Transcript:

00;00;11;19 – 00;00;28;16

Unknown

Famous rapper Sean P Diddy Combs is now facing a federal indictment in the state of New York with respect to allegations that he trafficked women to sex parties and plied them with drugs and,

00;00;28;16 – 00;00;31;20

Unknown

threats of violence to induce compliance.

00;00;31;20 – 00;00;40;10

Unknown

Our law firm has been involved in the investigation and prosecution of sexual assault claims against powerful people before.

00;00;40;13 – 00;01;08;23

Unknown

And we wanted to provide a understanding of some of the strategic and political implications of this type of prosecution. Now, when I say political implications, I’m referring to the political dynamics of the small groups that comprise these racketeering conspiracies and the context of sexual assault prosecutions. So let’s take a look at the Sean Diddy,

00;01;08;23 – 00;01;13;14

Unknown

Combs indictment. And I am looking here on the screen with it.

00;01;13;14 – 00;01;33;02

Unknown

Now, you can see that the grand jury charge here, in the Southern District of New York, includes what’s called a racketeering count. So the racketeering count means that there was a criminal enterprise, and that there was a business practice that induced a,

00;01;33;02 – 00;01;41;29

Unknown

situation in which it was easy for Mr. Combs to sexually traffic and abuse these young women and men.

00;01;42;01 – 00;02;13;15

Unknown

This is an interesting, element of most of these sex abuse, prosecutions that involve powerful people in the present day. Lots of people rely upon social media to define their identity and their friend groups and the power of social media for a mogul like Sean Combs. Is is immense. And it can be used to define the futures, fates and fortunes of all those that are within his

00;02;13;15 – 00;02;32;20

Unknown

group and the utilization of social media and local political pressure to induce the compliance of these women is at the heart of the allegations that the federal prosecutor has brought against, Mr. Combs.

00;02;32;22 – 00;02;38;19

Unknown

So with respect to the allegations in particular, the way that this type of,

00;02;38;19 – 00;02;52;29

Unknown

criminal prosecution proceeds, you can see that it’s defining in these first paragraphs the entourage that is associated with Mr. Combs and providing some specificity for the

00;02;52;29 – 00;02;54;21

Unknown

nature of his business.

00;02;54;21 – 00;03;13;25

Unknown

So you can see here that the allegation charges that Sean Combs is making arrangements for women and commercial sex workers to fly to various locations around the country and engage in these sort of forced orgies where the women would be administered,

00;03;13;25 – 00;03;25;08

Unknown

drugs, including ketamine, GHB and ecstasy, and then forced to perform sex acts while Mr. Combs watched and masturbate.

00;03;25;10 – 00;03;37;14

Unknown

And essentially, the charge here is related to this transportation of the workers across state lines. And is also related to the,

00;03;37;14 – 00;03;47;22

Unknown

utilization of those workers in a business context. And to achieve a very specific business aim for Mr. Combs.

00;03;47;22 – 00;03;58;19

Unknown

One of the things that’s noteworthy in the context of this prosecution is that Mr. Combs, in the transportation of these women, put them into a very precarious position.

00;03;58;21 – 00;04;13;08

Unknown

So not only does Mr. Combs have the ability to define the fate future, and fortune of any of these sex workers that are in his entourage because he can go on social media and,

00;04;13;08 – 00;04;25;05

Unknown

control the narrative that surrounds them. But also he’s placing them in great physical jeopardy by flying them to a new location that they’re not familiar with.

00;04;25;07 – 00;04;40;05

Unknown

So the allegation, essentially, with respect to the individual workers, in at least the criminal indictment that we can see here, is that the workers would, or that the girls would not be told that they would be

00;04;40;05 – 00;05;02;22

Unknown

performing these sorts of sex acts, and that it was portrayed to them by Mr. Combs as being a relatively innocuous event, and that he was going to provide them with all of the, accouterment of luxury and fame that they would need when they’re visiting these sorts of areas.

00;05;02;22 – 00;05;44;13

Unknown

So the workers would be flown in and then taken to hotel rooms and in the middle of New York City, where they didn’t know anyone else, they would finally realize upon entering into the rooms and recognizing what was going to happen, that they would be subjected to the sorts of sexual abuses that suited Mr. Combs fancy. And this is an extremely, damaging allegation for Mr. Combs, because it shows that from the perspective of the federal prosecutor, there’s going to be a number of witnesses that can confirm even not being victims.

00;05;44;15 – 00;05;48;08

Unknown

The nature and extent of this type of sexual abuse.

00;05;48;08 – 00;06;09;09

Unknown

Now, the prosecution of these types of claims, where you have a influencer or extremely powerful media mogul like Mr. Combs that controls the entourage surrounding him, is that Mr. Combs can threaten the people that are surrounding him with an implicit,

00;06;09;09 – 00;06;16;07

Unknown

threat that they are going to be punished if they do not do what he wants them to do.

