Yilei reaches settlement with victim in human trafficking trial in South Karelia District Court
In the South Karelia District Court, the ongoing trial concerning human trafficking charges took an unexpected turn on its fourth day. The accused, Pan Yilei, a well-known restaurant entrepreneur in the area, reached a settlement with a Chinese man who was the victim in this case. According to their representatives, the agreement stipulates that the Chinese man will withdraw all criminal and compensation claims against Yilei. In total, Yilei and his companies will pay the victim approximately €60,000 in compensation.
Despite the agreement, the prosecutor maintained their perspective, stating that the charges and the associated request for penalties will remain largely unchanged. The prosecutor emphasized that the settlement holds little significance in the context of the criminal case. Both parties’ legal representatives expressed disappointment that the prosecutor did not drop the charges despite the settlement.
The settlement, reached during the latter stages of the proceedings, acknowledges that the Chinese man worked more than the 20 hours per week specified in his employment contract at Yilei’s restaurant. It highlights that the extended hours were not mandated by Yilei and that the Chinese man sometimes spent off-duty time at the workplace. Both parties claimed that the incidents described in the charges do not constitute human trafficking or discrimination against foreign workers.
During the closing arguments, the prosecutor argued that the victim invested about €100,000 in two businesses at the accused’s suggestion, anticipating this would extend his residency permit. These events occurred between 2014 and 2016, leaving the victim in debt to Yilei, which the prosecutor contends placed him under the defendant’s control. The defense countered that the victim acted with intentional ignorance regarding his situation, particularly in business dealings and residency applications.
Both parties requested that court costs be borne by the state, while the defendant’s name has been disclosed due to significant criticism regarding his conduct as an employer.