the Mann Act currently used as amended, in brief, it is used against those who are organizing prostitution rings across state lines including and concentrating on child sex trafficking as opposed to its original use years back that dealt with trafficking prostitutes across state lines for immoral purposes; would not apply here as purpose of flying in escort was to rob and or abuse her sexually, her presence was not intended for organization of a ring of prostitution nor was she a child...
A sophisticated team of con artists has been targeting escorts, changing names and contact info each time. It's a fake booking...they fly a girl in, and steal all of her money and credit cards. They have references, and all info checks out...it's a very well-researched, well-orchestrated, elaborate scheme. So far, I've been able to verify that they've scammed three girls just this past month, including me. So, my question is, can or should I go to the police with my phone and my IP addresses? I've already provided the information to blacklists, but what else can I do? This is an organized operation, and seems to be picking up steam.
this sounds like a felony and should be reported. It should be a higher priority than any minor offense you may have committed.
I've been pondering this one all day.
to understand you correctly, someone is hiring you, and you travel on your own expense and when you get there you are robbed.
So is the problem how do you contact the police and report a theft without explaining why you were there?
Hindsight would be to report the crime when it occurred. Robbery is robbery. You can lie as well as they can and say you met at a bar and things went bad when you got to your room. to say that this guy hired you and then robbed you would be like calling the police saying someone stole your weed.
I'm not sure where you live, but handing over a phone could very well incriminate yourself. I have found very few police departments do anything with an IP address, unless you beat them with it everyday.
Keep on with the blacklist, post on local boards seems to be the best defense at this point.
including car rental. Plus, they change names and contact info each time. That's why I'm thinking the blacklist might not be enough. I checked the blacklist sites prior to leaving, but nothing came up...I only found the links to the two other victims after browsing each entry one by one...after the fact, of course. I just had a feeling I couldn't have been their first victim since things were so well-organized. Like I said, I don't think that this is their only criminal gig.
The "client" was super-nice to me, but of course he would be nice, or I would have been more on my guard. I wouldn't put it past them to be dangerous people. Trust me, if it were just a simple scammer, I wouldn't bother with LE.
You might consider the FBI rather than the local police. Sounds like they may have jurisdiction and they will care even less about your profession. I wonder if it is a Mann Act violation even though it appears that they don't intend to engage in any immoral purposes.
Not sure about the other girls involved. My primary concern, aside from saving other girls from this experience, is that these men probably have plenty of criminal gigs going on. Maybe more serious than this.
So I see your point about the FBI, but it makes me nervous. Should I get a lawyer?
Sorry to hear this happend to you. I second this advice very strongly, if you deal with LE you must have counsel.
for "immoral" purposes right? Isn't that what the Mann Act is all about? That she was robbed only makes it worse.
the Mann Act currently used as amended, in brief, it is used against those who are organizing prostitution rings across state lines including and concentrating on child sex trafficking as opposed to its original use years back that dealt with trafficking prostitutes across state lines for immoral purposes; would not apply here as purpose of flying in escort was to rob and or abuse her sexually, her presence was not intended for organization of a ring of prostitution nor was she a child...
If the language has not been changed LE would still have the option to prosecute under the Act if they found it to their advantage.
BTW this is a question, not a statement. I have no idea if the Mann Act has been rewritten and/or amended from it's original form.
I do know the Mann Act has been used in the past to prosecute people for a single offense and not to bust up a "ring of prostitution", unless the Act has been seriously rewritten there is nothing to prevent the feds from using it in the case described. She was brought across state lines for the purpose of prostitution, just because she was subsequently robbed of her share of the proceeds does not nullify that fact, actually it should be a exacerbating factor, not a mitigating one.
if we assume that the bookers transported her solely with the intention to rob her and not with any intent that she engage in any criminal sexual activity. The primary Mann Act provision is clearly limited to transportation for criminal sexual activity purposes:
Whoever knowingly transports any individual in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, with intent that such individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
But it does not matter whether the transporter is Miami Companions or just some out of state TER member. Either would violate the statute, although currrent US attorneys policy seems to be to refrain from pursuing private individuals under the Mann Act as we most clearly saw in Mr. Spitzler’s case.
On the other hand, you don't want to be the guy who pays her plane fare on the day that some new US atty decides to change policy, do you?
It is not clear whether the OP was transported soley for the purposes of robbing her, or if she was engaged in criminal sexual activity and "then" robbed of the proceeds of said activity.
Even if there was never any payment made, wouldn't the promise of sex for money, even if the money was never paid, be enough to be prosecuted under the Act?
Mann Act originally was not to punish prostitutes but their handlers,but it was amended and is now used against sex traffickers who deal with minors
-- Modified on 1/8/2011 7:14:25 PM
or if just the use of it by prosecutors had changed.
What changes were made in the actual language of the Act?
