Human trafficking for labour exploitation: Interpreting the crime

The definition of human trafficking for labour exploitation, as follows from the European Council Framework Decision, proves to be unclear. Literal interpretation does not suffice, because it does not clarify all elements of what is deemed to be criminal behaviour, and hermeneutical interpretation also falls short discouraging the aim of this legislation, namely harmonisation. Hence, another solution is required. This article does so by firstly challenging assumptions about human trafficking for labour exploitation that are generally pertinent, but nonetheless untrue. This accurate appraisal of the crime’s nature is followed by a synopsis of national legislation and adjudication in three Member States, so as to also focus on these actualities regarding the crime that are commonly not conceived. This article examines two countries that have implemented the Framework Decision, namely Belgium and the Netherlands, and one that has not yet done so, the United Kingdom. Thereafter remaining unexplained elements of the Framework Decision’s definition are interpreted with use of international, pan-European and European legislation and adjudication. Based upon all this, a suggested interpretation of the Framework Decision’s definition is provided so as to overcome all identified difficulties with it.


Introduction
What does human trafficking entail? One generally thinks of the immigration offence undertaken by organised crime groups that transfer women and girls illegally from their home to a country in which they are forced into prostitution, the escort branch, sex entertainment, web cam sex, or pornography. 2 However, nowadays, the crime encompasses human trafficking for labour exploitation, following implementation of international, 3 pan-European 4 and European 5 legislation. The definition has thereby expanded to also include the crime of forcing others into work in other -generally legal 6 -sectors and industries. However, how do we interpret this newer definition of the crime in the European Council Framework Decision?
This indicates a crucial legal problem; behaviour has already been criminalised, or at least European Union (EU) Member States are obliged to criminalise this behaviour, yet the definition does not unequivocally describe what constitutes it. However, legal certainty requires a precise definition for persons to reasonably understand what it exists of. This entails two issues: the crime has to be specifically and coherently based on criminal elements of the behaviour, as the corpus delicti requires, and persons should be able to know what it entails before they possibly (1) 'the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring, subsequent reception of a person, including exchange or transfer of control over that person, where: (a) use is made of coercion, force or threat, including abduction, or (b) use is made of deceit or fraud, or (c) there is an abuse of authority or of a position of vulnerability, which is such that the person has no real and acceptable alternative but to submit to the abuse involved, or (d) payments or benefits are given or received to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person (2) The consent of a victim of trafficking in human beings to the exploitation, intended or actual, shall be irrelevant where any of the means set forth above have been used'.
However, this definition is imprecise, mainly because it lacks separation of actions and outcomes, and uses general legal acts and undefined elements. To highlight crucial questions: When does a person traffic another for labour exploitation? Does this require an accumulation of actions (under (1)), means (under a-d), and actualised exploitation? Can intended exploitation 12 suffice? Does it entail forced marriages, removal of organs, child soldiers, fraudulent doption, forced begging, obliged performance of sports, and/or forced criminal activity? Does this definition require perpetration by an organised criminal group or it is possible for 'unorganised' individuals to also traffic? Does it involve an aspect of trade as follows from the term trafficking? 13 With regards the actions, when does a perfectly legal act, for instance, recruitment, become the criminal act of trafficking? What is required for behaviour to constitute means, e.g. abuse of authority or of a position of vulnerability? Does payment include parents who accept money for their child to be educated and nationalised abroad? Furthermore, how can we use all elements in the non-exhaustive list of forced labour and other notions that are generally criminalised in all jurisdictions (national, supranational, and international)? Thus, how is the element of forced labour defined in its relation to trafficking? In other words, does it include communal services and/or prison work? How do we use the undefined term of servitude? 14 Finally, how can we use slavery in a present-day context without controversy; does slavery exist today? More generally, how can we distinguish between labour that is performed somewhat unwillingly from human trafficking for labour exploitation?
The above-raised questions cannot be solved through interpretation 15 on the basis of the Framework Decision's Explanatory Memorandum 16 or even that of the legislative guide to the United Nations (UN) Protocol on which this definition is largely based. 17 The Memorandum refers namely to the legislative guide, which does not define the elements, but instead refers to various international documents. 18 A comparable solution is proposed by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) that makes the elements of crime dependent on national legal definitions of associated criminal offences. 19 However, these encourage different national definitions and thus not harmonisation. The latter is, however, crucial. Not because it is an end in and of itself, but because it (a) avoids that traffickers can make use of gaps in the legislation of other countries or other types of legislation, and (b) enables unique measures for an effective combat.
Firstly, criminal legislation on human trafficking for labour exploitation necessarily also poses problems in other legal areas such as labour, migration, and human rights law. These problems inescapably exist worldwide, but are even more complicated within the EU due to its unique nature. Within the EU, citizens can freely move as workers 20 since there are no border controls, and they are offered labour standards in labour and human rights law. It is argued, regardless of its truthfulness, that immigration into the EU is restricted so as to protect this area of free movement. Within this context, criminal legislative measures, such as the Framework Decision, affect migration issues. This is the case, even though this particular legislative measure has been drafted under the third pillar, Justice and Home Affairs, that also covers migration law. This effect is even more prone when labour markets require more workers, but nationals are unwilling to perform the job. Another effect or even conflict exists in measures on labour markets and other economic sectors under the EU's first pillar of the Economic community. Such possible clashes also may arise where common foreign policy-issues, under the second pillar, are directed at so-called source, transit and destination countries of human trafficking.
Secondly, even though the EU faces these difficulties, it also possesses unparalled tools for the effective combat of human trafficking for labour exploitation, when harmonised. Criminal investigations can, for instance, be facilitated by transnational co-operation in Joint Investigation Teams of Member States' police forces, 21 as well as with support at the EU-level by virtue of the European police office, Europol. 22 These can also involve: (a) money investigations into legal persons 23 that enable confiscation of criminal gain, 24 and (b) measures directed at criminal organisations. 25 Also prosecutorial joint efforts with help from Eurojust 26 enable an effective combat. Both possibly with use of European arrest warrants that permit effectuation of another Member States' judicial authority's arrest warrants for alleged traffickers. 27 Lastly, EU measures also extend to trial. Extensive victim protection and assistance exist, even though this may not be deemed wholly satisfactory, because it appears to effectuate criminal investigation more so than actually providing effective victim protection. 28 Both reasons indicate the need to come to uniform interpretation of the definition. The method to reach that is indicated below.

