he asked her to meet him in the cafe’s storeroom.
According to the verdict outlined by Judge Liesl Chapman, the waitress was asked by De Sa to wear a dress to work that evening because it was a bit “more formal”.
She wore black skinny jeans and a white shirt when she arrived for work at 5pm.
About an hour or two later, De Sa asked her to go to the coolroom where he asked her what she would do for $200.
“She thought it was a work‑related question and said that she would clean out the storeroom or re‑arrange decorations in the cafe,” Judge Chapman wrote.
“She stood on a crate to check the muffins. The accused was standing ‘real close’ to her, ‘like pushed behind me’.”
When they returned to the cafe, De Sa gave the waitress $100 to go to Coles and buy marshmallows and bread and meet him in the storeroom.
In evidence he claimed he only gave her $20.
When she returned, the accused said De Sa asked her to lock the storeroom door behind him and when she went to give him $70 change he told her to “keep it for now”.
The judgement detailed how when she bent down to get some drinks to count them for stocktake, De Sa was standing close, brushing behind her.
“The accused then went to sit on the chair,” Judge Chapman wrote.
“He asked her to come over and sit on his lap. She walked over a little bit but did not sit down. He said he ‘didn’t bite’ and to come sit on his leg.
“She went over and sat on one of his knees with her legs closed. He had his legs apart.”
De Sa asked the girl how many boyfriends she’d had, how many boys she’d kissed, how many sexual partners she’d had and what type of sex she’d had.
She either replied “I don’t know” or brushed them off and laughed about them.
“The accused asked her if she would have sex with him for $200,” Judge Chapman said.
“She did not answer. He then asked if she would give him a massage for $20. She said she was not very good at giving massages.
“He said, ‘Come on, you can’t be that bad’. She gave him a massage on his shoulders for no more than a couple of minutes while he sat on the chair.”
When the waitress said she needed to return back to the cafe to help, she walked over to the table to get the marshmallows.
De Sa stood behind her and asked what colour underwear she was wearing, suggesting she would be a “G-string type of girl”.
“He was touching her hips and was pushed up against the back of her,” Judge Chapman wrote.
“He was looping his fingers through her underwear while her pants were still up.
“He then asked for her to pull them down so he could ‘see her bum’. She pulled them down while he still had his hands on her and then he asked her to bend over so that he could ‘look at her bum’.”
The complainant complied and pulled her jeans down above her knees, with her G-string still up.
De Sa continued to stand behind her, “touching her hips and bare bottom”.
Judge Chapman said the girl felt she had no other option but to do what he said because he was her boss.
She pulled her pants back up, saying she needed to get back to the cafe because they had been gone a while and tried to give him the $70 change but he told her to keep it.
He told her not to put it in her bank account because her parents would see it and to not tell anyone what had happened.
Later that night De Sa rang the waitress, asking her to consider his offer and telling her he had a shack nearby.
“He told her she would be his best girl, she would get more shifts if she accepted his offer and not to tell anyone,” the judgement said.
He also text her asking her what size she was because he wanted to buy her some Victoria’s Secret underwear.
The next night the girl told her mother what had happened and they reported the incident to police.
De Sa denied the allegations and said the waitress was an unreliable worker.
Judge Chapman found him guilty of two counts of aggravated indecent assault and a single count of aggravated communicating with the intention of procuring a child for sexual activity.
He will return to court for sentencing submissions in June.