I would think that unless the Act was specifically ammended to only apply to sex trafficing of minors it would still apply in this case, as she was induced to cross state lines for the purposes of prostitution by this "ring" of crooks. The fact that she was subsequently robbed should have no bearing on the case, except as an aggravating circumstance. That would be of course assuming that the language of the Act had not been changed, huge assumption on my part. lol
IOW by the original intent and language of the Act, the Act "could" apply in this case, but if the language of the Act was actually ammended to only apply to minors then the Act of course would not apply. Hence my question, "Was the language of the Act actually ammended?" and if so, does the Act now only spcifically apply to the trafficing of minors? or is that just the way the Act is currently enforced?
– the Mann Act is not limited to the transportation of minors.
I quoted the statute in my post. That should have answered your question. The basic Mann Act provision
applies to adults as well as minors. A separate statute
crimimalizes the transportation of minors. The difference is the penalty – no more than 10 years vs no less than 10 years if she is a minor.
Here are the two statutes:
18 U.S.C. § 2421: Whoever knowingly transports any individual in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, with intent that such individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
18 U.S.C. § 2423(a): Transportation with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity. — A person who knowingly transports an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any commonwealth, territory or possession of the United States, with intent that the individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life.
As I recall, the primary change in the basic Mann Act provision was to delete the vague "immoral purposes" and substitute prostitution and criminal sexual activity.
As to the OP case, if they transported her with intent that she engaged in criminal sexual activity and then robbed her, the Mann Act would be violated.
If it was all a scam to rob her, there would be no violation as the requisite intent would be lacking.
there are so many state laws that Mann is rarely used for minor cases of vice eom.
I quoted the statute in my post. That should have answered your question. The basic Mann Act provision
applies to adults as well as minors. A separate statute
crimimalizes the transportation of minors. The difference is the penalty – no more than 10 years vs no less than 10 years if she is a minor.
Here are the two statutes:
18 U.S.C. § 2421: Whoever knowingly transports any individual in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, with intent that such individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
18 U.S.C. § 2423(a): Transportation with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity. — A person who knowingly transports an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any commonwealth, territory or possession of the United States, with intent that the individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life.
As I recall, the primary change in the basic Mann Act provision was to delete the vague "immoral purposes" and substitute prostitution and criminal sexual activity.
As to the OP case, if they transported her with intent that she engaged in criminal sexual activity and then robbed her, the Mann Act would be violated.
If it was all a scam to rob her, there would be no violation as the requisite intent would be lacking.
and "could" still apply in this instance. I am certainly not saying that it will be applied, those chances are extremely remote, but it "could" be, and that was my point.
usually as a criminal case you should not have to fear for you own illegal activity, but you should not admit to what you were actually involved in, they will understand quickly enough. I would like some more details. As credit cards can be canceled at no loss how much money are we talking about. It is imprudent to travel with large amounts of cash for anyone when credit cards work fine for almost all expenses. You say they flew you in and paid all expenses? or they said they would reimburse you? does not seem like an efficient scam unless you company for free was what they were really after. Please give some more details...also what city did this take place in? pm me if you want to keep details private.
The flights were not that expensive...flew Spirit. Someone picked me up in the rental car, and gave it to me to drive the "client" around. I was a secondary driver. Looking back, I'd guess that the "client" had his license suspended.
I paid for the hotel w/my cc. There was supposedly a bank transfer made, but, as this took place over a holiday, I just had to trust that it was pending. Here's where it gets even stupider - I actually lent the "client" some money to gamble (we went to the bank together). We were "supposed" to meet his "manager" who had cash for me in addition to the pending transfers. Yes, stupid. Then, later, my cc was taken and charged for the tune of $2500...I can dispute that, of course.
I think it was done primarily for amusement, with a secondary purpose of picking up some cash. All I can say is that these men were smooth talkers, detail-oriented, and put on a great show.
Oh, and I was flown from NY to FL.
a provider would be bringing with her on the way to "work", The amount that she would be bringing home after her tour might be a different story, but that is where this story seems to break down.
If she is saying that they fly her out, book her sessions and then steal her money before she can get out of town, I can almost see this, but I don't see why they would need to bring an out of towner in for this. Pimps have been stealing from their girls for millenia.
Again, this whole story seems a bit confusing.
Did you ask for a deposit from these people ?What if you brought nothing but your id with you and thats all expecting that you would get paid the other portion upon arrival. It seems like there is more missing and there is always more to the story then posted .I just dont understand why these guys would pay money to fly a porovider that they have no clue if she is traveling alone or withsomeone and even if she has any large amount of money on her.
Do you carry around your atm card that has all of your savings on it? If you do i would change that asap .You can have two accounts if you do out of town travel ,have a account that you have $4-500 thats more then enough for a provider that travels.
I got in touch with one of the other girls. Apparently, the cops are already looking for them. They book flights, cars, and hotels with the previous escort's stolen credit cards. There are numerous reports under another phone number - not on blacklists, but sites where you can report a phone number as spam or a scam. So hopefully they are caught soon.