Be careful out there gentlemen. This is too close for comfort in a well known area.
The story refers to two agencies busted by the Joint Task Force (Feds/Local) in 2023. BEG in NoVa and Boston Top Ten (BTT). The Feds got convictions on the three Koreans running the organization. No providers were charged.
Up in Boston, the Feds handed over evidence against clients to local law enforcement. None have been charged, but the locals are pursuing charges against 18 clients. There will be hearings next month to determine whether cases against individuals going forward. Aside from cases going forward, another consequence of these March hearings is that the identities of the suspected clients will be made public.
Not the case in NoVa. The Fairfax County prosecutor determined there wasn’t enough evidence to secure convictions against clients and did not pursue charges.
A few lessons here. Be careful with providing screening info. If you’re already screened with an agency, and are approached by LE either entering or leaving a provider’s building, DO NOT talk to them. Do not show them your phone. Most of the guys who are being charged up in Boston did that.
Bottom line, be careful out there.
Let's get a few things clear there.
No client in DMV has been charged as all the customers facing charges were up in the Boston area and apparently all confessed during some interview with the Federal agency(ies) investigating the trafficking and money laundering charges. Originally there were 28 listed (but as of yet never personally identified) so it may be the case that 10 either cut some deal or something, doubt we'll learn why it started with 28 and now seems to be 18).
It is NOT clear the the those 18 will be personally identified in the March hearing. The court said that the names are not going to be released for the probable cause here but would be released if the court determines probable cause exists. So seems that it's not clear if these people have even been arrested or charged just just. BUT if probable cause is found then they are considered legitimate legal violators to be named publicly. I'll let some lawyer clear up the actual legal status of the 18 at this point in time as pretty much any person convicted of a crime will have their identity made a matter of public court records.
What we'll know whenever the hearing occurs in March is if probable cause is found or not and just how any personal identities will be released. I suspect any names released will not be a case of hearing for defendant A ends with probable cause found and the newspapers post the name. I suspect it will still wait for an arrest and mugshot to go along with it. And then, unless the confessions these guys apparently gave, results in some immediate plea of guilt and sentence hearing schedules we still might not hear anything. Lets wait and see.
Last, we all know there were likely A LOT more than 28 names in the client list. My take on the prior info was that all the 28 come not from the client list but from confessing during their "interview". We may well learn if all those facing the charges were the one's that didn't STFU or not. I lean towards that being the biggest lesson -- let a lawyer do your talking if you find yourself in a similar situation (they were not caught in the act but approached after leaving the premises -- but don't know if that means observed leaving the apartment or leaving the building, maybe we'll learn about that too.)
If they did so in opposition to the courts statement they will have big problems -- including both suits by the clients and possible the State if that give the client's lawyers a change to say any jury will now be prejudiced.
But it is pretty much March now so we'll get the answer soon. If some or all get named before the court makes its determination I guess you have it right. I don't think that will happen, but to be honest I much more interested in learning (assuming we do) if all those facing charges are facing them because the opened their mouth or if some were actually pulled from the agencies customer list and never confessed to having seen the girls.
For most people here that is a much more personal risk and a big reason why people avoid having to give out PII. I suspect everyone knows, even if they don't want to think about it, that if they get caught during any raid/sting whether they give PII to the agency or not make zero difference.
If a raid is like in cali where they come and raid the apartment and whoever is inside gets taken.
Let's just do some quick dirty napkin math.
Let's assume an org is opened for three years, apartments with two girls each working. For simplicity we will assume the raid will happen within a 12 hour window in which both girls have clients (in reality the probability of only one client at an apartment or even no clients is high, but we will omit it anyway)
I'm going to err on conservative side. Let's say 300 days a year instead of 365 and let's say six clients per day for both girls.
Your probability of getting busted inside as a client is two in 300*3*6=>5400/2 =0.03%
And that's conservative too, as mentioned.
If you're a person of interest on a client list, let's say a cr1m1nal, a foreign diplomat, etc etc... remember that hat the probability of leos going over your name is 100%. The question is if you're interesting or prolific enough to warrant interest.
