Leisure Clothing directors remanded in custody

Chinese-born Bin Han, 46 and Jian Liu 31, respectively the Managing Director and Marketing Director of Leisure clothing pleaded not guilty to trafficking in persons through deceit or fraud, abuse of authority, misappropriation, failing to comply with recognised conditions of employment, failure to pay wages, bonus and overtime for nine Vietnamese workers due for the period spanning from 22nd November 2013 to 25th July 2014.

They are also charged with failing to answer, or giving false answers, or causing other persons to give false answers to questions put to them by employment inspectors.

The Chinese government-owned company has been at the centre of a media storm following accusations of gross mistreatment of its employees in proceedings instituted by several Vietnamese employees, who are claiming that company officials forced them to work over 14 hours a day, sometimes for seven days a week and that they are owed some €50,000 in unpaid wages and overtime.

Han, informally dressed in a casual leather jacket and scarf and appeared unperturbed as the accusations against him were read out. Liu, on the other hand, wore an expression of unambiguous anxiety.

Superintendent Theuma objected to bail on the grounds of the very serious nature of the offence, adding that when the police performed a search of the residences, Han was found to had his bags packed and an air ticket booked - this in spite of having told police that he had no plans to leave Malta.

Theuma also objected to bail on the grounds that the witnesses who will be called to testify are highly vulnerable. Liu has no ties to Malta and is living in rented accommodation, added the policeman.

Theuma asked the court to keep in mind the fact that China is not an EU country and it would be very difficult to order their return to Malta, should they make their way there.

Defence lawyer Pio Valletta described the objections as inconsistent pointing out that they had been granted police bail repeatedly in the past months.  He explained that Han travels as part of his job and is also a passport-carrying Maltese national with “substantial assets” in the country. “I dont think its correct that they should come here and use this as a grounds to object to bail when they have analysed his finances in detail.”

Valletta further explained that Hiu is also not a flight risk and had cooperated with police from the beginning. “They have already had to pass through prosecution in the media and do not deserve to be kept under lock and key” argued the lawyer.

Superintendent Theuma highlighted the fact that citizenship is not a tie to Malta, adding that neither accused have family ties to the island. He agreed that both accused have been granted police bail in the past, but explained that this was necessary to conclude the investigation, adding that  “the investigation has been concluded and they are now arraigned with associated consequences.”

“The police are not saying that they did not cooperate but there is police bail in order to conclude investigations and bail after arraignment on serious charges”. The prosecution’s case rests on a evidence and testimony from a number of Chinese and Vietnamese witnesses who are vulnerable persons that we are alleging to have been trafficked for labour purposes. The risk of tampering with evidence is to be given paramount importance” said the Superintendent.

Valletta replied that any tampering would have happened in the past month, but the fact that this has not happened is testimony to their integrity and trustworthiness. “The police could easily have charged them initially and continued with their investigations, however the fact that the police took so long and granted them police bail is evident that they were satisfied that the two were not a flight risk.”

The court, however denied bail on the grounds of the seriousness of the accusations and the risks of the accused interfering with witnesses or absconding.

In reply to a request by the prosecution that the court freeze the assets to order an inventory of personal assets and house contents of the accused in relation, Valletta argued that the employees were employed by leisure clothing and the accused were merely representatives of the company.

The court acceded to the prosecution’s request and ordered the liquid and fixed assets of  the accused be frozen. The attachment order seizing their assets from the court however allowed the accused to receive an annual salary of €13.9k from Leisure Clothing Limited.

An inventory of the assets of the accused is also to be compiled.

Superintendent Dennis Theuma, Police Inspectors Sylvana Briffa, and Joseph Busuttil prosecuted.

Lawyer Elizabeth Borg appeared on behalf of the DIER.

Lawyer Pio Valletta represented the accused.