The married couple behind Manchester's 'Sandys Superstars' brothels built a multi-million operation after reaching an agreement with the police.

Sandra 'Sandy' Hankin, 55, and her husband, Christopher ‘Mark’ Hankin, 57, of Denbighshire, North Wales, made a fortune running massage parlours where sex was sold to punters for a minimum of £50 a time.

The couple were the owners and directors of brothels in Prestwich and Northenden for over a decade.

At Manchester's Minshull Street Crown Court, it was said that GMP did not take any action due to 'limited resources', but agreed that as long as there was no underage services, no trafficking of women, that the business wasn't used as a front for other crime and that it did not affect the local community, then they could continue.

Local authorities also knew, and tax was paid on the business.

However both premises were shut down after police, acting on complaints, finally raided them in November 2016.

The home of the couple's webmaster, Adrian 'Merv' Burch, was stormed by armed police. He is said to have be 'devastated' that the parlours' sex workers have had to go it alone without his 'protection'.

The two premises, advertised by a website, were 'high end' and made a 'very high profit', a sentencing hearing was told.

(Image: M.E.N.)

Mrs Hankin, a former escort, was described as the 'big cheese' of the enterprise, running it with an 'iron fist'. She interviewed 'attractive, career sex workers' as staff, and organised the rota.

Mrs Hankin was the major shareholder - owning 90 per cent of the shares of the Prestwich branch, and 50 per cent of the Northenden branch.

Both branches were registered limited companies, and the women, who were all British, were provided with security, health care, fresh towels and clean premises, the court heard.

Now 'Sandy' Hankin has been spared jail, alongside her husband Christopher, his sister Alison Sutton, 54, of Prescott, Merseyside, who was their £50,000 a year administrator, and their photographer and webmaster Adrian 'Merv' Burch, 44, of Cadishead, after admitting charges of keeping a brothel.

Mr and Mrs Hankin and Adrian Burch have also been hit with Proceeds of Crime Act orders demanding that they hand over hundreds of thousands of pounds.

The court heard that Mrs Hankin, a former dental nurse, and Mr Hankin, an engineer, have been 'happily married for 36 years'. But in the late 90s she became an escort, supported by her husband.

Seeing the dangers the women in the business faced, she 'prayed for change', the court heard, before she and her husband went into running parlours themselves, to provide a 'dream' lifestyle for themselves and their daughter.

Together, the couple transformed squalid dives into established, professional and decorated brothels, where women were advertised in folders on the reception coffee table, which included their photographs and their ‘specialities’, the court heard.

'Sandy' Hankin was described as 'kind and generous' by her defence barrister, who added: “(The couple) provided exemplary working conditions.... the working women flourished.

"Many bought homes, had saving bank accounts, and were real providers for their families for the first time. All aspects of the women’s health and well being was provided for."

The website showcased the sex workers' profiles detailing information about their services, and potential clients could find information on how to book and offers on membership.

The two companies owned by Sandra Hankin, Sandmar Limited and Sandys Health Studios Limited, paid taxes to HMRC and both had turnovers of almost £2 million each.

However, the ride ended after questions were raised by a local ‘investigative journalist’ and other complaints were made by residents in the community.

Following days of legal argument, Sandra Hankin, Christopher Hankin, Adrian Burch and Alison Sutton pleaded guilty to keeping brothels to use for prostitution between 2008 and 2016.

Mr and Mrs Hankin and Burch were sentenced to six months custody suspended for two years and Sutton was sentenced to four months suspended for two years.

Opening the the case, prosecutor Peter Cadwallader said: “The prosecution make it clear in open court that it was and is remains unlawful to keep, encourage management and assist in the management of a brothel.

“Sandra Jane Hankin was a brothel keeper for both brothels and the leading light in the whole enterprise. Christopher Hankin, the husband of Sandra Hankin was a brothel keeper. He played a leading role in operating both enterprises.

“Adrian Burch was a brothel keeper and played a leading role in running both establishments. His responsibility was for the ‘Sandy Superstars’ website and photographs of the workers, the sex workers working in the brothels.

“Alison Sutton, the sister of Christopher Mark Hankin was part of the management for both brothels and was the administrator. She worked from the enterprise office at Palatine Road.