LOL
So yes, let make up some numbers that have no meaning whatsoever and then not even suggest what the probability of the bust even occurring is and then compare it to a situation where I would make the wild guess would only apply to less than 0.5% of the guys seeing these girls. By all means, I think everyone should run around like the sky is falling about something that doesn't even apply to them.
But like I say, lets see what the hearing reveal regarding who is facing charges and how they came to be facing those charges. I'm still putting my money on this is a case of people who simply didn't STFU and let a lawyer talk for them rather than some randomly selected name on the contact list. And, I've previously been quite clear on the risk public figures (be they politicians, face of some big corporation, celebs, or some other person known to the public for some reason) face where there might be either public interests or a legitimate public concern about the activities. But those are the exception cases. So lets find out if the name on the list is what attracted the investigation or if they were the ones that talked (and perhaps were not even approached based on the list at all -- I don't recall if the original reports were clear about when the 28 interviews related to the federal investigation occurred and when the client list was in LE possession).
The probability of being inside the apartment as a bust happens is very low...that's just factual.
I also think you're underselling how many people on the list could be considered persons of interest. And it doesn't have to be public interest. It could be international security interest, domestic security interest and so on.
Some mongers have many different passports to their names.
I agree with you that we should wait and see, absolutely agreed. Not trying to argue.
On a tangent, the whole "if you aren't an important person you shouldnt be worried" part reminds me of people who relinquished privacy and encrypted messages because "they have nothing to hide". As a result not a single commercial messaging platform nowadays (telegram was the last one) provides encryption with keys that aren't available to governments.
And newsflash, bad actors will always find a channel to talk on, but now governments will be all in my personal messages. Gross.
I doubt that the men exposed will have grounds to sue, given that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has already ruled that the proceedings are public.
As far as the court’s statement goes, it doesn’t apply to the press. Their statement was referencing internal court procedures that determine when they publish case info.
First hearing of three. Twelve mongers named.
2 more weeks...coming down to the wire.
Did you see a date for the probable cause hearings somewhere?
[Edit - found them March 14, 21 and 28]
Just looked at the link and have to wonder who it was that was getting the 800/hour at these places.
-- Modified on 3/1/2025 8:28:11 PM
The only way I see BEG or BTT getting to $800 for an hour would be a duo, or CIP & Video upgrades for a solo.
Or just don’t use agencies
If you’re already screened with an agency, and are approached by LE either entering or leaving a provider’s building, DO NOT talk to them. Do not show them your phone. Most of the guys who are being charged up in Boston did that.
Bottom line, be careful out there.
First, ask them if you're being detained or if you are free to go. If they say you are being detained tell them you will talk to them with your lawyer present and advising you.
If they say you are not being detained tell them you will be going and hope they have a pleasant day (and don't say it sarcastically). Depending on where you live, you may or may not be required to present identification to an officer who asks for it. You can look that up if you don't know already. If the laws in your state (I don't think this is a local level choice) require it, provide it. Nothing really to worry about there any more than if you have to give you DL over in a traffic stop.
And yes, your phone should have a lock screen and can only be examined with a court order if you're not giving your permission but if the cop can say I noticed something on the screen so had probable cause you might have a problem -- so keep your phone locked and in your pocket.
Curious. Not sure how to look up this. But what does the VA law say? Are we to show any ID if requested?
And what does one say if asked what's your business in the building?
The link below might be of help. This might also, and mentions Fairfax County specifically, http://www.hhlawva.com/blog/2023/12/do-i-always-have-to-show-the-police-my-id-in-virginia/
One thing to note, I think, is if you don't have an ID (and it's clearly not suggested to try lying about that) you still need to provide a name and address so the officer can look you up. Probably a bad idea to lie here as well.
Bottom line (though a comment on that below) is largely STFU -- but nicely and have a lawyer do your talking if needed.