Research method; outline of the remainder of this article
Uniform interpretation of the Framework Decision's definition on human trafficking for labour exploitation firstly entails preventing a more restrictive interpretation than reality requires. 48 Therefore, other sources than criminal case law will be examined prior to, secondly, reviewing legislation and adjudication in three EU Member States. Lastly, disparities of national case law with the Framework Decision's definition will be explained with complementary research on non-national legislation and adjudication. This will all lead to a uniform interpretation of the definition.

A true appreciation of the crime of human trafficking for labour exploitation
Several researches on human trafficking for labour exploitation tackle five common assumptions about this crime. Firstly, although it would appear to be generally accepted that human trafficking for labour exploitation neither happens often nor on a large scale, 29 this has been proven wrong. At least 2.45 million people world wide are currently in forced labour resulting from human trafficking. 30 Although it is difficult to estimate the magnitude of this crime, due to the illegal nature of this employment and its recent criminalisation, 31 nonetheless the International Labour Organisation (ILO) has reached this fugre on the basis of a safe approximation. The ILO adds that in industrialised countries -including the three EU Member States in this research -more than 75 per cent of forced labour is performed by victims of trafficking. 32 With regards the entire population of trafficked victims 33 -hence including sexual exploitation -the proportion that ends up in labour exploitation is less clear. According to ILO figures this figure is almost one-quarter, 23 per cent, 34 whereas research that bases its estimate on figures of the United Nations reports about three-quarters. 35 Moreover, the victims of this crime, both female and male, are to be found in almost all sectors and industries imaginable. 36 For instance: (i) domestic work, including care/nursing, au pairs, and in forced marriages working for different 'relatives'; (ii) construction work, also renovation; (iii) hospitality services, e.g. restaurants, bars, cafeterias, and night shops; (iv) agriculture and horticulture, e.g. the fruit sector and greenhouse farming, in the Netherlands; (v) food industry work, ranging from food processing and packaging to slaughter work; 37 Cf. Belgian criminal law provision on coercion into criminal acts and these German and Dutch findings. Also Section 4. 38 CEOOR, Beeldvorming van de mensenhandel en analyse van

49
(vi) automotive and ship work, such as professional transport by road, cabs, car washes, and work in ports; (vii) the textile industry, such as laundry work and sorting out second-hand clothes. Some were forced to commit crimes, for instance, shoplifting, pick-pocketing and the sale of pirate CDs and DVDs. 37 Additionally, anecdotal information is available on cleaning companies, private employment agencies including illegal labour subcontractors, door-to-door distribution of advertisement leaflets, and exploitation of foreign football players, in Belgium. 38 Secondly, whereas the combat of this crime 39 emerges in light of human smuggling 40 -the crime of transnational transportation of non-nationals for criminal gain -or other so-called illegal migration acts, 41 there is not necessarily a nexus between human trafficking and illegal immigration. Firstly, some migrant workers that were trafficked internationally came through legal channels; one study found use of regular migration routes and work visas. 42 Nonetheless, many of these workers believed that they were dependent on their employer for legal residence, e.g. for visa extensions. Cynically, in some cases this belief eventually became reality; they became illegal in the country because traffickers retained their documents until these documents became outdated. 43 Additionally, it is not only a cross-border crime, for instance, research suggests asylum seekers, students, persons in forced marriages, legal residents but without the required work permit or with no work permit at all, to be trafficking victims. 44 Finally, this also points to the other possible victims: nationals. 45 Hence, even though, and this is stressed, the abovementioned research focused on immigrants, nonetheless nationals were found. This also emphasises the importance that more research is undertaken in relation to nationals. Until now, Dutch literature research points to two categories of possible national victims: extremely unassertive women, who face all kinds of social and psychological problems, and women in forced marriages. There appears no reason why male nationals cannot be victimised as well, as also addressed separately below. 46 Thirdly, because of the lack of emphasis on this type of human trafficking, a category of victims appears unrealised: men and boys, but also women not involved in sexual exploitation. As mentioned above, all these groups can be found in the victims of trafficking. Additional problems are also conceivable: men, for instance, cannot be sheltered with female victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation. 47 Furthermore, not only has this perspective on victims given a new viewpoint, the same accounts for found perpetrators.
Fourthly, although the combat of human trafficking concentrates on measures to investigate organised criminal groups, 48 these groups do not appear to be the only traffickers: also 'unorganised' individuals emerge. One specific category of 'unorganised' individuals is 'employers' of 49  57 This sample cannot be generalised to all EU Member States, but did use a well chosen range of countries. Belgium has a long history of combating human trafficking also for labour exploitation from 1995 onwards. The Netherlands criminalised this only recently, but did already distinguish trafficking from legal prostitution work; Dutch legalised prostitution required to define when sex work has been forced. The UK with its distanced position within the EU and first cases on trafficking for sexual exploitation completes the spectrum. 50 domestic workers. Individuals in this category are found to sometimes hire the victims directly. 49 However, if not, these 'employers' indicate they do not object to paying others, other than the employee, whether such a third party is a relative or an agency. 50 Indications of other individuals independently taking care of entry and/or refuge and/or accommodation are slum landlords and illegal accommodation and camping field exploiters. 51 Additionally, fraud identity paper-makers and deliverers might work autonomously. 52 The same accounts for individuals faking a marriage so as to allow victims to work and/or gain the host country's nationality, or that of another Schengen-country so as to enable free movement. Additionally, both legal and semi-legal companies appear involved. For example, intermediary companies serve as loan companies or job agencies. 53 Literature research suggests that some of these 'companies' mostly aim at illegal persons. Some suggest to employers that they can work legally. Other principals knowingly permit these illegal workers to work in their companies. 54 In both situations, a strikingly high number of foreign citizens, many of whom work as recruiters, labour brokers or employers in their home country, appear to recruit migrants. 55 This leads to the last challenged assumption, the means used in the course of trafficking. Lastly, whereas traffickers appear to generally use physical violence in sexual trafficking, it might be underestimated that trafficking for labour exploitation generally shows 'softer' means, such as debt bondage, removal of identity documents or intimidation and threats. Another, more intimidating and freedom-limiting situation, was found to be where victims lived with their traffickers. 56 This all leads to the following conclusion.

