Rentboy CEO Jeffrey Hurant indicted -- promoting prostitution & money laundering

[+ VeryHappyCustomer]

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2016/01/27/technology/27reuters-usa-crime-rentboy.html

[+ honcho]

I'm going ask those folks with legal experience to tell me whether that means there was no plea bargain,

and consequently that he will be defending himself in court . . .

[Jock123]

Sad Sad times we are In.....

[+ honcho]

This just in... having donated in the past to the legal defense fund I got an email:

 

Jeffrey Hurant <jhurant@braveline.com>

12:39 PM (15 minutes ago)

 

Greetings.

 

 

The United States of America has decided to indict myself and Rentboy.com. This is breaking news. I am working on getting my head around it, but I thought you should know. I am attaching a copy of the indictment for you to read. You have always supported me so strongly, for which I am so grateful, I wanted you to hear it first from me. I want to say more, but I need to discuss my statement with counsel first. I will make an announcement and reaction on http://www.rentboyfund.org as soon as I can.

 

 

 

Thanks for being there for me through this tough time,

 

Jeffrey

 

And there was an attached copy of the indictment:

 

http://www.rdrop.com/~honcho/RBIndict16.pdf

 

[AndreFuture]

I'm going ask those folks with legal experience to tell me whether that means there was no plea bargain, and consequently that he will be defending himself in court . . .

 

According to the article, a plea bargain was not brought up:

"James Roth, a lawyer for former Rentboy sales agent Clint Calero, said he hoped the indictment meant prosecutors had 'acknowledged the merits of our defenses and that we will enter into a non-prosecution agreement.' "

 

In fact, plea bargains are generally available after an indictment has been issued: "Unless both the defendant and DA agree to waive the indictment process, a plea cannot be entered until after indictment. Negotiations can start at any time." http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/are-plea-bargains-made-before-or-after-indictment--1543845.html

[ChrisWydeman]

Yikes

[+ WilliamM]

Given today's indictment I gave a contribution to the Rentboy defense fund in my own name, not my screen name. My decision. I am in no way suggesting anyone else should do the same

.

 

The much larger point, contributions are still being accepted!!!!

 

http://rentboyfund.org/supporters-unite

[+ FreshFluff]

So people's suspicions about the underage and money laundering angles turned out to be right.

[Kevin Slater]

So people's suspicions about the underage and money laundering angles turned out to be right.

 

I think we need to be very careful in discussing money laundering. From reading the latest indictment (http://www.rdrop.com/~honcho/RBIndict16.pdf), it appears the alleged money laundering consists of transferring proceeds from the operations of rentboy.com into a bank account. If indeed rentboy is found to be a criminal operation (i.e. an interstate promoter of prostitution), that may indeed fit the technical definition of money laundering (the process of transforming the proceeds of crime into ostensibly legitimate money or other assets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_laundering#cite_note-Duhaimes-1)), but not what most people think money laundering means (tax evasion). Given its technical definition, it would be very difficult to conceive of any criminal conviction that wouldn't ipso facto involve money laundering.

 

A s far as the underage aspect, most of what I got form the indictment is that while rentboy had an internal policy of requiring photo ID for escorts who appear to be under 21, in practice they only required ID for guys appearing to be under 18. I don't see the criminal offense, and in fact, the indictment itself seems to drop that allegation in the count of offenses.

 

Kevin Slater

[+ quoththeraven]

So people's suspicions about the underage and money laundering angles turned out to be right.

 

Not really. These look to me to be post-seizure after-the-fact justifications. But I haven't read the Times article, just Newsday, which was the top result on my Google alert for news about Jeffrey Hurant. Article here:

 

http://www.newsday.com/news/new-york/rentboy-com-ceo-jeffrey-hurant-indicted-by-federal-grand-jury-1.11400018

 

This is what I suspect based on what I've read so far: that Hurant is going to be the only one prosecuted. (Plea agreements would result in bypassing indictment in favor of filing informations.) "Non-prosecution agreement" sounds to me like either a conditional discharge (get in no more trouble in x period of time, usually no longer than a year, and we'll dismiss and expunge the charges) or an outright dismissal.

