A 78-year-old owner of two massage parlours in which clients were offered sexual "extras" has been cleared of living off the earnings of prostitution after a court found no evidence that he was aware of the illegal activities. 

Alfred Attard had acquired the two shops, one in Mosta and the other in Ħamrun, after marrying his carer-turned-wife.

Having registered both premises in his name, Mr Attard allegedly entrusted the keys and day-to-day management of centres to his wife and four Chinese employees, two of whom also shared his home.

He would rarely enter the parlours, instead ferrying his wife and employees to and from work, later complaining about how much fuel the trips cost him. 

Trouble brewed when, following a police raid on the shops in November 2012, the owner ended up facing criminal charges for having allegedly allowed the premises to be used for illicit purposes and for having knowingly lived off the earnings of prostitution.

Police surveillance revealed that sexual activity was taking place inside, with two male customers testifying about the "extras" which they had allegedly paid for and received.

Although one of the masseuses confessed that she performed such "extras" to earn more money over and above her €700 monthly wage, the employees had been asked to sign an agreement by the owner to the effect that they had been employed “to do genuine Chinese massage and nothing else” being strictly told “not to indulge in any sex.”

Testifying in court, the accused had declared that he had nothing to do with the shops, leaving the keys in the hands of the employees and the earnings in the hands of his wife, whom he had married in 2013.

“I never touched a penny,” the man had stressed, his version apparently confirmed by the masseuses who referred to her as "the boss" and by customers who had testified that they never saw the accused inside the parlours where his young wife "had been in charge....like a manager."

On the basis of all evidence put forward, the court, presided over by magistrate Donatella Frendo Dimech, concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused knew of the goings-on inside the parlours and more so of having lived off the illicit business.

“The police knew from the start that the man’s wife ...was the one who had been aware of all that went on inside the shops,” the court observed.

The man had evidently rendered himself a target for prosecution by insisting on shouldering responsibility for all that took place inside the shops registered in his name, the court concluded, clearing the accused of all charges.