Leisure Clothing director 'withheld passports', court hears

A court was told that Leisure Clothing, the Chinese government-owned company, withheld workers’ passports in order to prevent the workers escaping, however the prosecution did not present any evidence supporting the charge of human trafficking in court today.

Antoine Grech, from the Department of Industrial and Employment Relations testified that he had been told this by the director himself. Grech had reported this to Elizabeth Borg, the DIER’s lawyer.

Borg sought the advice of the Attorney General’s office and on the strength of this, decided to send a written request to the Commissioner of Police to prosecute.

Grech, who currently works for the OPM, testified that he had spoken to three Vietnamese workers at the Police HQ. During the first meeting, they had said that between November and July they had only been paid €600 and did not have a copy of their contract. They claimed to have been told that they would receive the balance at the end of the contract.

The witness told the court that Leisure Clothing’s HR manager had contacted him some days later and a meeting with Han and the HR manager was held. He alleged that Han Bin had told him that that salaries were kept in safe deposit boxes “because they feared that the employees would escape”.

Han Bin could be seen shaking his head vigorously as the translator translated Grech’s testimony.

Magistrate Carol Peralta asked the witness if he was aware of any restrictions on their liberty. He replied in the negative. Cross-examined by the defence, he said he never discussed human trafficking with his superiors. He confirmed that he had spoken to the Maltese shop stewards in July, who had told him that the Maltese workers had no problems but could not vouch for the others.

The magistrate was told that the collective agreement between a union and the company covered only the Maltese.“By agreement they were not covered, but by law they had minimum rights… It appears, from my understanding, that the accused had never denied keeping the passports in the safety deposit box. I have no doubts that if an employee were to leave the company, he would receive the balance. The monies, if owed, would be given if requested. There is something, however, that is bothering me – this allegation that the documents were being kept to prevent their escape.”

Inspector Darren Buhagiar had told the court how, on the 26th July, he had been informed that the that three Asians had been arrested attempting to board the catamaran to Sicily with false Italian papers. Investigations resulted that the persons were Vietnamese employees of Leisure Clothing.

He testified that one of the Vietnamese had asked for a pen and paper to write something down, as the inspector could not understand her English. She wrote: “I want translation please, Vietnamese, help me please. I don’t want to see boss, boss China no good, please help me.”

She told Inspector Buhagiar that she was on a €200-€300 monthly salary.

Buhagiar said the workers had told him that they were “invited by Mr. Han to work in Malta” and had applied for a work visa in their own name, as per procedure.

The magistrate was not impressed, saying that this is what every other foreigner who comes to Malta to work does and asked as to its relevance. The inspector explained that their Vietnamese passports were being kept under lock and key in the factory. Han Bin was the only holder of the keys and he was abroad at the time.

Prosecuting Inspector Sylvana Briffa asked him if he had investigated why the Vietnamese had tried to escape without telling their employer. “They were scared and did not want to work there anymore. From what I could understand, they were being exploited”.

Asked if there was an agreement of some sort regarding the outstanding salary balances with the factory, the inspector answered that he had not delved into this issue, however he said that they had claimed to be working for 12 hours a day on a seven-day week.

The magistrate remarked that if the passports of every worker were being held in the safe but could be accessed on demand, that did not support the human trafficking thesis.

Romina Veneziani from the DIER testified that she had received a police report informing her that three Vietnamese persons had been arrested at the seaport for attempting to use false documents and had claimed that their employer had not paid them. 

They had claimed that their salary was held in a safe by their employer and that they were being given €200 a month.

She could not confirm whether there was an agreement with their employers, but that insofar as she had been informed by the employees, they could sign out batches of €200. After consulting with DIER inspectors, the suspicions of human trafficking emerged.

She said she had never encountered a case where the employer held on to the pay. “We usually prosecute for deductions, let alone withholding pay,” she said.

She could not confirm whether any funds had been deposited in the accounts.

Veneziani told the court that after the DIER heard reports of passports being held by the employer, it wrote to the police commissioner, requesting he investigate the matter further.

“Have you ever had cases of withheld pay?” asked defence lawyer Edward Gatt. Veneziani replied in the affirmative. “And were they arraigned for human trafficking?” The witness could not answer as her department did not prosecute.

The Magistrate expressed his concern at the fact that it had not emerged where the pay issue had arisen. “Did you not ask them why they did not ask their employer for their money?”

Gatt continued: “Visa applications were made in Beijing. Bin Han was in Malta at the time. Bin Han did not possess Padre Pio’s gift of bi-location. Who made the request? Did you check who processed the visa application? If I told you there was a foreign company who dealt with the visas, what would you say?

“The workers had enough money to go to Vietnam, in fact they had enough to pay their €1,000 bail to the immigration appeals board. Did you ask them what their intention to go to Catania was?” 

The witness replied that the Vietnamese had told her that they wanted to go to Catania “and decide from there”. 

Gatt suggested that if a worker’s employment was terminated and consequently had their visa revoked and didn’t want to go back to Vietnam, the situation would make more sense.

The case will continue tomorrow, after which the court will decide whether there are sufficient grounds for an indictment.

Inspectors Sylvana Briffa and Darren Buhagiar prosecuted, while lawyers Edward Gatt and Pio Valletta defended the accused. Retired judge Philip Sciberras and Lawyer Karl Briffa appeared in parte civile.