 

I did notice the trafficking and underage aspects Newsday mentions. They boil down to this: the Hungarian guys who were being trafficked, as determined by a trial that took place (or at least ended) post-Rentboy seizure, advertised on Rentboy. Ergo, Rentboy was involved in trafficking. Second, Rentboy allegedly did not age-verify some ads.

 

That the prosecution has moved away from a "gay sex, eww" approach and that there is apparently a good chance everyone else will walk away from the charges is progress despite the indictment. I'll be updating the Rentboy legal defense fund sticky post, but I will say this here: Hurant hiring the lawyers he did in my opinion has A LOT to do with the outcome for everyone, not just him. Here's why:

 

Hurant was always going to be the one the US Attorney would go after the hardest. The better the case his lawyers made, especially about prior legal advice, the better off the other defendants were. For them, relying on legal advice given to their employer/former employer is a compelling, possibly even complete, defense.

 

I will reserve the conclusion I reach from that for the fundraising thread. But I imagine most of you will be able to figure it out before I spell it out.

 

Also, not the only upsetting thing I've been clued into on the internet today! Fun times.

[+ FreshFluff]

Back in August, people speculated that DHS would find a way to go after RB for promoting underaged escorts, money laundering, or trafficking. Justification or not, that's what happened.

 

Also, did you see the section of the indictment about the Asian market?

 

The gay sex nonsense in the criminal complaint didn't exactly put DHS in a good light. So I wonder if the U.S. Attorney's new focus on trafficking and not checking IDs is, in fact, good news for Hurant. But I agree about Hurant's attorneys.

[jimboivyo]

I imagine it will take all of three minutes for the rest of the rent boy crew to turn on him to avoid jail time

[rvwnsd]

Not really. These look to me to be post-seizure after-the-fact justifications. But I haven't read the Times article, just Newsday, which was the top result on my Google alert for news about Jeffrey Hurant. Article here:

 

http://www.newsday.com/news/new-york/rentboy-com-ceo-jeffrey-hurant-indicted-by-federal-grand-jury-1.11400018

 

...I did notice the trafficking and underage aspects Newsday mentions. They boil down to this: the Hungarian guys who were being trafficked, as determined by a trial that took place (or at least ended) post-Rentboy seizure, advertised on Rentboy. Ergo, Rentboy was involved in trafficking. Second, Rentboy allegedly did not age-verify some ads....

 

The money laundering charge is not a post-seizure after-the-fact justification. Hurant advertised himself as a pimp and his website accepted money to run ads for young men who were allegedly being trafficked. As Kevin pointed out, money laundering is the process of transforming the proceeds of crime, such as accepting money to promote the hiring of allegedly trafficked human beings, into ostensibly legitimate money or other assets.

 

I still think the case is bullshit and a waste of taxpayer dollars.

[JDXXX]

What an outrage.

 

Now this means more problems for the industry to use Jeffrey's indictment being as a tool for DHS to get away with targeting and exposing more gay escort websites I suppose.

[+ stevenkesslar]

 

http://www.rdrop.com/~honcho/RBIndict16.pdf

 

 

Thanks for posting the indictment, Honcho. I think it should be required reading for everybody.

 

I want to let this sink in, but I have some strong and contradictory immediate reactions to the written indictment to add to what's been said already. We now know this will likely be continuing for quite a while, so we'll have plenty of time to think, talk, and act on this.

 

1. Time to start donating again. I was waiting to see whether there would be an indictment, and the shoe has now dropped. Like QTR said I am glad that at least 6 of the 7 will likely be able to simply get on with their life. This indictment focuses the need for a defense fund solely on Jeffrey. And I'm taking it as a victory that the tone of the indictment is different than the complaint, and does not read like an attack on Gay sexual practices. For me, the money raised so far did some good. I just gave another $100, which I plan to give every month as long as this continues.

