Statesboro City Council, by a 3-2 vote Tuesday, suspended the massage parlor license of Lisa’s Therapeutic Massage for two weeks, awaiting a possible further decision by the council.
The hearing was held as part of the council’s regular semimonthly council meeting after the city attorney issued a “notice of intention to revoke” the license because of two prostitution-related arrests last fall. Reportedly acting on citizen’s complaints that staff members at the business on Brannen Street were performing sexual acts in exchange for money under the guise of doing massages, officers with the Statesboro Police Department’s Impact Team conducted an undercover operation.
On Nov. 15, officers charged Jiaxiang Li, 59, of Ridgeland, South Carolina, reportedly an employee of the business at the time, with a single count of performing a sexual act for money. They also arrested Lisa’s Therapeutic Massage owner Chunying Hou, 59, of Statesboro, on a single count of keeping a place of prostitution.
Both women were booked at the Bulloch County Jail and released. These are misdemeanor charges, so both cases are pending in Bulloch County State Court, rather than Superior Court. There has been no trial or other determination of guilt, and Hou entered a not-guilty plea as part of a waiver of arraignment filing in December. Li also filed a not-guilty plea.
The council hearing was only to determine if the business keeps its license.
“For the purposes of this hearing, the mayor and council shall operate as a quasi-judicial body to determine if the massage parlor license should be revoked due to illegal acts occurring at Lisa’s Therapeutic Massage,” Mayor Jonathan McCollar recited.
Police story
Capt. Jared Akins of the Statesboro Police Department presented a summary of events leading to the arrests.
Police had received “tips and confidential information” over the last two or three years, from people calling “to report that they were sexually abused at this location,” Akins said. But none of those people wanted their names associated with a case or to testify, so “None of those tips led to anything” being substantiated.
In one instance in August 2023 “patrol officers took a report for a client at the location who reported that he had been sexually battered by one of the masseuses during the course of a massage,” Akins said.
After the client “objected strongly to that” and attempted to call 911, staff at the business allegedly “interfered with his ability to use his cellphone,” the police captain continued.
Nov. 14-15 sting
Receiving new tips last year that illegal “services” were being performed, not openly for all walk-in customers but when someone came in who knew “certain key words” to use, police reportedly began background work for an undercover operation. This included examining websites that post reviews of massage parlors for mentions of the place.
“So in November of last year, they equipped one of the officers with audio-video recording devices and actually sent that officer into the business,” Akins continued.
When the officer asked for a specific masseuse, the manager reportedly told him that person was no longer working there, but directed him to another person.
“The officer then was escorted back to a private room, and during the course of the massage, that particular masseuse conducted a sexual act on the officer,” Akins said to the council.
The officer made an excuse to leave immediately, but police have recorded audio and video evidence, he concluded.
Other SPD Impact Team members came to arrest the masseuse and, after interviewing Hou, also arrested her, he said.
Not the owner in ’23
Hou attended Tuesday’s hearing. Speaking to the mayor and council on her behalf, local attorney Michael J. Classens began by noting that Hou purchased Lisa’s Therapeutic Massage in late December 2023.
“So during that period of time including the August of 2023 report that was made, she wasn’t the owner of the business,” Classens said. “Other than that, there hasn’t been any complaints substantiated against any activities at the business under this lady’s ownership.”
Material that Akins mentioned from websites had been purely anonymous, with “no reliability, nothing,” Classens asserted.
Hou was the owner of the business, and apparently had been for about 11 months, when last November’s police sting operation occurred. But the alleged incident for which a masseuse was arrested occurred while Hou was away on Nov. 14, and a police officer came to confront Hou about it the next day, Nov. 15, her attorney said.
On the police video, “she genuinely expresses shock,” Classens related. “In fact, she starts out using what little English she’s able to command by saying, ‘That’s a lie!’ The police officer assures her not only that it’s true but he knows the woman’s still there.”
Hou then told police she would fire the masseuse that day, and did so, Classens said, adding, “From that point on, no complaints.”
He then asserted that while the standards of proof for the council’s hearings are not the same as in court, “Nevertheless there is some burden of proof that I think is required before you take away somebody’s right to earn a living.”
Classens also argued that “absolutely no commercialization” of prostitution had occurred, with only the business’s standard $50 massage price charged to the officer.
The city staff’s “request is to revoke Ms. Hou’s license to operate her business in Statesboro based on somebody else did something wrong,” Classens said. “There’s no evidence whatsoever that Ms. Hou knew about it, encouraged it or hired the woman.”
Council’s viewpoints
Councilwoman Shari Barr asked what the city’s options were, and City Attorney Smith advised that the council could suspend the license, revoke it, or take no action. Unlike the city ordinance section on alcoholic beverages, the section on massage parlor licensing does not offer a graduated range of consequences, he acknowledged.
“I appreciate the Police Department doing their job, but I’m also wondering about the due process of law and when with this request we’re revoking a license before the court has ruled, so that’s why I’m leaning toward suspension rather than revocation,” Barr said.
She asked about the timeline for the court to handle the criminal case and whether, if the council suspended the license awaiting a verdict, Hou could be out of business for six months. Classens said he had no clue how long it will take, and that such a suspension could have the same effect as a revocation. Her court case might also await until after the masseuse’s case is decided, and so it could be a year, he added.
Mayor Jonathan McCollar spoke in favor of suspending the license until the case is decided. Calling it a “no-brainer,” he argued that it would be irresponsible for the city to allow the business to remain open after the arrests and report from police.
“I’m very concerned,” he said. “There’s not too much that goes on at my house that I don’t know about, and so if a business owner has this going on inside of their business, then that raises a red flag for me. … With that being said, I would be open to maybe a motion, further discussion from council, for suspension pending the outcome of the judicial process.”
He mentioned “human trafficking” as a concern, but there have been no allegations of it in this case.
“My concern is ‘innocent until proven guilty’ and that we’re taking away somebody’s livelihood,” Barr said.
But Councilwoman Tangie Reese Johnson said she was concerned that the city could also be at fault if it leaves the business open and there are further problems.
“I’m just thinking we would take on liability also if we leave it open. …,” she said. “It’s a heavy decision.”
Councilman John Riggs suggested the two-week suspension until the next council meeting, saying he had questions he wanted to write out and have answered by the police or attorneys. Councilwoman Ginny Hendley supported this, also saying that the council was not trying to take away “somebody’s livelihood.”
Councilwoman Paulette Chavers said she recalled when “some illegal activity was taking place at a different business and we shut that business down,” so that such an action now would only be fair. But she added that she would support a suspension lasting until there is a verdict in the criminal case.
Riggs’ motion for a two-week suspension awaiting a further information was seconded by Barr, and Hendley joined in voting “yes,” but Chavers and Johnson voted “no.”