Sex workers describe working conditions in St Julian's brothel

Two women who worked in a St Julian's brothel for a few days before it was raided by the police testified on their conditions on Wednesday.

The women, alleged victims of human trafficking, took the witness stand in criminal proceedings against 31-year-old Panamanian Janice Jasbeth Ramirez Cummings, 28-year-old Colombian Karen Dayanna Pineda Caicedo, and  31-year-old Colombian Silvia Juliana Jinete Vega. They are accused of trafficking other women into prostitution, living off the proceeds of prostitution, operating a brothel and money laundering, among other charges. They have pleaded not guilty.

A police inspector last week gave details of the police raid and a description of what the officers had found. 

The two witnesses, both from Venezuela, who cannot be identified by court order, said they were in Amsterdam for a holiday when the airspace was closed and they could not return home. A friend suggested that they could go to Malta and work in prostitution as they were running out of money.

They were not given details about their work conditions before paying for their flight to Malta. The friend in Amsterdam put them in contact with another person, who the two alleged victims never met.

One of the witnesses, AB, said that before coming to Malta she asked the person who was contacting them from Malta whether they would be working in a brothel, with both AB and CD emphasising that they feared brothels because they associated them with the conditions sex workers faced back home in Venezuela.

They were told it was not a brothel and both agreed to come to Malta. They arrived on December 9 and moved into the apartment in St Julian's.

Jinete Vega, who was identified as a “mummy”, explained the house rules to them. They were to be paid every Monday. Payments from clients was passed to the mummies. Earnings were then shared 50:50 between thewomen and the mummies. They also had to pay the cleaner.

The mummies administered the phones, their webpages and clients' appointments. The women had to be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week and had to pay a fine of €200 if they wanted to leave the apartment.

Moreover, they had to leave the room if one of their roommates had a client.

They were also expected to be ready in lingerie, high heels and make-up in case a client turned up.

CD explained that three women slept on a double bed and shared a room together. She said that on her first day she had three clients. She was owed some €3,000 for the three days she worked in the apartment before the police raided the property.

On her first day she had three clients. On the second day, she had an outcall. The client initially requested three hours, but kept extending, paying a total of ten hours but allowing her to leave after the ninth hour on condition she kept the money for the outstanding hour without sharing with the mummies. However, the mummies insisted that the payment for that hour needed to be shared with them. The woman explained that she was owed some €3,000 for those three days but was not paid since the police raided the apartment.

The witness recounted how the client wanted to stay for 12 hours on day three. During that time they had sex and spoke at length.“He was irritated that I only took half of what he had paid and that I had to share earnings 50:50 with the people who ran the place. He insisted that it was not right that I worked all the time and shared a bed with two other women, and he offered to pay for more hours so that I did not see other clients. He also said that if I wanted to, I could have moved to his place. He showed that he wanted to help me,” CD recalled.

Asked why she did not take up his offer, she said she feared problems at the apartment and that she would be reported to the “boss”.

She added that she wanted to get paid on the following Monday, then pay the €200 fine and leave.

From CD’s testimony it also emerged that the women would be accompanied by “securities” on outcalls at night.

After returning from one of her outcalls, CD said she found all three bedrooms at the apartment being used by other women and their clients, and she had to wait to be able to get some rest.

The woman, in tears, also explained that she had €1,290 when she arrived in Malta and wanted to send some money to her family but did not manage to. She also confirmed that she was forced into prostitution due to the situation in Venezuela.

She sobbed when asked what would happen if her family got to know she was working in prostitution, saying that they would cut ties with her.

Working conditions were not agreed beforehand

AB told the court she only got to know of the working conditions once in Malta. Jinete Vega explained them to her but she disagreed with them. She said the women were also liable to be fined if they were not ready in heels and lingerie when a client arrived. They were given food once a day and were allowed to leave only for three hours a day with the permission of the mummies.

The only time AB left the house, she was asked to return after 15 minutes because she had a client.

AB recalled an incident when Jinete Vega woke her up at 5:45am because there was a client. She wanted to sleep and refused to take part in the parade. The client left and Jinete Vega threatened to report her to the boss. The consequences were never specified.

AB said she had made €1,000 before the police raid but she was never given the money.

AB was asked why she did not leave the apartment, given that she had money and her passport. She said that there were “security officers” and cameras and they were never alone. She also feared the consequences if she left the apartment. Moreover, she did not know anyone in Malta and she could not take her belongings without the mummies realising that she intended to leave.

Before the two women testified, the defence declared that it would challenge the admissibility of the evidence. Lawyers suggested that the women should be cautioned. The prosecution insisted that the women had been identified as victims during the investigation, even though they were arrested together with the three women facing the criminal charges. 

Magistrate Donatella Frendo Dimech presided. AG lawyers Etienne Savona and Charmaine Abdilla prosecuted, assisted by police inspectors John Spiteri and Marshall Mallia. Lawyers Herman Mula and Silvan Pulis assisted Janice Jasbeth Ramirez Cummings and Silvia Juliana Jinete Vega. The latter also has lawyer Franco Debono appearing for her. Lawyer Charles Mercieca appeared for Karen Dayanna Pineda Caicedo. Lawyers Stephanie Caruana and Lara Dimitrijevic are appearing for the alleged victims.