 

2. Pages 3 and 4 of the indictment are in some ways more offensive to me than the "gay sex, yuck" tone of the original complaint. What it essentially states is that Rentboy had explicit written policies, which they enforced, to prevent advertisers from promoting prostitution. The indictment spells out the following language Rentboy used: "All text needs to avoid saying you will have sex for money, since that is illegal in most places in the world. For legal purposes, you are selling your time only. You can say things about what you look like, what you like to do, what other people say about you, how much you like sex; just don't indicate you will do any specific sexual act during a meeting with a client." Here's my interpretation of what this signals. The Obama Justice Dept. folks are backing off on language that makes Gay sex sound bad. But they are still moving full throttle ahead on an effort to shut down a Gay website because they say it smacks of consensual Gay sex, regardless of the fact that Rentboy had clear and sensible policies about what escorts and clients could and could not do, consensually and legally. Rentboy's attempts to follow the law don't matter to the folks in Obama's Justice Dept. This does not bode well for anybody who calls themselves an "escort" or anyone who hires someone called an "escort." It especially does not bode well for any website that advertises "escorting." Time will tell, but my guess is, despite the laundering of language, this still will pit Obama's DOJ against LGBTQ and civil liberties groups. Add anger about this is to the list of Hillary's legal problems as she runs for Obama's 3rd term.

 

3. As Fresh Fluff said, the references to the trafficking of Hungarians, ID checks, and the alleged indifference to advertising of underage escorts in Asia may not bode well for Jeffrey. I encouraged and then aborted a "standards" campaign regarding Rentmen a few months ago. To their credit, Rentmen made a few minor changes, like cancelling a few outrageously BS ads, for example by an escort that was using fake photos from a bodybuilding video who then verbally abused me on the phone when I called him out on his obvious deceit. But Rentmen did not seem to be particularly interested in an open discussion about "standards." I can see it from their perspective - why should they let customers advise them on how to run their business better? But this indictment should illustrate why Rentmen and every similar site operating today is vulnerable if they don't want to look very hard at themselves relating to tough standards. When news of the Hungarian sex trafficking ring broke, I had a hunch it would find its way into a Rentboy indictment. Everybody who posted about the trafficking victims feels the same way I do. It's repulsive. It is hard to defend the practice of trafficking, even if it was not something Rentboy knew about. The discussion of casually enforced policies relating to age proves nothing, but reinforces the sense of weak standards.

 

4. There is nothing black or white about this, or about most things.

 

http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-your-intellect-may-be-confused-but-your-emotions-will-never-lie-to-you-roger-ebert-55454.jpg

 

Given what I've said so far, the question I've asked myself is: why support Jeffrey, and why spend money doing so? Point 3 above is about the fact that Jeffrey is far than perfect. Point 2 above is about the fact that Obama's Justice Dept and DHS are far from perfect. They wrote a complaint that sounds like a slam on Gays, and an indictment that criminalizes escorting. Meanwhile, my experience with escorting is that it has been rewarding emotionally, financially, psychologically, and even spiritually. Most of my closest friends are either escorts or clients who have hired me for years. I suspect most people on this site feel mostly very positive about their involvement in this world. So my intellect is having mixed reactions, but my emotions aren't. Jeffrey, and escorting, deserves to be defended. Rentboy was at the center of the world of escorting, and throwing it under the bus without defense invites throwing everyone and anything involved in "escorting" under the bus.

 

5. A trial will bring out the truth. One reason the other 6 may not face time in jail is that they may have already served their purpose in exposing things that may not help Jeffrey. Example: "RENTBOY.COM employees complained to RENTBOY.COM management about the quantity of underage escort advertisements." It's not clear whether that line of the indictment is based on statements by one of the employees that was arrested, or emails seized during the raid, or both. When this thing started, I slammed another escort who said something like "Word on the street is Rentboy was running underage boys in Miami." So far, it looks like we were both half wrong, and half right. Rentboy did apparently run ads for the Hungarian trafficking ring in Miami, but nothing in the indictment or media suggests they were underage. My point is that a well-funded legal defense for Jeffrey can't save him from punishment if it turns out Rentboy did things that most people on this site would find repulsive. But it can save escorting from being painted as repulsive, and from being reduced by government lawyers into a horror story of sleazy pimps and prostitutes who exchange money for sex.