Conclusion
The abovementioned specific knowledge concerning the crime's true nature substantiates that: (i) the crime does exist and in a significant portion of the labour market; (ii) it is not necessarily part of illegal migration, including (a) entry in a country through legal channels, (b) victims may work legally, or reside legally but work illegally, and (c) victims may also be nationals; (iii) women, men and boys can be victims (iv) perpetrators are individuals as well as criminal groups, and (v) generally more subtle means are deployed than in women trafficking for sexual exploitation. These findings provide a true appreciation of the crime and provoke, from this perspective, an examination of current national legislation and adjudication, as follows.

Human trafficking in three EU Member States
This section provides an impression 57 of how the Framework Decision has thus far -if at allbeen implemented, as well as a case law synopsis indicating recent national judicial interpretation of the crime.  (Section 1), for a licensing scheme for labour providers in agriculture, shellfish gathering and associated processing and packaging sectors; the Act prohibits anyone from acting as a gangmaster in the specified area without a licence (Sections 6 and 12), and made it an offence to enter into an arrangement with an unlicensed one (Section 13

Diverging definitions on human trafficking for labour exploitation
Current national definitions on trafficking for labour exploitation in Belgium, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom (UK) differ from the Framework Decision and from each other. Crucially, other types of legislation were enacted: whereas Belgium 58 and the Netherlands 59 used criminal law, the UK 60 did not implement criminal law following the Framework Decision, 61 but only used migration and employment law. Even in the two countries that do criminalise it, the substance of the crime is different. The Belgian definition 'only' requires actions and exploitation; the means are regarded as aggravating circumstances. The Dutch definition follows the Framework Decision in requiring an accumulation of all three to criminalise behaviour as trafficking for labour exploitation. Additionally, Belgian law regards criminal law on human trafficking for labour exploitation to also encompass 62 exploitation of begging 63 and coercion to commit a crime or offence. 64 It requires that persons are employed 'in conditions incompatible with human dignity'; a general principle of law that is not further defined by the legislature. 65 The Dutch definition, although almost a literal translation of the Framework Decision's, nonetheless also criminalises another type of behaviour: 'The one who intentionally profits from this exploitation of another'. It is explained as 'not only criminalise traffickers, but also those who gain from exploitation'. 66 It is unclear what the distinction is; at least, it does not follow from the Framework Decision. Furthermore, although the Belgian legislature appears to extend criminal legislation, it is questionable how willing the Dutch are in this regard. Dutch policy papers, nonetheless, do emphasise that excesses will predominantly occur in the sex industry. 67 Lastly, the UK evidently lacks an equivalent definition for trafficking for labour exploitation in domestic criminal law. Where it could be investigated under the applicable migration law, there exists a seemingly higher evidentiary threshold than in cases of trafficking for sexual offences; the perpetrator must have believed that the victim was brought to the UK to be exploited.

Conclusion
Hence, harmonised criminal law is not as self-evident as appears from the UK approach, and the different definitions that do not obviously follow the Framework Decision's definition, indicate divergent legislative approaches.
It follows from the diverse legislation that (1) different definitions of the crime exist, and (2) that these hamper harmonisation, as well as co-operation and sentencing. Co-operation in criminal matters is clearly hampered due to the UK's lack of domestic criminal law, but it may also be troubled between Belgium and the Netherlands. A clear problem is foreseeable as a result of the forthcoming European evidence warrant. 69 In this case, Belgian authorities might refrain from collecting evidence on means, and the Dutch may possibly require additional evidence on 'intentional profiting'. This indicates co-operation difficulties at the EU-level, in case of Eurojust support, but also if Europol obtains a mandate to investigate trafficking for labour exploitation, additional information on national interpretations will currently be crucial. Additionally, the diverging definitions prohibit uniform sentencing. A similar case in Belgium where proof of the means used in trafficking exists, will necessarily lead to a higher sentence than in the Netherlands and as follows from the Framework Decision. The UK's case is even more apparent, because it lacks minimum maximum penalties for trafficking for labour exploitation on the whole.
This compels an examination of judicial interpretation of the crime. For lack of case law, this sample 70 includes not only case law before the Framework Decision was implemented, but also a couple when the definition was introduced in Belgian and Dutch law.

