Sex worker from Colombia testifies in human trafficking case against nine defendants

A Colombian sex worker gave testimony on Monday as part of a human trafficking case against eight men and one woman who are accused of trafficking South American women to Malta, allegedly forcing them to work in brothels.

The witness, who hails from Medellin, Colombia, shared her experiences of how she ended up in Malta under these circumstances.

The nine defendants were among eleven individuals originally apprehended during coordinated early-morning raids on August 12, targeting multiple locations across Malta, including properties in Birkirkara, Gzira, St. Paul’s Bay, Siggiewi, Fgura, Gudja, Raħal Ġdid, Ħaż-Żebbuġ, and Isla. The police operations were a result of ongoing investigations into human trafficking and prostitution rings operating within the country.

The witness, who identified herself as a salesgirl who occasionally worked as an escort in Colombia, explained that she came to Malta specifically to engage in sex work. “In Colombia, prostitution is legal, and it’s not a problem,” she said, citing economic difficulties as her primary motivation. “I need to support my daughter, my mother, and my grandmother. Economically, life in Colombia is very hard.”

The witness testified that she had been introduced to the idea of working in Malta through a friend and fellow sex worker named Michelle, who was part of a WhatsApp group that connected escorts to opportunities abroad.

“I knew what I was coming to Malta for,” she explained. “There was a WhatsApp chat, and my friend told me I could do that work in Malta.” The chat, she indicated, facilitated the movement of sex workers to various countries, with Malta being a chosen destination due to its use of the Euro, which is strong against the Colombian Peso.

In preparation for her journey, the witness received assistance with her travel arrangements. Her contact in Malta, a person she only knew through disappearing messages, organised her flight tickets and instructed her to bring €500 in cash. The flight from Colombia took her to Madrid before arriving in Malta, with the total cost of travel amounting to €3,700. This amount was to be reimbursed through her earnings from sex work.

Upon arrival, the witness was picked up by a man driving a white car, who she later identified as Clint Lawrence D’Amato, one of the defendants, known by the alias “Miguel.” She was taken to a property described as “normal” with basic amenities. Her work commenced on the very first evening of her arrival.

The witness disclosed her daily routine, which typically spanned from 4pm to 2am, during which she would service five to six clients daily. Her charges were €50 for a 30-minute encounter, with additional charges for ‘extras’ at her discretion. Over ten days, she earned approximately €4,000 before deductions.

She said that she had earned around €2000 from her base rate, but had not seen any of that money, which went to settle her debt for travel expenses. She told the court that she had lived off what she had made for ‘extras’ - which amounted to around €1,500.

The sex worker described how her earnings were collected daily by D’Amato, whom she also identified through a video feed in the courtroom. All instructions and client bookings were communicated via the WhatsApp group, and D’Amato was the only point of contact she had met in person.

She further testified about her limited knowledge of the broader operation and indicated that her involvement in prostitution was a voluntary decision based on economic necessity, to support her dependants in Colombia. “I wanted to settle my debt as quickly as possible,” she told the court.

Despite having her passport, which was always in her possession, the woman said she had not considered leaving, because she did not have enough money to purchase a return ticket to Colombia. After the police raid on the brothel, she had expressed a desire to go back to Colombia but noted that she is currently in Malta due to her involvement in the ongoing case.

Who is accused of what?

All nine of the defendants, Luke Farrugia (36), Clint D’Amato (36), Denzil Farrugia (19), Alexandra Suhov Procora (32), Nicolae Efimov (37), Kane Vassallo (22), Luca Emanuele Corito (21), Dylan McKay (30), and Gordon Cassar (44), are denying charges which include money laundering, promoting or setting up a criminal organisation, forcing individuals into prostitution, holding persons as bonded debtors, and knowingly living off the earnings of prostitution.

Additionally, several defendants face specific charges related to human trafficking for exploitation, assisting in trafficking, and running a brothel. Luke Farrugia and Dylan McKay are also charged with using services from trafficked individuals, with McKay facing further charges related to committing crimes during a suspended sentence and recidivism. D’Amato is also accused of possessing cocaine with intent for distribution.

Cross-examining the woman, lawyer Roberto Montalto questioned the witness’s decision to apply for victim status under the Victims of Crime Act, suggesting that she had always been free to return to Colombia, a point she acknowledged. Further testimony revealed that her passport was currently being held by the police to facilitate her safe repatriation.

Lawyer Mario Mifsud inquired about her communication with family and her understanding of the implications of her status as a trafficking victim. Mifsud asked whether the witness had initially feared being in trouble with the law herself. “Yes, at the time, many fears crossed my mind.” He suggested that this was a factor in the woman’s decision to ask for victim status. “Yes,” replied the witness.