“Sandmar Limited was a Limited company at 464 Bury Old Road and the directors were Sandra and Christopher Hankin. Sandra Hankin owned 90% of the shares and Christopher owned 10%.

“Sandys Health Studios Limited, abbreviated to SHS Ltd, operated at 375 Palatine Road. The directors were Sandra Hankin and Adrian Burch. Sandra had 50% of the shares whereas Adrian Burch owned the other 50%.

“The brothels can be accurately described as high end establishments - well appointed bedrooms, well appointed bathrooms, well appointed shower rooms and overall well appointed premises. The brothels were strictly run commercial businesses with very high profits.

“The companies made and provided proper tax returns and paid tax with dividends on the company profit. The businesses were both described as 'physical well-being activities'. It is right to say it was running as a legitimate business.

“But the facts of this case is that it was not, it was an illegal business.

“Sandmar Limited has a turnover from between the financial years of 2011/2012 and 2014/2015 of £1,994,000. SHS Ltd in the same financial years had a turnover of £1,804,000. It is accepted by the defence that both were set up in 2002.

“The defendants ran the business well in the sense that no underage girls or trafficked girls were used.

"The defendants kept copies of the passports of the sex workers to ensure they were older and were British.

"They kept copies to prove the ages of the sex workers. No alcohol or drugs were permitted in the premises.

“The police have limited resources and therefore priority is given to those brothers that use underage people, trafficked women or are centres for other serious types of organised crime.

“It is right to say that both brothels were well known to the police, but considering the resources they had, they limited themselves to checking the establishments to ensure that these brothels did not contain other more serious elements.

“It is the Crown's case that the better the business was run, the higher the profit level was to be. The company enrols attractive women willing to provide special services beyond mere sexual intercourse and good clean rooms, that way people would be willing to pay higher house fees.

“It should not be thought that there was no element of exploitation. It is the Crowns case that the defendants exploited prostitution and they did so for a large financial gain. Many of the sex workers are career sex workers. There was no suggestion they were being coerced.

“375 Palatine Road was purchased by Sandra Hankin and Adrian Burch in January 2006. The administration for both brothels was conducted from another address, namely 373 Palatine Road. The police executed search warrants on the premises on November 15th 2016.

“In the reception area there were photographs on the walls of the sex workers that were available.

(Image: M.E.N.)

"There were also folders for the sex workers and the folders contained photos of the women, scantily dressed, and the sexual services offered offered by these women. Seven folders were laid out coffee table in the reception area. These related to the women that were on duty that day.

“The folders contained the specialities provided by the women, essentially a glossary. The folders also contained reviews from a website called Punternet. Clearly, sexual intercourse was a standard and not a speciality.

“The Sandy Superstars website was created by Adrian Burch. The website listed the women available at the two venues. Each girl had a separate file with their photos. The website also set out the house charges which were £50 for thirty minutes and £100 for 60 minutes.

“The website contained other information such as how to book appointments, offers on extra fees as offers for memberships. Offers included such things as two men together and couples. The enterprise was also advertised through the website Punternet, where reviewers were recorded.

“Sandra Hankin is 'Sandy' for Sandys Superstars. She took a principal role in running the establishments including interviewing potential women. She filled out forms with their age, what they were prepared to do for their speciality and their previous experience.

“She was described by her husband in a text as the 'Big Cheese'. She was responsible for rotas and which women were working which day. When her home address at Coed Y Foel was searched a large amount of material was recovered including business records.

“She answered no questions in interview.

“Christopher Hankin's phone was seized and examined, and demonstrated he had an active role in both brothels. The business records were found at his home in a number of different rooms, including the conservatory and study. He answered no questions in interview.

“Adrian Burch, although only a shareholder at SHS Ltd, he received income from both companies as well as dividends through SHS Ltd.

“Adrian Burch lived with his wife Kelly and their daughter at Tudor Rose Cottage. When it was searched two cameras were recovered.

“A very large number of photographs of scantily dressed woman had been downloaded from one camera. The photographs were similar to those found on the website.

“One area on the website was called 'Work at Sandy’s'. That website advertised for girls including those to new to the business.

