Massage parlour owner acquitted of running a brothel

The owner of a massage parlour that was used to offer sexual services has been exonerated of running a brothel after a court said that there was no evidence as to her knowledge of what was going on.

47-year old Guohong Rekkers had been charged in 2014 before magistrate Doreen Clarke with human trafficking, detaining a person against her will, living off earnings from prostitution, managing a brothel, using a licensed establishment for another purpose other than that licensed for, and immoral acts. Rekkers denied the charges.

Rekkers allegedly used the Beijing Bella in Birkirkara as a brothel.

The charges initially brought against the accused included that of human trafficking, however on transmitting the acts of the proceedings to the Court of Magistrates for the accused to be tried summarily, the Attorney General omitted this first charge from the list of offences for which the accused was to be tried. 

Beijing Bella was a massage and beauty parlour owned by the accused through the limited liability company LJR Limited of which she was director.

In November 2013, and the preceding months, there were two persons who were employed with the company: a Chinese national and a Bulgarian national. .

In her testimony the Chinese national explained in considerable detail how arrangements were made for her to come to work in Malta and she gave details about her working conditions.

Regarding her pay, she explained that she and the accused used to divide the income earned in equal shares between them. Both girls used to be alone at the salon for most of the day since the accused used to pop in only for a short time usually once a day. In fact it was the Chinese girl who used to charge the clients- according to rates pre-established by the accused- and who used to receive payment. The income would then be split between the Chinese girl and the accused on a daily basis or whenever the accused went to the salon. 

The Chinese girl explained that she had been employed as a masseuse and that the majority of the clients at the salon were males. She also said that some of the men who went for a massage also asked her to masturbate them, something which she used to do for an extra charge over and above the pre-established rates. The girl also specified that she accepted to this after obtaining the approval of the accused and that all earnings were split with the accused, even the payment received for this extra “service”.  

Two former clients of the massage parlour told the court that they had been given a sexual service by “an Asian female”. Boxes containing some 74 condoms were found in the wardrobes at the outlet.

But despite this and the seizure of a mobile phone containing exchanges between prospective clients and an unidentified person at the massage parlour, there was no direct link to the accused, who denied asking her employees to provide sexual services and who pointed out that in her days as a masseuse, she had also been propositioned by male customers, but had refused to provide “extra services”.

When she opened more salons and began employing other persons to give massages she said she had insisted that they do not give these “extra services” because she did not think it was right and because she did not think it was hygienic.

She had told the police that the condoms found in the salon were for her personal use and that she had left them at the salon because they were in her car and she was going abroad.  

After examining what constitutes prostitution for the purposes of the offence in question, the court held that from the evidence brought before it “there can be no doubt that at least one masseuse at the Beijing Bella beauty salon was participating in sexual activity with clients against payment… Consequently, neither can there be any doubt that Beijing Bella was being used for purposes of prostitution...”  

“However for these offences to subsist the Law requires another important element: defendant’s knowledge that her salon was being used for purposes of prostitution and that consequently the earnings she was receiving were being derived from that illicit activity.”

The court noted that from the acts it appeared that defendant used to go to the salon for a very short time, to collect her share of the income and to take supplies required for the business. There was nothing to show that the accused had been involved in taking bookings for the salon.

“In the Court’s opinion the evidence produced does not constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt of defendant’s knowledge of the sexual activity going on at the salon,” said Magistrate Doreen Clarke as she acquitted Rekkers.

Lawyer Michael Tanti Dougall was defence counsel for the accused.