Belgian case law
The Belgian landmark case 71 on human trafficking for labour exploitation deviates from the Framework Decision by requiring two elements of: (i) movement and (ii) exploitation, and also breaks almost wholly with case law traditions by requiring movement and constructing exploitation differently.
Firstly, the two requisites of movement and exploitation are explained with a twofold scheme, but without an explicit explanation of movement. Victims who entered the country on their own by various means -some of whom legally -were thought to be 'moved' to Belgium. That is, some were invited to visit castles, some were handed out visas and others were helped by requesting those.
The second element of exploitation required 'conditions incompatible with human dignity' and required two stipulations: (a) 'intended and actual exploitation' 72 and (b) that one or more persons had to work in conditions that were incompliant with the norms as settled in the 'Act of 4 August 1996 concerning the well being of employee, and the payment of the minimum wages'. 73 With regards to (a), case law mirrors the legislation in requiring the perpetrator's intent to be to gain from the activity and actual gain of profit. Intended gain was found proven on the basis of calculations indicating 'labour costs savings', the company accountancy namely showed that the lower 'loan' payment compensated for costs of stay, transport and visas. Actual gain was proved by grant profits as calculated by the court. The existence of the exceptional profit made, proved both trafficking and aggravating circumstances because it accumulated to means deployed in the course of this crime. 74 The second requirement, (b), was met due to the nature of the work, the working conditions, and even because of the living conditions. The first consisted of long working days for very low wages and with hardly any time off per week on construction work in ships and castles. Working conditions were neither healthy nor safe, and there was, inter alia, a lack of protection against welding fumes, fencing of dangerous holes, secure machines and rescue equipment. The living conditions were also incorporated in the judgment, whereas the victims stayed in a hangar that was clearly not suitable for living as also evidenced by the onlooker of the property.
Other important issues were also settled by the court. A criminal group was found, thereby also constituting aggravating circumstances, because of custom, association and connection between individuals, because both the size and duration of the 'deliverance' of the Lithuanians, their group working, and their clear and unambiguous ties. Liability of a legal person was also found; the corporation that hired the Lithuanians was held accountable. Thirdly, the court also concluded that means used constituted aggravating circumstances: the perpetrators gave false expectations to those in a vulnerable position. The vulnerable position was proven, because of factual circumstances of unemployment and low wages in Lithuania. Fourthly, the court deemed a person's unwillingness as crucial: someone who himself opts to return whilst arguing that he earns three times more than in his home country and does not have to pay for food and residence, is not a victim. Lastly, a combination of, in this case, not being paid and violations of social legislation was required. Hence, labour exploitation entails a violation of working conditionsand possibly also living circumstances -as an infringement of social legislation. Such a position obviously undermines harmonisation as long as such social legislation is nationally organised. 75 Even though this approach is promising, except for the necessary difficulty with harmonisation with this nationally-oriented approach to social legislation, earlier Belgian case law, which came about before the Framework Decision was implemented, also provides interesting angles. Earlier Belgian case law did not require the element of movement. Besides, the assessment of 'intended and actual gain' as one of the requirements of exploitation is different from earlier appraisals of gain. In other words, the required violations of labour law and social security law appeared to exist always, 76 but in other manners and not always consistently. Two extremes are the explanation of exploitation by contrasting it to the earnings of an 'irregular worker' (zwartwerker) 77 versus exploitation as random payment 78 . However, exploitation was regularly explained with 'multiple dependencies' on traffickers.
Next to no or little payment, generally 'multiple dependencies' on traffickers, for example, for living, food, and/or transport was required. The range of such dependencies is wide; the extreme being utter control of someone's movements. This was found in cases in which the victims were made to do bar work, whilst being continuously guarded and not having the possibility to escape, also because they did not speak either of the officical Belgian languages. 79 Similarly, a domestic worker that lived with the lady for whom she cleaned was under the constant guard of the lady's son. 80 Another extreme situation was that of three girls who were made to sell handicraft objects and do domestic work; one of them even came back after she had escaped because she was threatened that the others would be killed if she did not. 81 Sometimes physical violence constituted this dependence. Severe beatings happened in a case in the fruit sector 82 , and in one case, sale of flowers, even rape was found. 83 However, also more 'loose' forms of dependency, such as deceit could suffice. One victim was made to believe that the trafficker knew a judge who could legalise her papers, and stayed with her son in 'provided' accommodation. 84 Also a case of debt bondage whilst being under threat of declaration to authorities added up. 85 The combination of transport and fake passports 86 or the situation of confiscated of passports could constitute the threshold required for exploitation. 87 Living circumstances have also always been evidence for exploitation. Not only in cases were accommodation was provided, as found in a case of illegal second-hand clothes trade, 88 but also where the conditions were inhumane or extremely unhygienic. The first was the case for victims that worked in and lived above the Chinese restaurant, 89 the second for victims that had to live in with the accused with too many people. 90 However, dependency on someone 'only' for residence seems insufficient, 91 even though the court of first instance did convict because conditions were deplorable. 92 However, multiple dependency was not always required: terrible working circumstances in combination with low payment was sufficient, 93 and in one case a conviction (with suspension) even followed where a Polish worker worked illegally in agriculture, whilst, in his opinion, he was well-treated and enjoyed family life involvement in his place of residence. 94 Lastly, this Belgian case law indicates two more types of forced 'labour': compelled committing of crimes and forced begging. The first concerned girls who came under the pretence of becoming domestic workers but on arrival were forced to commit robberies. 95

Dutch case law
Both Dutch cases on trafficking for labour exploitation led to acquittals. Especially the second case provides somewhat different types of requirements than those that follow from the Framework Decision and the above-mentioned Belgian case law. The first case concerned Bulgarians, men, women and children, who worked as hemp 'cutters'. 98 The Court set the requirements (1) coercion and (2) exploitation. The first was not met mainly because they came to the agreed place for transport voluntarily. The second required more than indecent treatment, which was found to be present because transport to and from work was dangerous, but also required (a) serious abuses in work and/or living conditions constituting violations of fundamental human rights, and (b) dependency on the traffickers for more than work. The fact that they had to work for wages approximately 25% under the minimum wage, had to do illegal work during the evening or the night, while seated on crates and in the stench of the plants, not knowing where they were, not allowed to communicate with others, and once transported there was no way back, did not constitute exploitation.
In the second case, the Court required that the traffickers (1) took the initiative and (2) were to blame for 'actively doing' on their part and, implicitly, (3) 'multiple dependencies' on the traffickers. 99 Even though the Court held that the Chinese restaurant holders abused the Chinese workers' vulnerable position, it found it crucial that the victims approached those accused themselves. The court does mention that the Chinese workers had to work long hours, 11 to 13 per day, with five free days a month. It concluded that some slept and worked not for payment, but for residence and food. It, however, found it determining that the Chinese workers voluntarily came to the Netherlands and approached the restaurant themselves; some requested work in return for food and residence. Implicitly, the court required 'multiple dependencies' whereas it argued that the victims had no debts or other obligations; they were free to spend the money as they liked and could leave if they wanted. 100 The requirements summed up in these two cases, especially the case on initiative and 'active doing', but also perhaps the restrictive interpretation of exploitation as violations of fundamental human rights, do not appear to be wholly derivable from the Framework Decision. Moreover, compared with Belgian case law and legislation, the Dutch court appears not to weigh the criminal nature of the work in this case. 101 Although drawing conclusions on the basis of this single case is difficult, it is nonetheless mentioned, especially because it might stem from the Dutch legalised prostitution policy that provided another interpretation on case law for sexual exploitation. 102 In essence, the latter appears defined, to distinguish it from legal prostitution work, as (1) negatively, in the sense that the victim who has no control with regards personal freedom -one cannot wholly make his or her own choices freely -leaving some degree of freedom of choice, absolute lack of control is not required 103 -and (2) positively, in the sense that a situation of dependence stemming from dominance from the accused over the victim leaves the latter little choice. Both situations are those in which a 'normal outspoken prostitute' would not end up. The victim does not have to be exploited, intention suffices. 104 Compared with Belgian case law, if implied in the element of movement, cross-border movement is not a requirement in Dutch cases. It is certainly not required in cases with national victims. Such cases are deemed 'loverboy' cases in which young men usually seduce Dutch women whilst pretending to be searching for a loving relationship with them and force them into prostitution. Nonetheless there are also cases (although until now just one) with a Dutch victim who was not in a relationship. 105 Movement thus might also constitute transportation within the country. The Dutch court limited liability for that; there appears no duty to examine whether the women work willingly. 106 Someone who transports women to and from work and collected the money, but did not know the women worked unwillingly, was not convicted not even as an accessory accomplice. Importantly, actions such as transportation, but also possibly applicable to harbouring and paying, for instance, are deemed to be actions when every time in the context of the work and with the sole purpose of enabling this work. 107 Moreover, although not required as such, in cases of cross-border movement, recruitment in the source country was explained broadly. 108 Where cross-border movement exists, an important conclusion appears: former prostitution does not compromise a judgment of trafficking where persons are brought into the country. 109 Hence, some degree of willingness to come does not mean that trafficking cannot exist; the rationale is that victims do not consent to exploitation, not even when they come on their own initiative.
As follows from the above case law, multiple dependencies on traffickers are, like in Belgium, found convincing in the Netherlands. At the far end we find utter isolation of the victim. 110 In one case a Dutch girl was accommodated by the accused and given means of sustenance. Concurrently, she was prohibited to leave the house, prevented from contacting others, and not allowed to quit. She even worked for four more years after the accused explicitly knew that she did not want to do it. She also underwent violence and threats thereto. 111 In another case, six Dutch victims were held in a comparable grasp. They were subjected to violence, had forced abortions and were made to have tattoos with the names of the accused on their bodies. They had to earn a set amount of money, whilst under constant control by telephone. Threats were made to relatives. One victim accrued imposed debts because the criminal group drew from  an account on her name. 112 This also accounted for seven women, some of whom were in a loving relationship with one of the criminal group members of Damco, which was the name they constructed from the abbreviation of the Dutch words ladies (dames) and cocaine (cocaïne). These women were subjected to excessive violence, such as the extinguishing of cigarettes on their bodies, forced abortions, and tattoos with the name of the accused; the court concluded that the latter 'making of 'property' is a typical form of modern slavery'. 113 Other 'looser' multiple dependencies were found where victims were emotionally dependent in the 'loving relationship' and gave all payments to the accused. In one case, the Dutch victim was under the pretence that the earned money she gave to him, a set amount per day, would be saved for their combined future. 114 Whereas types of 'looser dependency' in cases of trafficking of migrant women indicate similar types of dependency as mentioned above, as also shown in the Belgian case law and under the Dutch 'loverboy cases', 115 indicates the peculiarity of voodoo practice and female traffickers in two cases, we underline this existence. 116 Lastly, it is important to acknowledge that courts do no always conclude 'loverboy practices' in cases wherein women are in a loving relationship and work as prostitutes. A causal relationship must exist between the means deployed and the exploitation. Hence, even though the woman was subjected to violent acts if this is not done to exploit her, trafficking does not exist. The severity of the violence in and of itself is not determinative, which it in this case was: multiple threats, intentionally taking someone's freedom, keeping someone in that situation, attempts of severe abuse, and multiple bodily assaults. 117