00;06;16;10 – 00;06;44;25

Unknown

And this implicit threat is part of the progression in the prosecution of sex abuse crimes in the United States, because they are now in corporate in the context of this lawsuit, the notion that Mr. Combs, implicit threat of retaliation constitutes criminal coercion in the context of these workers and the ladies being forced to engage in these sex acts.

00;06;44;28 – 00;07;15;07

Unknown

So in this context, there are allegations, of course, of extreme violence and in particular, Cassie Ventura, she filed a $30 million lawsuit against Mr. Combs and that $30 million lawsuit was settled essentially the next day, but included allegations that Mr. Combs was being physically violent towards her. And in particular, there was a video that surfaced showing Mr. Combs being violent towards Miss Ventura.

00;07;15;09 – 00;07;28;28

Unknown

But that’s not the whole of the allegation. And in fact, it’s probably a minority of cases where Mr. Combs was actually physically violent with any of these workers or with any of the women that are suing him.

00;07;28;28 – 00;07;37;24

Unknown

And at this point, there’s in excess of 100 lawsuits, that have been filed, according to one of the plaintiffs lawyers down in Texas that’s prosecuting these claims.

00;07;37;26 – 00;08;07;27

Unknown

So what’s what’s interesting and somewhat different about this claim than what would have been possible even ten years ago, is the idea that these workers were not consenting to the sex acts that Mr. Combs wanted them to perform, even though Mr. Combs was not pointing a gun at their head and forcing them to do it. So he clearly is going to assert that they chose to engage in these acts, and that they were free to leave, for instance, this room at any time.

00;08;07;29 – 00;08;36;14

Unknown

But that ignores the reality that when you are in the entourage of a powerful person like this, that controls this vast media empire and has the ability to shape a narrative about your personal life in a way that can make or break you, that the implicit coercion associated with that type of power can overcome the affirmative defense, that the workers consented to it.

00;08;36;16 – 00;08;52;08

Unknown

So by placing them into this situation and abusing this media power, Mr. Combs is still going to be able to be subject to, the highest levels of criminal prosecution by the federal prosecutors.

00;08;52;08 – 00;09;00;26

Unknown

another interesting element of Mr. Combs, prosecution here, is the,

00;09;00;26 – 00;09;10;03

Unknown

commercial nature of it. So in a civil claim for sexual assault, you can also make claims of what’s called racketeering.

00;09;10;06 – 00;09;45;05

Unknown

And this means a coming together of a group of individuals for a purpose, that is illegal. And in this context, the media empire that Mr. Combs is associated with, meaning all of the vast reach and power that a media mogul like Mr. Combs has, that that’s all part of this racketeering conspiracy to some extent, because he is leveraging the power of this media to induce compliance for the workers and for the women that are associated with it.

00;09;45;07 – 00;10;20;24

Unknown

And this creates, from the perspective of the federal prosecutors in New York, a sufficient meeting of the minds between the other individuals involved in his group that the, assertion of criminal enterprise can be given in spite of the fact that there are some legitimate business aims associated with, of course, the work that he does. So, clearly, Mr. Combs, you know, he runs this record company and he has, fashion lines and a whole variety of different enterprises that he has his hands in.

00;10;20;26 – 00;10;35;13

Unknown

And there is no implication that all of these businesses are solely devoted to the sexual trafficking of workers, in spite of the fact that there are these some, some legitimate business aims associated with Mr. Combs.

00;10;35;13 – 00;10;52;24

Unknown

There’s still enterprises that are being leveraged for a criminal purpose, and this mixed criminal and legitimate enterprise is something that is characteristic of these, suits against powerful business individuals.

00;10;52;26 – 00;11;32;25

Unknown

So anybody that has this type of massive media following, although they’re making and discerning a significant amount of income, perhaps from their, media output, the usage of that media output as a hammer to force people to do what they do not want to do. And the implicit threat that failure to comply with the requests of the influencer will result in personal or financial harm in the future, that this is a sufficient showing to, arrive at racketeering charges against, that individual.

00;11;32;27 – 00;12;18;25

Unknown

And I think that the Southern District of New York in this prosecution is making a big step in the context of criminal investigations for these sorts of individuals. Now, in my experience, we prosecuted a number of sexual assault claims against employers and in addition, against, individuals, influencers and the like. And I can tell you that the rest of the country’s criminal law system has not, does not have the resources, perhaps, that the Southern District of New York has in investigating these sorts of mixed public and criminal enterprises, because basically, this is a prosecution that’s going to demand a significant amount of resources.

