A Vietnamese woman took out a loan for a $3,500 deposit to secure what she believed was going to be a “well-paid job in Malta” – but got a measly €2,700 for eight months of 14-hour days, six days a week, a court heard yesterday.

Van Hoang Thi Cam worked between 7am and 9.30pm at the Leisure Clothing plant in Bulebel without getting paid for overtime.

She only received €150 every two months as “pocket money” and had €2,061 deposited in the company’s safe.

“I took a loan of 70 million Vietnamese dong ($3,500) to pay the woman from the agency for this well-paid job in Malta.

“The woman said the basic wage was €685 a month to work eight hours a day, six days a week,” she said.

The loan was on condition that if she did not pay back the full amount within three years, she would lose everything she owned, including her house in Vietnam.

Ms Van was testifying in the complication of evidence against Bin Han, 46, from San Ġwann, and Jia Liu, 31, from Birżebbuġa, directors of Leisure Clothing, who stand charged with human trafficking and the exploitation of Chinese and Vietnamese people. They are also charged with misappropriating the employees’ wages.

Ms Van said she got to know about Leisure Clothing through an agency. Asked about the contracts she had signed, she said: “First I was given a sample of the contract to read and then the woman gave me the actual contract with all the conditions but I was not given a copy.”

I was given a sample of the contract to read, but wasn’t given a copy

Some two months later, as she was about to board a plane for Malta, the woman gave her another contract to sign, this time in Vietnamese, but she did not have much time to read it as she was told to hurry.

She was told there was something wrong with the first contract, which was in Chinese. At the time she was earning €200 a month.

Prodded by the court, the witness said she once approached Mr Bin to ask why the conditions listed in the contract she had signed in Vietnam were different to the long hours she was working. He replied that he was not interested in what she had signed.

When she asked him why they kept her passport, she said he told her this was the law in Malta.

When asked why she did not report the alleged abuse, she claimed that she did not know who to turn to in Malta, and she only spoke Vietnamese. She confirmed that her contract stipulated that the company would keep a portion of her wages and would give it to her upon request.

However, the proviso was that the worker had to have a minimum of €2,000 in her account.

In the four-hour sitting, only two prosecution witnesses were heard, each necessitating a translation at every question.

The magistrate angrily rebuked the prosecution for not having brought any evidence to justify a criminal trial against the directors, saying the prosecution must prove their link to the company.

He noted the damage already done to the public’s perception of the firm. “Mud-slinging, even if it doesn’t stick in court, will stick in people’s minds,” he said.

The case continues next week.