UK case law
Obviously no criminal case law 118 exists on human trafficking for labour exploitation in the UK. However, there have been a few attempts to deal with trafficking for sexual exploitation, firstly without specific legislation 119 and later under one type of anti-trafficking law for sexual exploitation, of which one shows that sometimes victims are sold and re-sold. 120 Whereas one case indicates the need for domestic criminal law, because it concerns a national victim in a domestic trafficking case, 121 this one is mentioned to emphasise what already followed from Dutch case law: national victims exist.
In this case, the court found that a man groomed a young English boy [B], then aged 13, and corrupted him for the sole purpose of exploiting him as a prostitute. He provided him, for instance, with alcohol, cigarettes and drugs in the form of cannabis and poppers, as well as special treats such as cooking and meals from McDonald's. After one instance of male prostitution wherein [B] 'served' a customer, the accused blackmailed him. Thereupon, [B] was coerced into having to perform anal and oral sex with clients. He described it as being treated 'like a rag doll'; he was made to have sex until bleeding from his anus, and was even anally raped upon which the accused had to pull off the customer. Later, the accused sold [B] to another, who put him into prostitution for his own purposes in a different part of the country. The first evening, [B] and a teenage girl named Martina, had to service a client who wanted them both. Over the course of the next seven days, [B] was used by the other 'employer' to service many clients in many parts of the UK. [B] was guarded all the time, and was only given the bare necessities to live. Multiple aggravating circumstances were concluded: ranging from grooming, selling and buying, and the acts the boy had to perform.

Conclusion
Not only do legislatures implement (if at all) the definition of the crime differently than the Framework Decision, but the courts also interpret the crime dissimilarly. It does, however, emerge that all five axioms of the crime found in Section 3 are confirmed: (i) labour exploitation occurs in many sectors and industries, and victims are even forced to beg, work in a marriage, and to commit crimes as hemp cutting, (ii) cross-border trafficking also (a) occurs through legal channels, the Belgian case law indicated visas and invitations to castles for that purpose, (b) victims may be legally and even 'work' legally in the country as follows from the forced marriage case, and (c) national victims are found in numerous Dutch 'loverboy cases', and in one UK case (iii) all genders can be victims and perpetrators, (iv) individuals and organized crime groups appear traffickers, wherein the latter is more prone to be found when the case is overall shocking, and (v) generally, although not exclusively, less explicit means than physical violence appear used.
Crucially different, the courts do not use any element of the Framework Decision's definition's non-exhaustive list of forced labour, slavery-like practices, servitude and slavery. Besides, in Belgium the element of movement has been introduced and the means are not part of the core crime.. 122

59
(1) give a possible interpretation of exploitation by interpreting the non-exhaustive list of elements used to define it in the Framework Decision 123 and (2) include EU and/or international labour standards as supposed in Belgian case law.

A positive and negative definition of labour exploitation
A Framework Decision-consistent approach requires labour exploitation to be interpreted by the above-mentioned elements. It requires a distinction to be drawn between labour exploitation in human trafficking and voluntary work. This section suggests (1) a positive definition of what constitutes labour exploitation and (2) a negative definition of what labour exploitation is not. Both are explained below using sources that (a) directly mention human trafficking or construe forced labour, slavery-like situations which here includes servitude, and slavery, and (b) could be applicable to the EU Member States, although they require ratification, 124 might already be applicable because of being an EU Member State 125 or are supposed to be universally applicable 126 .

A continuum of forced labour, the threshold for exploitation and aggravating
circumstances Generally, the inclusion of all elements, although not always explained comparably, appears uncontroversial, save for slavery. The use of all elements will therefore be explained, and the choice for slavery will be justified below.
The definition explains labour exploitation as a continuum, with forced labour as a minimum situation of exploitation, and slavery on the far end as the most aggravated circumstance. This approach appears valid and conclusive, although further interpretation and also added characteristics are required. The added value is that such interpretation and adjudication of trafficking for labour exploitation will be harmonised, because it necessitates judgments on all requirements of the elements, instead of invention of requirements by national courts.

