A Hungarian married couple  accused of forcing two adult women into prostitution had their assets frozen and were remanded in custody.

The 39-year-old husband and the 34-year-old wife were escorted to court under arrest and charged with forcing the two women, one of whom appeared to be the wife’s sister, into the illicit business.

The couple was also charged with having kept a brothel, lived over the past months or years wholly or in part on the earnings of prostitution and causing their victims to fear violence.

The prosecution stated that this case had potentially presented a more complex and serious web of human trafficking. It pointed out that this appeared to be a family-run prostitution racket managed by the couple from their residence in St Paul’s Bay.

The court was told how husband and wife lived in an apartment together with their 14-year old daughter, the wife’s sister and another woman. The female co-accused would allegedly handle customers, taking bookings over the phone and managing some 15 appointments daily. 

The prosecution further explained how the couple’s daughter had been living in an unhealthy environment, attending school only for 15 days throughout this last year. The fear that this girl could also end up being forced into prostitution was a real one, the prosecution argued.

Following her parents’ arrest, the girl had been entrusted to the custody of the state and was reportedly in foster care, a safer and more stable option than that requested by the defence of having the young person sent back to her homeland through the necessary arrangements with the relative authorities.

The court was also told how the accused had never offered their daughter a stable life, wandering between Hungary, England, the Netherlands and Malta. Moreover, national authorities had confirmed that the two had been investigated under foreign jurisdictions over similar offences.

"This is a family-run business of human trafficking,” the prosecution strongly insisted, pointing out that the couple had other family members serving time behind bars abroad. 

Keeping the 14-year old away from her family life could be a safer option, argued the prosecution, adding further that the minor could also be a potential witness in the criminal proceedings against her parents.

This comment prompted defence lawyer Patrick Valentino to point out that the consent of the parent would first have to be obtained, since the girl was underage.

However, at this very early stage of the proceedings and in view of the delicate nature of the case, the court, presided over by Magistrate Ian Farrugia, declared that “it would not be conducive to the best administration of justice to send the girl away from the islands.”

Although no request for bail was filed by the defence, the court declared that at this premature stage it would not block communication between the couple and the girl, trusting the relative authorities to handle the manner wherein this could best take place.

The court issued a freezing order over all the assets of the accused. A ban over the publication of the names of the accused was ordered by the court to safeguard the interests of the minor. 

Inspectors Joseph Busuttil and John Spiteri prosecuted. Lawyer Patrick Valentino was legal aid counsel.