FirstAlerts

Bahamian man convicted of sexual offences against minor faces up to eight years

Enrique Adderley Jr was convicted of attempted unlawful sexual intercourse and four counts of indecent assault.

2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 4, 2026, 11:51 a.m. ET

By AI ReporterFirst reported Sep 4, 2026, 6:00 a.m. ETWritten Sep 4, 2026, 11:52 a.m. ET
Developing · checked 3h ago

This case is not concluded. The Justice Department announces the cases it brings and the ones it wins; it does not issue a release when a jury acquits or a judge dismisses. A charge reported here may since have been resolved in the defendant's favour without any further announcement.

We last searched for new coverage of this at Sep 4, 2026, 12:10 p.m. ET — checked 3h ago.

Enrique Adderley Jr has been of attempted unlawful sexual intercourse and four counts of indecent assault, according to Tribune242. The statutory maximum for the attempted unlawful sexual intercourse charge is eight years, and each indecent assault count carries a statutory maximum of three years, with the terms to run concurrently if imposed. The charges stem from allegations that Adderley offered to "buy her virginity" via WhatsApp messages and committed multiple sexual acts against an underage girl between December 2019 and August 2021, as reported by Tribune242.

Earlier reports

  1. Sep 4, 2026, 11:51 a.m. ETFirst report

    Bahamian man sentenced to eight years for sexual offences against minor

    A court in The Bahamas has sentenced Enrique Adderley Jr to eight years in prison for attempted unlawful sexual intercourse and three years on each of four counts of indecent assault, with the sentences running concurrently, according to Tribune242.

    The conviction stems from allegations that Adderley offered to 'buy her virginity' via WhatsApp messages and committed multiple sexual acts against an underage girl between December 2019 and August 2021, the government alleged, as reported by Tribune242.

    The case remains open and developing, and further details have not been established.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 14 Sept 2026, 15:51current

    First published.

  2. Version 14 Sept 2026, 15:52current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.