|
Nail salon in human trafficking case still open
http://ydr.inyork.com/ci_14074537
Lynda Dieu Phan, who pleaded guilty in October for her role in a "forced labor organization," continues to operate Da-Vi Nails.
By TED CZECH
Daily Record/Sunday News
Updated: 12/26/2009 09:33:56 PM EST
Lynda Dieu Phan pleaded guilty to federal human trafficking charges in October, but continues to operate her West Manchester Township nail salon, where officials said she forced two women to work.
As part of an October plea agreement, federal agents seized a home, bank accounts and an SUV. However, one of the businesses where the women worked -- Da-Vi Nails, inside the Walmart in West Manchester Township -- remains open, with Lynda Phan running it.
A second West Manchester Township business owned by Lynda Phan, Nail Palace, was closed in 2005, although Department of State officials say they don't know why.
Two Vietnamese nationals, identified in court documents as A.V. and T.V., were kept in Lynda Phan's home in the 500 block of Sandpiper Lane in Fairview Township and worked every day in her nail salons without pay, under the threat of being turned over to immigration officials as illegal aliens, court documents state.
A.V. immigrated to the United States in 2004 and entered into a sham marriage with Justin Phan. In 2005, T.V. arrived in the U.S. and entered into a sham marriage with Duc Cao Nguyen, court documents state.
Lynda Phan, 39, of Fairview Township, pleaded guilty to two charges: criminal conspiracy to commit forced labor trafficking, forced labor and marriage fraud; and forfeiture. Phan's boyfriend, Duc Cao Nguyen, 41, also of
Fairview Township, and her brother Justin Phan, 36, of Tennessee, pleaded guilty to marriage fraud and forfeiture.
The three face maximum sentences of five years in prison, a $250,000 fine and a maximum of three years supervised release.
In addition, the three have agreed to pay $300,000 to the two women in back pay, the majority of the money coming from seizures of Lynda Phan and Nguyen's home, Nguyen's 2008 Toyota Highlander and money found in bank accounts, documents state.
As of last week, a sentencing date for the three defendants had not been set.
On Dec. 8, a reporter visited Da-Vi Nails to talk to Nguyen, who the Pennsylvania Department of State identified as the nail salon's owner.
Instead, a woman behind the counter said she was Lynda Phan and that she, not Nguyen, was the owner. She refused to answer any further questions, referring the reporter to her lawyer, James J. West of Harrisburg.
West later said neither he nor his client would speak about the case, as did Justin Phan's lawyer, William Fetterhoff. Nguyen's lawyer, William Fulton, could not be reached for comment.
Salon a rental property
Federal officials said Da-Vi Nails was never targeted as a forfeiture item in the case.
Brian Michael, assistant special agent-in-charge with ICE in Philadelphia, said in October that the other items seized by the federal government were more significant assets.
"The house has sufficient equity, the vehicle, the cash ... was sufficient for restitution and other things," he said. He added since it was a rental property, he didn't think what was inside the business would be worth much.
Fawcett said that since Da-Vi Nails rents space to conduct its business, the federal government could not seize property the defendants did not own.
"The plea agreement with this case speaks to a substantial forfeiture. ... Is it economically worth it to take nail polish? I've never known us to do that."
York immigration attorney Craig Trebilcock said that in similar situations, "The problem is, when somebody's operating out of a rental property, how do you take the business? What are they going to have, some basic tools and cosmetics?"
A paragraph in the plea agreements for the three defendants hands the decision on what to do about the defendants' involvement with Da-Vi Nails to the state: "The status of any professional license held by the defendant is not protected by this agreement and is a matter solely within the discretion of the appropriate licensing authority. The United States may in its discretion provide to any such licensing authority any documents and information in its possession."
License with the state
Lynda Phan's license to practice cosmetology in Pennsylvania may be in jeopardy based on her guilty pleas, but it is not the first time she has run afoul with the state Board of Cosmetology.
In November 2004, the Pennsylvania Board of Cosmetology handed down a civil penalty of $1,000 to Lynda Phan, who at the time was operating the Nail Palace inside the West Manchester Mall.
According to court documents, that in May 2004, a state regulatory enforcement inspector visited Nail Palace and saw an employee performing a manicure on a customer. The employee had a temporary permit to practice manicuring, and by law needed a cosmetology teacher to supervise her. There was no teacher present, documents state.
Phan did not challenge the charges, documents state.
The Nail Palace closed in 2005, but according to department of state spokesman Charlie Young, the reason is not known.
As far as the status of Da-Vi Nails' license with the Board of Cosmetology, Young said that following the sentencing on federal charges, an examiner will conduct a hearing, and the examiner's decision is reviewed by the board.
"We get information, we investigate and we often would have our own set of (civil) charges under our crime acts," he said. "There is a due process ... It's not just an automatic thing that if someone is guilty of a criminal charge, they're guilty of a civil charge."
The state's Criminal History Records Information Act allows the Board of Cosmetology to suspend or revoke the license of someone convicted and sentenced in a felony case.
Fines may also be included in the sanctions against an owner, Young said.
Companies' policies
Da-Vi Nails International, whose corporate office is in West Valley City, Utah, was contacted by e-mail Dec. 9 requesting its policies on individuals who have pleaded guilty to criminal charges continuing to run a store bearing its name.
Tina Sperry, project coordinator, Da-Vi Nails International, replied on Dec.11, saying, "We have spoken to Lynda Phan's attorney and he said that all is not completed yet with this case yet , and in order to share information with us regarding this he will have to get permission from Lynda to talk to us. When we are able to gather additional information and speak to the attorneys involved we will have a better grasp on the situation and will be able to give comment at that time."
Wal-Mart's public relations department was contacted by phone Dec. 16 and asked for its policies on renting space to people who had pleaded guilty to federal charges. Wal-Mart Media Relations manager Ashley Hardie responded Dec. 24, suggesting in an e-mail that Lynda Phan's lawyer could be called on any questions about Da-Vi Nails.
She did not respond to another e-mail restating the original question about Wal-Mart's policies.
PROSECUTING HUMAN TRAFFICKING
According to Assistant U.S. Attorney Christy Fawcett, the most important ingredients needed to combat human trafficking are "awareness and a willingness to take the information to law enforcement," she said. "That's what happened here in this case. Someone came to law enforcement and said they thought something was wrong and it should be investigated."
In the case Fawcett is referring to, a Vietnamese woman identified as A.V. escaped from a New Cumberland house in June 2008, where she had been held for nearly four years, according to federal charging documents. A client A.V. had met at a West Manchester Township nail salon helped her escape after she had told the client that a woman named Lynda Dieu Phan was forcing her and another Vietnamese national, identified as T.V., to work without pay, according to court documents.
"It's hard for law enforcement to investigate something they don't know about," Fawcett said. "Victims oftentimes aren't willing to go to law enforcement, particularly in human trafficking, because they frequently are here illegally (and) they don't understand their rights, the criminal justice system, what recourse is available to them. They're concerned about their own criminal exposure if they go to law enforcement."
|