[+ bigjoey]

I think we need to be very careful in discussing money laundering. From reading the latest indictment (http://www.rdrop.com/~honcho/RBIndict16.pdf), it appears the alleged money laundering consists of transferring proceeds from the operations of rentboy.com into a bank account. If indeed rentboy is found to be a criminal operation (i.e. an interstate promoter of prostitution), that may indeed fit the technical definition of money laundering (the process of transforming the proceeds of crime into ostensibly legitimate money or other assets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_laundering#cite_note-Duhaimes-1)), but not what most people think money laundering means (tax evasion). Given its technical definition, it would be very difficult to conceive of any criminal conviction that wouldn't ipso facto involve money laundering.

 

A s far as the underage aspect, most of what I got form the indictment is that while rentboy had an internal policy of requiring photo ID for escorts who appear to be under 21, in practice they only required ID for guys appearing to be under 18. I don't see the criminal offense, and in fact, the indictment itself seems to drop that allegation in the count of offenses.

 

Kevin Slater

 

On the money laundering aspect of the case: Would any gay publication in Miami that accepted an advertisement from the Hungarian group that trafficked underage boys be in the same trouble from a technical point of view (if they deposited the advertising money in a bank)?

[Kenny]

In the indictment, #1 says escorts paid RB a fee "to advertise sexual services on the site." As it's the basis for all that follows, how will that be proved in court?

[LookingAround]

In the indictment, #1 says escorts paid RB a fee "to advertise sexual services on the site." As it's the basis for all that follows, how will that be proved in court?

 

Quoting some posts from this website.

[+ quoththeraven]

In the indictment, #1 says escorts paid RB a fee "to advertise sexual services on the site." As it's the basis for all that follows, how will that be proved in court?

 

Screenshots. The site itself, which is under the control of a DHS contractor. There are potential hearsay and best evidence objections to quoting from this website.

[+ quoththeraven]

Back in August, people speculated that DHS would find a way to go after RB for promoting underaged escorts, money laundering, or trafficking. Justification or not, that's what happened.

 

Also, did you see the section of the indictment about the Asian market?

 

The gay sex nonsense in the criminal complaint didn't exactly put DHS in a good light. So I wonder if the U.S. Attorney's new focus on trafficking and not checking IDs is, in fact, good news for Hurant. But I agree about Hurant's attorneys.

 

I have yet to read the indictment (that's probably what I'm doing next), but I saw the reference to the Asian market in the article I read.

 

I read this change in approach as good news generally and potentially why the others may go free, with or without immunity deals and agreements to testify in court. (They'd need immunity deals to be forced to testify over 5th Amendment objections.) I also note that the lawyer quoted in Gay Star News article on the front page of the reviews is name partner Tremonte, not the less senior attorney who's been responding to Steven Kesslar's status inquiries. I would not characterize it as good news for Hurant, but clearly the US Attorney's office is narrowing its theory of the case in response to pressure.

[+ stevenkesslar]

Quoting some posts from this website.

 

As if I haven't said a lot already, this made me think of another obvious victory of sorts. The original complaint, as anyone following this knows, extensively quoted reviews from this website. The citations from reviews, along with a description of words on the Rentboy site itself, provided fodder based on which The New York Times editorialized this on Aug. 28: "The criminal complaint is so saturated with sexually explicit details, it’s hard not to interpret it as an indictment of gay men as being sexually promiscuous."

 

I'm not a lawyer, a judge, or a jury, so I have no idea whether words written on websites are considered hearsay, or are admissible evidence. My assumption as a non-lawyer is that lawyers can and will say anything they want that they think will advance their case.