Labour exploitation as at a minimum forced labour and services
There appears no reason not to use forced labour as the threshold for labour exploitation in the course of trafficking, defined as 'all work or service which is exacted from any person (1) under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has (2) not offered himself voluntarily' (numbers added by author). 127 Especially, when these requirements are read as proposed by the authoritative body for the convention the definition stems from, the ILO, whilst following the two major exclusions, and reading it in compliance with other ILO conventions that make a distinction in perpetrators.
Firstly, this signifies that the above-mentioned requirements ask for interpretation in line with the ILO interpretation. The latter established that the penalty is not reserved to penal sanctions, but also includes loss of rights and privileges. The menace of a penalty ranges from physical violence or restraint, or even death threats addressed to the victim or relatives, to more subtle forms, sometimes of a psychological nature. An example of the latter is threats to denounce victims to the police or immigration authorities. Penalties can also be of a financial nature, including economic penalties linked to debts, the non-payment of wages, or the loss of wages. The menace can thus also exist when employers require workers to hand over their identity papers, and/or use the threat of confiscation of these documents to exact forced labour. 128 Hence, the means as listed in the Framework Decision's definition suffice to conclude forced labour. 129 The European Commission on Human Rights's verdict that held that 'relative weight' has to be attached to prior-consent is supportive, because a service 'could not be treated as having been voluntarily accepted beforehand'. 130 Thus, (1) the consent of the person concerned does not necessarily rule out forced labour 131 and therefore (2) the means as listed in the Framework Decision are crucial elements of the crime. Additionally, this definition of forced labour offers two major exclusions: it does not entail work or service exacted in the event of war that endangers the existence or the wellbeing of the whole or part of the population, 132 or minor communal services that can be considered as normal civic obligations. 133 Lastly, for clarification on who can be a trafficker, the distinction between state-imposed forced labour 134 and that imposed by non-State actors as follows from separate ILO legal documents on these issues, elucidates. Hence, it is not State-imposed forced labour for ideological or political or other purposes, which, for instance, became particularly apparent during and after the Second World War.
Incidentally, this interpretation largely follows the first verdict of the European Court on Human Rights (ECtHR) in the case of Siliadin that required an interpretation of the terms in Article 4 ECHR, including forced labour. 135 This section only draws attention to the difference of approach, since this case will be discussed in more detail in the section dealing with slavery. That is, the ECtHR concluded that forced labour was present noting of the above-mentioned ILO criteria 136 , but does not interpret the ILO-criteria 'penalty' as the ILO does, although with a similar and very promising effect for EU Member States. The ECtHR explains that a 'penalty' did not exist, because there was no penal sanction, but construed the criterion by saying that the victim, who was a minor, found herself being 'penalised' because of the perceived seriousness of the threat she was under. The ECtHR in its conclusion, referred to the nature of the work and lack of payment, save for possibly a one time exception. For example, Siliadin had to do household chores and office cleaning for about three years, seven days a week, without a day off. Her working day began at 7.30 am and ended at 10.30 pm, and she was only occasionally and exceptionally authorised to go out to collect the children and to attend mass on Sundays on her own. A positive effect of such an appraisal of forced labour is that it has to be effectuated in the EU, because Member States to the European Convention on Human Rights have to prevent forced labour not only for their own citizens, but for all people 'within their jurisdiction'. The EU to render some determinate service to such other person, whether for reward or not, and is not free to change his status', ibid. Art. 1 (b). 142 'any institution or practice whereby (i) a woman, without the right to refuse, is promised or given in marriage on payment of a consideration in money or in kind to her parents, guardian, family or any other person or group; or (ii) the husband of a woman, his family, or his clan, has the right to transfer her to another person for value received or otherwise; or (iii) a woman on the death of her husband is liable to be inherited by another person', ibid. Art Debt bondage and servile marriage appear directly applicable, as also demonstrated by the intended effect of the Framework Decision as formulated in the introduction to Section 2. The first also explains the adoption and scope of the means of payment as laid down in the Framework Decision. Servile marriage is traditionally aimed at women, but there appears no reason why the latter cannot apply to men, although it is thus far not defined or explained as such. Also in this situation, the means of payment is particularly helpful to conclude such type of labour exploitation. Hence, this definition is also directly applicable.
Whereas the definition of servitude with use of serfdom could pose some problems because of parts of the definition referring to traditional feudal relations, the ECtHR 143 in the abovementioned case explained it with a modern connotation. Determinative in both cases is the situation of forced labour in which the victim is not free to change his or her status. Payment of the victim is not decisive. In Siliadin this was factually substantiated by her being obliged to live on the other's property and being incapable of changing this status. 144 She hardly had any freedom of movement and she was entirely at mercy of her 'employers'. She could not improve her situation, because she remained illegally in the country, hardly spoke French, and did not attend school. Hence, this appears the last element of the first category of aggravated circumstances, which leads to the discussion of the most severe type of it: slavery.