Mifsud asked whether the police had explained to her that if she were to be repatriated to Colombia, she would not be allowed to return to Malta or other Schengen zone countries, and whether this had affected her choice to request victim status. The woman said that it had not.

Inspector Spiteri replied that if valid grounds for victim status hadn’t been found, she would have simply been deported to Colombia.

Inspector Spiteri asked whether, in her chat with “Private”, she had ever been provided with information about tourist attractions in Malta, besides escort work. Her reply was that she had not.

Had someone forced her to collaborate, asked the magistrate. “Was it a voluntary decision on her part or was she threatened with deportation?” She had not been threatened with deportation, replied the woman, confirming that the police had not spoken to her until she gave her statement.

In reply to a question by lawyer Charles Mercieca, the woman confirmed that she had not been mistreated or abused in Malta. She had sent money back to Colombia voluntarily, the witness confirmed in reply to another question. “I didn’t want to leave. I only wanted to leave when I saw the police.”

Second woman also recognises D’Amato

Another woman who was allegedly trafficked took the stand in the afternoon.  

Asked by Bonett Sladden why she had chosen to travel to Malta, she said that it had been mentioned in some WhatsApp group chats that she had joined. 

She told the court that before travelling to Malta she had also performed escort work in her home  country and would provide services of a sexual nature. 

In one of the WhatsApp groups she had seen a advertisement for sex work abroad. “There was a vacancy in Malta for a girl who wanted to go there to work,” said the woman, telling the court that she was unable to recall the name of the group.

She had sent a picture of herself to the number specified in the group chat message and had received information about how much she could expect to earn, stipulating the rates for 30 minutes, 60 minutes and assorted ‘extras.’

She had always been allowed 8 hours of sleep a day, the woman said when asked about her working arrangements. “I had only been in Malta for two days. I arrived on Friday and slept the entire night. On Saturday I saw two clients and slept at night. Another two on Sunday and I slept too. Then on Monday the police [raided the apartment].”

The second witness also pointed out D’Amato in the courtroom as her handler in Malta, saying that she knew him as “Mig.” He would drive her to service clients at outside locations other than her flat, where she and the other women would sleep four to a room. There had been four outcalls in total, said the witness. “Two on Saturday and two on Sunday. Both during the day.”

She said that she had travelled to Malta together with another woman, who had already testified in a previous sitting. During her two days in Malta, she “had not encountered any problems”, the woman from Medellin said.  

She had earned a total of €600 from these outcalls, she said, which she would leave on a table in the flat every night for collection.
Asked how much of that amount she would receive, she replied: “Nothing.” The woman described a similar “debt” payment arrangement as the previous witness.

In reply to a question put to her by Bonett Sladden, the witness said that D’Amato would drive her to service clients outside the flat.
She explained that she had resorted to working in the sex industry because she had been unable to support herself, her children and her parents after breaking up with her boyfriend, back in Columbia. 

Cross-examined by Montalto, the woman confirmed that she had been in possession of her passport and mobile phone at all times. She was unable to say whether she was free to return to Colombia, however, explaining that she had only been in Malta for two days before the police raided the apartment, but confirmed that she had not been confined to or locked in the apartment.

Similarly to the previous witness, the second woman also denied that the police had ever threatened her with deportation should she refuse to cooperate with their investigation.  

Asked whether the women had asked to leave, the woman said “we all wanted to leave. We were told by the police that now there was an ongoing process and that we would be placed under protection.” 

The court pointed out at this point that both witnesses had said the same thing and that repatriation was a process with several steps. 
Replying to an assertion by the lawyer to the effect that the police were preventing the woman from leaving, Inspector Spiteri said that she had already made the decision to leave and that he would not disclose which country she would be repatriated to.

The police Inspector explained that the woman had not been under protection before the raid, because she had been part of the criminal organisation. “The risk to the woman and her family began the moment she turned against it,” said the inspector, describing the defence’s suggestion as absurd.

At a point, the woman, unprompted, alleged that the police hadn’t allowed her to contact her boyfriend’s Italian lawyer, but it soon emerged that the failure to communicate was because the lawyer in question had not answered the phone, and not because of any obstruction by the police. 

Lawyer Mario Mifsud asked the witness to explain whether was allowed to leave the shelter to go jogging or partying, to objections from the prosecution.

The woman did say that she was allowed to leave the shelter, however.

Lawyer Marion Camilleri suggested that it was not the woman’s first trip to Malta for prostitution. The woman confirmed that she had visited the Maltese islands before, many years ago but not for the purposes of prostitution. She had first visited with her then boyfriend and had subsequently been in Malta on another occasion, as a stop on a tour of Europe with a later boyfriend. 

The sitting was adjourned to Wednesday.