Woman who ran Warrington brothel to repay £275k in ill-gotten gains

The sentencing hearing of Guoyan Ma had to be paused in July last year – before she was allowed to walk free from court – after it was judged that she suffered a ‘panic attack’ in the dock.

The court heard how the then-58-year-old mother provided an opportunity for women of Chinese origin to earn money to remain in the country illegally.

But because of her personal mitigation, which included health issues with her hearing and her difficulties with the English language, she was spared jail.

Ma appeared before Liverpool Crown Court, assisted by a mandarin interpreter, to be sentenced over five charges of controlling prostitution for gain relating to women aged between 35 and 49.

She appeared back before the same court yesterday, Monday, for a Proceeds of Crime Act Hearing, to learn how much of her ill-gotten gains she will be ordered to pay back.

It was heard that her illegal enterprise allowed her to benefited from a total of £274,866 – with assets included her home, the brothel premises, cash in multiple bank accounts and her car.

Judge Neil Flewitt, presiding over the hearing, ordered that she repay that sum within three months – and if she does not, she faces 30 months imprisonment.

During sentencing, the court heard from prosecutor Simon Parry how brothel owner Ma, who sobbed in the dock through most of the hearing, was to be sentenced over controlling the prostitution of five women.

She used mobile phone messaging applications to recruit oriental women and then advertised their sexual services to men through flare messages written through the help of Google Translate.

Chat and message logs recovered by police were from July 2016 to October 2019, with Mr Parry stating that the five women referenced in the charges were ‘the tip of the iceberg’.

Of the five, four were here illegally through overstaying the length of their visa, while the fifth had entered the country illegally.

However, the court heard that there was no element of coercion, with no women being trafficked and forced to work against their will, nor was there any complaint about the conditions they were living in.

Ma would arrange for the women to travel to the property at Pyramid Court in the town centre, where men would frequent and pay the women to engage in sexual activity.

The money was given to Ma and collected by Marsh, of Springclough Avenue in Worsley, who transferred it into a bank account.

David Marsh leaving Liverpool Crown Court

The regularity and volume of the business, which would see upwards of seven visits from men a day, was described as a ‘significant’ operation, with an expectation of ‘significant financial gain’.

The court heard that cameras inside the property had been placed in the hallway facing the front door as well as the kitchen for Ma to see who was coming in and out of the address.

There were also a variety of items found in the bedrooms that were associated with sexual paraphernalia.

A surveillance operation in August and September 2019 recorded women who had been employed by Ma attending and leaving the property.

Men, who visited as clients, were also seen coming and going including Marsh.

In October 2019, Ma was arrested at the brothel while attempting to access her mobile phones. The phones were seized by police and uncovered messages dating back from 2014 to 2015.

On the phone were messages from Ma speaking to the women about weekly takings of between £2,705 and £3,135, however it is believed she would take most of the money.

Police also rumbled David Marsh, aged 72 when sentenced in November, with the pensioner, referred to as an ‘errand boy’ by Cheshire Police, laundering the profits.

In June 2020 Marsh was arrested and his home was searched, recovering two handwritten diaries from between September 2018 and November 2018 showing he was a client at the brothel and was known to be Ma’s ‘errand boy.’

He would regularly collect money from the property, and when interviewed by police he claimed he thought he was transferring it to Ma’s family in China.

Ma and Marsh were found guilty by a jury at Liverpool Crown Court following an eight-day trial.

Sentencing Ma last year, judge Flewitt said: “The seriousness of your offending lies in the fact that by allowing these women to work from your premises and controlling their activities, you enabled them to work in this country to earn sufficient money to avoid the detection of authorities.

“It is important to report that there is no evidence at all that these women were coerced to work as prostitutes.

“I have reached the conclusion that I can suspend the sentence, and I am not going to send you immediately to prison.”

The Proceeds of Crime Act hearing was heard at Liverpool Crown Court

This was due to her ‘strong personal mitigation’, namely being isolated in prison due to her English language difficulties, as well as her physical and mental health issues.

Ma, of Clarence Street in Padgate, was sentenced to 18 months in prison suspended for two years.

She was also ordered to complete 20 rehabilitation activity requirement days and undertake 180 hours of unpaid work for the benefit of the community.

Before sentencing Marsh, judge Flewitt commented: “By the verdict of the jury that convicted you, you knew what you were doing.

“I know you were doing it as a friend first and were acting under the influence of Ma, and I understand you were not doing it for financial gain.

“I am satisfied that she was taking advantage of you, but the jury was satisfied that you knew what you were doing and that it was a crime.”

Marsh was sentenced to a six-month community order including an electronically monitored curfew for three months.

It was decided that Proceeds of Crime Act proceedings against Marsh were ‘inappropriate’ as a course of action, which would be a ‘waste of everyone’s time and energy’.

On the pair, sergeant Darren Wright said: “Ma was the overall controller of the brothel and the profits she made from it.

“She claimed she worked on her own and ran a massage parlour, but we knew that was not the case.

“She used Marsh to move the money generated from the men who paid for sexual services so it would not put attention or suspicion on her.

“However, he was fully aware that Ma was running a brothel and used the women for his own sexual needs.

“In order to build a strong case against her and Marsh, and to further protect these women, we had to gather evidence that would strengthen the case.

“This can often take time, but it can ultimately lead to a positive outcome and justice being served for these women.”