The worst type of aggravated circumstances: slavery
Current international criminal law developments, some human rights legislation, 145 and work of expert groups, such as the UN Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery, 146 and the European Expert group on Trafficking in Human Beings 147 lead to the conclusion that the worst type of labour exploitation a trafficking victim can be exposed to is slavery. This can only happen under very specific circumstances, in short, when the person is both (a) 'brought into this situation' (slave trade) and (b) 'held in such a situation' (enslavement). 148 Hence, for trafficking victims to suffer from labour exploitation that qualifies as slavery they have to be both 'traded' during the pre-exploitation and exploited as a modern-day slave during the exploitation phase. Such a division of phases, a propos, also follows from the terms 'for the purpose of' in the Framework Decision; 149 intended exploitation can suffice, a person does not need to have been exploited.
This is not uncontroversial, 150 because the definition of slavery that refers to 'the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised' is sometimes thought to require being permanent and/or based on descent, 151 because it is explained as the traditional 'right of legal ownership' that could even be legally claimed and does not explain it as a present-day 'reducing someone to an 'object'. 152 Principally, however, the international community has indicated the need to hold human traffickers internationally accountable within the context of enslavement. That is, the drafters of the Statute for the International Criminal Court (ICC) have explicitly referred to human trafficking within the definition of the crime against humanity of enslavement. 153 Such an idea of modern-day relevance of slavery has also been reflected in the recent case law of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, 154 even in two cases, and the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL). 155 The first mentions human trafficking as a further indication of enslavement, 156 and the latter quotes it directly. 157 Although the attitude that human trafficking can be a crime that can meet even today's criteria of the world's gravest crimes, slavery appears as a relevant last aggravated circumstance, under the above-sketched circumstances of trade and exploitation. 158 To provide some more content to the first, the ICTY, which explicitly explained why it would not limit slavery to a crime that lies only in the past, 159 affords four relevant criteria. (i) It must be realised that the mere ability to buy, sell, trade or inherit a person or his or her labours or services could be a relevant factor, but is insufficient. Such actions actually occurring could be a relevant factor. 160 (ii) Lack of consent is an element of the crime, since enslavement flows from claimed rights of ownership and therefore does not have to be proven. 161 Moreover, the ICTY states that (iii) enslavement is defined by the relationship between the accused and the victim, duration is only one aspect thereof and is therefore not determinative for enslavement; 162 and (iv) mens rea consists of the intentional exercise of a power attaching to the right of ownership. 163 This mens rea does not require proof that the accused intended to detain the victims under constant control for a prolonged period of time in order to use them (here: for sexual acts). 164 The ICTY confirmed these aspects in Krnojelav. 165 Moreover, the SCSL has also done so in one of the three enslavement crimes, namely for abductions and forced labour. 166 It convicted for the use of civilians as domestic workers and as diamond miners, and for enslavement following from abductions for forced labour. 167 It is thought here that in de case of Siliadin the ECtHR has mistakenly not taken the 'trading aspect' into account. It might have had to conclude slavery where the girl was accompanied to France on a tourist visa at the age of fifteen years and seven months and she was also 'lent' to those who thereafter exploited her. Within the above-mentioned range of the ICTY, one can conclude that she was 'traded' into the country or at least 'lent', which reduced her to an 'object' (as is the case with buying, selling, trading or inheriting). This trading and lending combined with all the above-mentioned conditions added up to forced labour and servitude, and thus slavery within our modern definition 168 of it as shaped by leading international legislation and case law.
In the following section, this positive definition will be combined with knowledge of what human trafficking for labour exploitation most certainly does not entail. 169 Not only does the work have to be forced by a non-State actor, as explained above, but also the conditions, under which a victim has had to work, necessarily need to run counter labour rights, whether human rights or labour standards.

A negative definition: labour exploitation is work under conditions that violate international and European labour standards
Although, the non-binding Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU prohibits human trafficking, 170 EU labour laws are now exclusively applicable to legal workers. Hence, fair and just working conditions with regards health, safety and dignity are respected as well as a limitation of maximum working hours (including daily and weekly rest periods and an annual period of paid leave) do not apply to illegal workers. This is particularly worrisome, for instance, because a victim of trafficking for labour exploitation may also be subject to return and expulsion under migration law, which under EU-law, might happen if this victim does not co-operate with the judicial authorities. 171 Protection of victims of human trafficking for labour exploitation can be served by an international treaty that thus far has not been ratified by all EU Member States: the 1990 UN Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and their Families. 172 This Convention combines criminal law measures with conflicting labour and migration rights, and also effectuates several human rights provisions on labour rights that stem from all ratified international human rights treaties to the extent they did not make reservations to these. 173 It would require from EU Member States to counter unlawful migration by removing the incentive for employers to use irregular migrants by granting the latter some equal rights, and by obliging the State to promote sound, equitable and humane conditions in connection with international migration of workers and their family members. Irregular migrants are thus respected as human beings, and employers are discouraged to hire irregular labour by making it much less economically advantageous. Important rights 174 for countering trafficking include the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of property, 175 the right not to have identity papers confiscated and/or destructed, 176 the right not to be collectively expelled, 177 the right to equality in respect of social security, 178 and the right to transfer earnings and savings. 179 State duties lie in appropriate services dealing with questions of international migration, 180 and close control of recruitment of migrant workers. 181 Alongside these rights and duties, State Parties have a duty to prevent and eliminate illegal or clandestine movements and employment of migrant workers in irregular situations in their territory with all adequate and effective measures. 182 It compels them to collaborate on this, and could possibly therefore also reach source and transit countries in trafficking. Moreover, it requires sanctions on employers of such migrant workers, without restricting their rights vis-à-vis their employer. 183 The above-mentioned rights will always have to be interpreted in accordance with the procedures laid down by Community law and national laws and practices. Therefore, even though these rights would be made dependent on national legislation, the labour standards may be unified in the EU and possibly even harmonised. The lack of protection of illegal migrant workers does not abide what should be aimed at in the EU. 184 Hence the following conclusion.

Conclusion
This section provides a positive definition of what labour exploitation entails as a continuum of the minimum situation of forced labour and the most aggravated type of slavery. It indicates that a negative definition cannot be provided without distinguishing between legal workers, possibly migrants, and illegal immigrants working and/or residing in the EU. This points to the current unfair situation, and suggests the provision of binding labour rights to all. This leads to the final conclusion on interpreting human trafficking for labour exploitation.

Conclusion: Interpretation of the definition
At the risk of over-simplification, the definition of human trafficking for labour exploitation is construed as: the process of (1) bringing someone into and/or (2) maintaining someone in, at least, a situation of forced labour imposed by a non-State actor.
On the basis of the Framework Decision's definition, we draw two conclusions:

1.
A division exists in (a) a pre-exploitation phase in which generally the preliminary actions such as recruitment and/or transport take place, but also the other actions may occur, and (b) the exploitation phase in which generally the labour under exploitative conditions happens.