00;12;18;27 – 00;12;46;01

Unknown

There are literally thousands of people involved in the running of Mr. Combs business over the time frame described, which goes all the way back to the year 2000 that are plausibly witnesses to any of this coercive conduct, and investigating each of those individual witnesses and trying to discern whether or not Mr. Combs has, attempted to sway their testimony in some way, is a massive undertaking.

00;12;46;03 – 00;13;17;08

Unknown

So the reality is that, sadly, and, a lot of other jurisdictions, it’s unlikely that you’re going to get this type of criminal prosecution, even if the evidence is turned over to to the state prosecutor. So there’s a question about whether, you know, and Mr. Combs certainly believes that this is the flaying or otherwise attack of a successful black man, and that because, they’re trying to make essentially an example of him that the prosecution is somehow unfair.

00;13;17;10 – 00;13;48;26

Unknown

But the alternative is that, look, you have such a great influence on so many people and what you have put into the public about who you are and the nature of your business has been categorically false for the past 20 years. And making an example of somebody that basically lies to the public in order to get their support, their likes, their shares and their money is something that should not be allowed in a civil society.

00;13;48;29 – 00;14;35;15

Unknown

Now, there’s been a lot of discussion lately about the possibility of limiting the ability of individuals to say certain things on social media, but I think that Mr. Combs case and the attendant civil lawsuits that, account that, come with this criminal allegation that they provide a alternative to restricting speech on social media. And that alternative is that if somebody does something like Mr. Combs or if somebody leverages their media and their power as an influencer to cause great harm to somebody, then you should be financially liable for that, and you should be able to find a lawyer that’s going to file a lawsuit against them for that.

00;14;35;17 – 00;15;06;17

Unknown

And that’s why we’re happy to do the work that we did. Now, I just wanted to investigate a few other things with, the, with, with respect to this. So basically, the Southern District of New York has also identified a forfeiture allegation in the context of their indictment. Now, a forfeiture allegation means that there are specific identifiable resources that the Southern District of New York prosecutor would like to freeze in order to identify the plausible proceeds of this criminal enterprise.

00;15;06;20 – 00;15;12;20

Unknown

Now, Mr. Combs, as we’ve discussed before, is not seem to have been producing,

00;15;12;20 – 00;15;29;04

Unknown

media that is making money, for instance, on the sex tapes itself. Rather, the sex tapes appear to be a blackmail sort of device, so that once these, workers or the women, are

00;15;29;04 – 00;15;54;28

Unknown

caught in this video, then there’s a psychological mechanism that allows Mr. Combs to control what they do with the implicit threat of either revealing the video or in the alternative of, attacking them and using his power and leverage to prevent, them from reporting this to the proper authorities or hiring a lawyer to sue it.

00;15;55;00 – 00;16;12;29

Unknown

And this was successful for a significant period of time, including, you know, these allegations have gone back to before the year 2000, and they’re only now coming to light. So, what’s interesting about the forfeiture allegations in particular is the

00;16;12;29 – 00;16;28;24

Unknown

efforts of the prosecutor to identify any resources that are traceable to, these sorts of allegations and are traceable to his leveraging of this criminal enterprise to induce compliance.

00;16;28;27 – 00;16;37;13

Unknown

And that could be a very big number in terms of the total net assets that are, at Mr. Combs disposal.

00;16;37;13 – 00;16;39;18

Unknown

Now, the finally,

00;16;39;18 – 00;17;11;18

Unknown

in related to this forfeiture allegation. Mr. Combs was denied bail by the federal judge, and that included a finding that he was in the, an ongoing threat to the public and that that’s why even with his posting of a $50 million bond, that he still would not be sufficient to, that would not be sufficient to ensure that he complied with the law and did not harm members of the public when he was, out on bail and awaiting trial.

00;17;11;20 – 00;17;39;26

Unknown

So the monetary allegations and the attempt to seize these types of assets, I think that it’s related to the decision of the judge to not release him on bond, because it would be very easy for Mr. Combs to take any of his, you know, probably, you know, $70 million liquid cash assets and transfer those assets into a form that would be much more difficult for the prosecutor to trace.

00;17;39;28 – 00;18;12;16

Unknown

So this is something that we encounter sometimes in our work prosecuting crime or, prosecuting sexual abuse cases in that you need to pursue attachment of the court’s jurisdiction to the identifiable assets of, the individual that you prosecute to avoid them from squandering or otherwise wasting those assets. So it is an interesting development in the prosecution of this type of crime and also in the Use of Racketeering act to prevent,

00;18;12;16 – 00;18;18;08

Unknown

sexual abusers from profiting from their ability to coerce people into compliance.

00;18;18;11 – 00;18;26;00

Unknown

And it’s something that we’re taking to heart and will use in our, further prosecutions of similar individuals.

00;18;26;00 – 00;18;29;28

Unknown

Thank you for watching. This is Joseph Ott at the Ott Law firm.