"This is an important factor that Sandys Superstars were happy to encourage those who were new to the trade. The potential recruits were invited to contact a man called 'Merv'. It’s the prosecutions case that this was Adrian Burch. He answered no questions in interview.

“Alison Sutton is the sister of Christopher Hankin. She provided a prepared statement and did admit working as an administrator for Sandys Superstars at 373 Palatine Road, dealing with paperwork as an employee.

"She denied being involved in the management of the business. Records were found in which roles in the organisation were noted. She was recorded in the management section reading 'Alison admin.'

“She declared her income from 2012/13 to 2014/15 as £94,805. The messages between Christopher Hankin and Alison showed that she was involved with both brothels over and above being a mere bookkeeper.

"In a text message to Christopher she said: 'Tell Sandra I have done the safe at Prestwich'. This meaning she had access to the safe and collected takings from that brothel.

“She was also a signatory on the bank account allowing her to withdraw unlimited funds. Certainly when others were off, she took over. A message from Neil Hankin to Mark Hankin said: 'I Hope Alison maintains the iron first when Sandra is off.'

In mitigation for for Christopher and Sandra Hankin, their defence lawyer Lucie Wibberley said: “Sandra Hankin met Christopher Hankin when she was 19 and he became her boyfriend.

"They were married three years later. They have been a couple for 39 years and happily married for 36. They have one daughter and a son in law. Sandra is of good character and can be described as having a kind and generous disposition. She is generous and courteous.

“The couple have a shared priority for the happiness, success and unconditional love they share for their daughter, Sarah. Their priority was their love for their daughter and they were determined to do right for her, come what may. Sarah now has qualifications to work for emotionally troubled children. She is fully supported financially and emotionally by both her parents.

“Mark Hankin worked as an engineer manager, in which he worked long hours which took him away from home. Sandra worked in a variety of jobs including a dental nurse and retail assistant.

"Mark Hankin was on a hiatus when he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. He is now in remission, but there is risk of it returning. Sandra cared for him, supported him and worked through his cancer with him.

Watch: Are brothels actually legal?

Video Loading Video Unavailable Click to play Tap to play The video will start in 8 Cancel Play now

“She wanted to fulfil her chosen dream of providing security for her family, something she did not have herself after her father committed suicide when she was a teenager. Sandys Superstars was a business enterprise which she was supported by Mark.

“Her interest in an alternate lifestyle was supported by her husband when she became an escort in the late 1990s. Sandra is an intelligent and assertive woman but she saw the dangers of her profession.

“She saw women exploited by men who would take the lion's share of their money. She was visiting clients at hotels and houses and found them to be dangerous. Doing agency work, women were working in insecure and unpleasant working environments. This is not irregular to this day.

“She soon realised solo working made for dangerous and irreconcilable personal safety, so she moved to a premises described as ‘parlours’ or ‘saunas’. At the time, there were 78 parlours.

“It was dangerous and she was offered no security, and often parlours were open 24 hours. Drugs and alcohol were provided to the working women and clients. Sandra prayed these conditions would change. At the premises she was working as, known as ‘Cocos’, the owner left and sought other business and she was left in charge, taking over the dirty squalor.

“That property was to be transformed. She worked her days in the parlour and used her evenings and weekends with Mark, and they refurbished every single aspect of the business.

“The bedrooms were changed, they implemented rooms with showers, changing rooms and complimentary towels were offered to every woman and client. The rooms were decorated, CCTV was later installed, there were double lock entry doors.

"Lockers were installed for women to keep their money. There was a ban on drugs and alcohol, and later a ban on smoking. There were regular shift patterns which were accustomed to women’s other commitments.

“Sandra provided emergency support endlessly during all hours of the night. She ensured access to healthcare. There is no evidence of force or encouragement to work beyond their capacity. The regrettable aspect of other companies was to implement this for maximum profit.

“By the time Adrian Burch joined, profiles were moved online. The main order in the business was respect for the working women financially and safety care was also provided. They did not take money from their fees.

“They provided exemplary working conditions for those in the industry and the men in the industry were not allowed to use the services of the working women. The working women flourished. Many bought homes, had saving bank accounts, and were real providers for their families for the first time. All aspects of the women’s health and well being was provided for.