I think a really interesting question, largely coming from the Mass hearings and the original affidavit, is are any of the 28 that are getting charged from among those the affidavit says talk (and admitted guilt) to the federal authorities (forget if any local police were present). If not the implication might be talk to the federal agents but I would suggest letting a lawyer take most of the lead here -- but make clear to your lawyer you want to get the deal of staying anonymous. Probably only works when LE is looking for bigger fish but might have some incentive to go after the small fry for extra brownie points.
-- Modified on 3/27/2025 3:29:23 AM
Just say you are not going to talk to them unless a lawyer is present and ask if you are free to go or being detained. Also, VA peeps lucked up this time as statute of lim. is only 1 year (so everyone is okay now). I'm sure there will be a next time and it's starting to get concerning the way this is all trending. Just don't get caught with your pants down.
Cks broke it down well, but it happened over a year ago. I was worried for a second that there was an actual bust that happened this week when I opened this thread.
if he gets more time for the COVID related fraud than for leasing the apartment.
And hardly a surprise that he finally confessed -- but probably doesn't get much (any) benefit at this point. Maybe still some consideration for his age but probably just not getting the max sentence for avoiding the costs and headaches of having to hold a trial.
Death sentence for all intents and purposes.
Talked to a lawyer a few months ago in preparation for this event. Since statute of limitations is 1 year for misdemeanor in Virginia, presumably any mongers in this area are safe unless they did something dumb like go out on a date with the ladies of BEG, in which they could potentially get charged with trafficking - even then there's a slim chance, but still a chance of course.
They also referred clients to local LEO here but they declined to move forward with charges because the evidence is flimsy if they don't catch people in the act. I'm glad that common sense and rationality prevailed here, unlike in Boston where it seemed like they just went forward with this for the sake of ruining lives and a few days of news. I cannot imagine what it must feel like for those who had their names dragged through the mud.
In fact, since statute of limitations is 6 years in MA, it might be rough for the remaining clients if there is another batch of charges after they are done with the 28.
Lessons I've taken away from this is to be way more careful with the opsec. Perhaps it's time to just do indy only if you're not willing to incur the risks here. Feels as though it's only a matter of time before these types of busts get normalized where they try to ruin the lives of the clients, simply because they're men. Sad stuff, but that's just the way things have been trending for the last few years. More dangerous than ever for those who just want some stress relief after a long day.
Nice update on the statute of limitations. I had not heard about VA not pursuing anything because it assessed the evidence as lacking, wonder if that was because it was largely call/message data and not well matched to identified individuals (or those they could ID just were not interesting enough to be news worthy). That 6 year period does suck for those that might be somewhere in the MA files.
Going indie certainly takes away most of the risk of getting caught up in a federal investigation about trafficking.
Definitely! The only way a monger can be charged with trafficking is if he transports the girl - like on a dinner date or in her 'free time.'
This ups the charge from a misdemeanor of solicitation and/or frequenting a bawdy place to a felony of human trafficking - which carries prison time and a permanent stain on one's record. That's why it's never a good idea to take these agency girls out, even if they like you. All it takes is one photo from a snooping LEO and it's over.
I also did hear through the grapevines that they did seriously look at the evidence, although the ultimate determination was that this was just not a good use of resources and that it wouldn't really be making the community safer because the clients were totally harmless. Not to mention, it's just not a slam dunk case for the prosecution with only circumstantial evidence. And if we know anything about prosecutors, they do love their win-loss records.
Win-loss and the publicity value of "trafficking" which technically I suppose holds but was BS as no one was being forced here. That's the sad bit, we get the protestors in Boston pushing their "women are victims" claims where in reality it more about women being financially empowered but some being confused or pushing some moral position.
More of a "gripe" type comment here but really pisses me off that some have to paint this activity with the broad brush of streetwalking, pimp controlled, lost angels with now power where as it it much more like a case of either a gold digger or trophy wife that marries for money. But as long as someone got the stamp of approval from the state in the form of a marriage the monetary basis of the relationship gets ignored legally. And it's not like the state even then requires monogamous relationship -- in the sense of either party being 100% faithful to the other. Adultery isn't a crime, just a torte.