But Watcharaporn Nantahkhum’s barrister has told a jury his client’s accuser was a “mercenary” who had a reason to deflect blame.

Nantahkhum is standing trial in the ACT Supreme Court charged with possessing a slave, perverting the course of justice and four offences under the federal Migration Act.

The charges related to two Thai women allegedly employed by the 45-year-old Kambah woman to work as prostitutes out of Braddon premises in mid-2007.

In her closing address today Commonwealth prosecutor Sara Cronan urged the jury to clear their minds of what they thought they knew about slavery.

“The law makes it very clear you don’t need to be locked up or shackled or beaten in Australia to be in a condition of slavery,” she said.

The prove the offence the Crown must establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused exerted powers of ownership over the accused.

But the existence of a debt, entered into by the alleged victim, is under Australian law no barrier to establishing the offence of slavery.

The court has heard the alleged victim was brought to Australian knowingly to work in the sex industry.

But the jury has been told the woman was forced to work all hours, serviced up to 14 clients a day and – at least in the first few months – rarely left the brothel.

She managed to pay off the $43,000 debt owed to those who facilitated her arrival in Australia between her arrival in June and October.

But Nantahkhum alleged took all her earnings until the debt was cleared, and subsequently split the takings.

Ms Cronan said the alleged victim’s detailed ledger, shown to the jury, demonstrated the woman serviced more than 720 clients before the debt was cleared.

“Why did [the woman] stay,” the prosecutor asked the jury.

“Why did she allow herself to be used in this way?”

“She gave you that answer in her evidence – the answer was simply that she didn’t think she had any choice, and that answer makes perfect sense if you think about it.”

“Because if you thought you had a choice about it you wouldn’t allow yourself to be used in this way, would you?”

But defence barrister James Sabharwal described the alleged victim as a mercenary whose sole drive was to make money.

During the trial the woman told the jury she entered prostitution to help pay the mortgage on her rice field and put her son through school.

“It’s obvious she didn’t come to Canberra to take in the sights of Canberra,” Mr Sabharwal said.

“She didn’t come to Canberra to enjoy our lovely winters that we have.”

“She came to make money.”

The barrister said there was no evidence the woman was forced to work from early in the morning, and rejected the Crown’s allegation Nantahkhum took the woman’s passport.

A witness who gave evidence for the accused, Pradat Vatanopast, last week told the jury the alleged victim would complain about not getting enough clients and not getting enough money.

“Does that smack of a woman who is naïve, and who is kept, and who is being exploited by the accused,” Mr Sabharwal asked.

“Or does that smack of a woman who is here solely for business?”

“She has a business head on her shoulders.”

The complainant told the court she initially believed “100 per cent” that Nantahkhum eventually dobbed her in to authorities, leading her to be detained as an unlawful non-citizen at Villawood.

The defence lawyer argued that belief gave the woman a motive to deflect blame onto his client.

He also noted Nantahkhum had no criminal convictions to her name since arriving in Australia in the mid-00s.

Justice Richard Refshauge will begin summing up this afternoon.