“Clients who caused difficulties had their photographs taken by the CCTV on entry to the premises and would be barred from services. They also provided CCTV footage if needed to the police if they became concerned, for example if there was interest in underage services, they were SIA accredited. HMRC officers attended and knew what they were operating.

“Quite unsurprisingly, establishments such as this contribute a significant amount of tax to the public purse. The business was flourishing. There was one complaint from a member of the public, who dubbed himself an ‘investigative journalist’.

“They did make more of a contribution to the tax system than the costs of these proceedings. This is a most unusual and exceptional case.”

In mitigation for Adrian Burch, his defence counsel Anna Morris said: “He is of previous good character, he is a father of a teen daughter and he is a family man. He came into contact with Sandra and Christopher Mark Hankin as he has expertise in website design and he come to work with Sandra as he was interested by the way it was run and the ethos to do things better for the women who worked there.

“He helped set up the CCTV and often worked with police officers who visited, to assist them with any concerns. The premises was visited once a week by GMP officers until the day a search warrant was executed in November 2016. This has had a huge impact upon his wife Kelly and their daughter.

“For many years he considered Sandys Superstars were working in partnership with the working women, they supported the women that they cared about and he is devastated for them, to see many of the women who have had to leave Sandys Superstars, at least 13, have been attacked as a result of the conditions on them working on the street. He takes extremely seriously the responsibility for them and feels he is no longer able to protect these women.

“The impact on his family has been significant. Officers came into his family home when his 13 year old daughter was asleep, with machine guns as part of an armed raid, and the impact of that day for his daughter has been traumatic and she is receiving her own mental health support.”

Watch: Brothel madam reveals sex trade secrets

Video Loading Video Unavailable Click to play Tap to play The video will start in 8 Cancel Play now

Mitigating for Alison Sutton, Mr Patrick Dennis said: “She always maintained she was an administrator. She earned £15 per hour and worked 32 hours per week. She previously worked as a delivery driver for a bakery. She was married in the 1990s, but has since divorced.

“She was surprised by how clean the premises were and it was made clear that police knew about the premises and there wouldn’t be any problems on that basis, so she decided to take the job and work as an administrator. If she thought the police would get involved, she would not have got involved.

“She did not take bookings and she did not take money from clients, she worked solely from her office. She was cooperative with police. She has lost her good character which is worse for the prospect of future employment.”

Sentencing, Judge Paul Lawton told the defendants: “For 14 years from 2002 to 2016, two brothels under the name of a Sandys Superstars operated in the Bury and Northenden District of Greater Manchester.

“They were well known to the GMP soon after they were operating as a service. Despite this, no enforcement action was taken for over a decade. That period there was an agreement between the GMP and those involved that if the premises operated correctly, no enforcement action would be taken, this included no underage girls, no suggestion of coercion, the business not be used as a front for other organised crime and not affect the local community. This was often assessed in full.

“That became further investigated in 2013 following a repeated Freedom of Information request by a persistent journalist. The defendants operated under the same understanding.

“Further to observation, they ran the premises as legitimately as expected, the women were of adult age and appropriate to work, the premises looked after their safety, they were often searched by the Manchester City Council and had regular communication with HMRC. Bizarrely, customs officers knew about what was taking place, and they accepted the tax payments. The defendants worked with public health.

“It is not the facts that this led to the position of prolonged tolerance on the part of the GMP, they were not turning a blind eye and they were not tolerating illegal activity.

“It’s universally known there was a huge surge at the time of serious crime, and it was increasing, and resources were allocated accordingly. It is illegal to keep brothels and that’s why we are here today and those must be punished for admitting their guilt.

“If any of you commit further offences, you will find that your sentence can be activated. However, I think it is highly unlikely that I will see any of you before the courts again.”

Six other people had faced charges - David Hankin, Kelly Burch, Jane Lyne, Susan Hankin, Sarah Hankin or Matthew Owen - but the Crown offered no evidence against them.

Sandra Hankin was said to have benefited by £200,000, Christopher Hankin by £150,000 and Adrian Burch by £110,000 - all three must repay it within three months under the Proceeds of Crime Act.