2.
The non-exhaustive list offers a comprehensive minimum threshold for exploitation and a complete catalogue of aggravating circumstances.
Hence, schematically one can distinguish between the following: Three general remarks before giving a detailed schematic overview, in the order of their presence in the above-presented scheme. The abovementioned trading of persons as an action of human trafficking may take place during the pre-exploitation phase (selling and buying), but also during the exploitation phase (for instance, when a victim is resold as found in UK case law). The trading in persons can involve the intention to subsequently exploit, and the actual exploitation of that person by appropriating that person's labour, possibly after trading someone. A person caught at the border, for instance, can only be found a trafficker when there is an indication of intention to exploit another person's labour (notwithstanding that it may constitute human smuggling, (see section 2). However, cross-border transport of the trafficked person is not required. Lastly, trading is an indicative of human trafficking, but a necessary requisite for the worst type of forces labour: slavery. Secondly, we refer to criminal gain in human trafficking. 185 It appears to be underestimated in the Framework Decision and its Memorandum, but seems crucial. We understand the inclusion in Dutch legislation, and Belgian and Dutch case law requisites in that perspective. Although the adoption of another crime of 'intentional profiting' is not recommended, it is considered part and parcel of trafficking. Human traffickers aim to obtain, directly or indirectly, a financial or other material benefit and do so through exploitation. 186 This indicates the intended and actual gain in the separate phases of pre-exploitation and exploitation, as shown schematically below. Hence, labour exploitation does not need to have taken place for there to be trafficking; the intention may suffice.
Lastly, when in the exploitation phase, forced labour is defined as labour or services (even criminal acts) 187 , which are undertaken (i) under the menace of a penalty and (ii) involuntarily. Interpretation follows the above-mentioned broad ILO definition, which also excludes work or service in war time or when the well-being of the whole or part of the population is at stake, and minor communal services that can be considered as normal civic obligations. The determination of element (ii) of doing the work involuntarily can only be done by establishing the means of the Framework Decision and this is therefore a crucial part for proving intended or actual labour exploitation, and thus forms an integral part of the crime's core definition. Consent is irrelevant when the means are deployed, because no one consents to being exploited, whether at present or in the foreseeable future.
Detailed schematic overview of human trafficking for labour exploitation (different persons, who deploy different means, can be involved in different stages in the process): Pre-exploitation phase A person is recruited for work with the intention of subsequent exploitation [in the country of origin, the transit country or the exploitation country], and/or Option 1: the person is transported into a country with the purpose of subsequent exploitation, and becomes illegal in the country, possibly while having to gain a 'new' identity [a false passport may have been provided], or Option 2: the person is legally in the country, but lacks a work permit [entered through regular migration routes] or Option 3: the person is legally in the country and is authorised to work [a national or a person who entered through regular migration routes and has a visa but is not aware of that]

[In all incidences: awareness-raising about when one resides legally or illegally and about work permits is needed (see UK research in section 3)]
Criminal gain is at least aimed at by traffickers [financial investigations are possible] Actual exploitation does not have to take place, but if it does occur: Exploitation phase Labour exploitation is forced labour imposed by a non-State actor while using the means as listed in the Framework Decision. Required elements are actions, means and purpose, an exploitative relationship between trafficker and victim, and the objective to do so: gain.

Actions
Actions of recruitment, harbouring, transportation, transfer, and/or subsequent reception of a person, including exchange or transfer of control over that person, have to take place: (i) every time in the context of the work and (ii) with the sole purpose of enabling this work. Some degree of willingness of the victim is allowed; one can come to a country to work, but be exploited in the course of trafficking anyway [e.g. deceit into marriage, but than being forced into begging, section 4,or even coming to work but than being exploited in it anyway] 2. Means and purpose At a minimum, the person works (i) under the menace of a penalty [the penalty does not have to be a criminal penalty, but also mentioned conditions under Article 1(a-d) Framework Decision] and (ii) involuntarily [the victim looses his free will to stop the work and/or go away] and/or This is a subjective condition; the victim must have felt working under both conditions (i) and (ii), those are not objective criteria. In other words, the trafficker appropriates the victim's labour power with the use of the means listed in the Framework Decision. For exploitation to exist, there has to be a causal relationship between the means deployed and the exploitation.

2b. Exploitative relationship
The trafficker establishes that the victim has hardly any autonomous control over his or her own life, he or she has no real prospect of stopping with the work, return home, or stop in any other way and/or the trafficker takes measures to prevent or deter escape.
[duration of the relationship is not determining, the nature and the conditions under which one works are] The victim may be multiply dependent on the trafficker(s), possibly in entering a country and 'getting an identity' [provision of fake passports] during the pre-exploitation phase, but certainly in working conditions [this may include transport to and from work] and/or living conditions. [this may include the provision of food, accommodation that may be of bad shape, the confiscation of passports and sleep deprivation]

[The EU standard of working conditions would be clearer if the Migrants workers' Convention would be ratified and/or the European Charter made binding]
A person may be held in an even more inclusive grasp, but this is thus not a necessary condition for human trafficking for labour exploitation:

Aggravating circumstances
The non-exhaustive list offers a comprehensive catalogue of aggravating circumstances. Those are slavery-like practices (here: servitude, debt bondage and servile marriage) and slavery. Servitude consists of forced labour where the victim is obliged to live on the other's property and is incapable of changing this status. Debt bondage where there is a repayment of induced indebtedness. Servile marriage exists where there is servitude in a (fake) marriage. Slavery exists when both the victim's labour is exploited and the victim is bought, sold, traded, inherited or 'lent' before coming in the situation of exploitation.

Justification
The suggested interpretation of the Framework Decision's definition allows for the crime of human trafficking for labour exploitation to also encompass forced work, also forced committing of crimes, in a wide range of sectors and industries, thereby also entailing the fact that perpetrators can be individuals or part of an organised crime group. It leaves room for the crime to be other than an immigration offence, for national victims to be acknowledged, and for more subtle means than generally used in women trafficking for sexual exploitation to be recognised.
This interpretation also leads to harmonisation. This is needed; surely we know that neither different types of legislation nor States' borders hamper traffickers. It also enables the required transnational co-operation in criminal matters, and uniform combat and sentencing. This is not at all obvious, as shown by the fact that the UK has not criminalised trafficking for labour exploitation, the divergence between the Belgian definition (in which the means are part of the aggravating circumstances) and that of the Netherlands (in which these are part of the core crime), and the existence of a variety of minimum and maximum penalties and sentences.
However, as also follows from the above, European countries can no longer downplay this crime as a result of political unwillingness to examine both legal and illegal labour markets. Abstaining from labour market regulation, whilst simultaneously restricting entry into labour markets through immigration laws, might just have driven labour migration into illegal channels, thus victimising illegal migrants, migrant workers or nationals. The EU has to encourage the inspection of both its labour market and that of its Member States, and allow for regulated labour migration whilst respecting those workers rights.
It is therefore hoped that the suggested interpretation will be used as a tool for both implementation and interpretation in all EU Member States, and that a successful combat of human trafficking for labour exploitation can thus be undertaken.