 

My non-legal reading of the language laundering between the original complaint and the new indictment is that people higher up the food chain in the Obama Administration figured some things out, and decided not to write the indictment in a way that appeared to criminalize consensual adult Gay sex. I doubt the New York Times will argue that it is a bad thing that a sex trafficker taking advantage of Hungarian men was found guilty in court and sentenced to 11 years in jail, as the indictment spells out.

 

I won't go through an exhaustive homily to Sen. Paul Wellstone again, but him and his wife Sheila were the driving forces behind the Trafficking Victim Protection Act, as well as my own community organizing career, which involved two decades of fighting redlining banks, subprime lenders, and Enron, mostly successfully.

 

http://blogs.state.gov/stories/2012/10/25/ten-years-later-remembering-senator-paul-wellstone

 

I have a deep faith in the belief that justice and truth wins out in the end. If the trial revolves around sex trafficking, I think we and the LGBTQ community should be clear: we find it abhorrent. Let the judge and jury decide whether ads that were alleged to have been placed on Rentboy were placed with the knowledge of Rentboy staff, and whether running ads is sufficient to send anybody to jail. The reason I brought up Rentmen in a thread about Rentboy is I'm still a Wellstone disciple, and I hope every website that gets within a mile of "escorting" takes a lesson from the indictment and a possible trial relating to the standards we ought to have and enforce.

 

This website has been a voice for integrity and humane values, period. Personally, I think they are smart to have figured out they might not want to criminalize it, or use it as evidence in criminal cases.

 

We can count as a victory that reviews and language on websites about consensual adult Gay sex are mostly not being explicitly used to criminalize escorts or escorting in the indictment. The focus has shifted to allegations of sex trafficking and advertising of underage escorts, mostly based on speculation rather than proof. I think the outcry from the LGBTQ community, and the successful fundraising efforts of people, including members of this website, could have played a role in that. I still believe, as I argued above, that the indictment wrongly equates "escorting" with "prostitution" despite clear language the indictment itself cites that was on Rentboy and that observed the law. That is what we can now expect to play out in court and the media, and the core of why I think Jeffrey, and escorting, deserve to be defended, just as much as the values of human decency Paul spent his life fighting for need to be defended, too.

[+ quoththeraven]

Here's my initial reaction to reading the indictment:

 

1. There are deadlines involved. While not indicting the others at the same time is no guarantee, it strongly suggests either an expectation of a plea deal or (more likely from the use of the term "non-prosecution agreement" by one of the lawyers for the other defendants) a conditional discharge or outright dismissal, possibly written so as to rule out the assertion of the right not to incriminate oneself if testimony is required.

 

2. Rentboy the corporation is a named defendant, as is Hurant. I assume this is part symbolic and part in order to justify the seizure and keeping/forfeiting the $1.4 (or whatever) million in funds on hand that were seized.

 

3. I would not assume the allegations came from interviews with Rentboy employees unless they couldn't possibly come from e-mails, which seem to be the primary sources. Remember, the feds control and have unfettered access to all of Rentboy's operations and systems.

 

4. While the alleged practice regarding age-verification for Asian escorts seems unsound and inconsistent, keep in mind it is true that Asians often look younger than others their age. *points to video of Kpop group EXO posted in the Gallery thread on Taeyang's nipples - they all look like high school kids but are in their 20s* *refrains from reposting vid here no matter how much I might want to*

 

I do not know if documents proving age that originate in Asia are easy to forge, hard to come by, or require translation. Some countries still informally use an older means of counting age where everyone is considered a year old upon birth and advance a year each New Year's, whether Western New Year (January 1) or some version of Lunar New Year. That is why, for example, the age of majority in Korea is 19, not 18, but in actuality Korean 19 is close to Western 18.

 

In other words, while they may not be a sufficient explanation, practical difficulties with age verification may have been the or a motivating factor, not simply catering to cultural differences regarding age or Western expectations about availability irrespective of age.

 

5. I note that the case has been assigned to Judge Brodie and Magistrate Levy, about whom I know nothing. Although I was admitted to practice in the EDNY when I was practicing, I've only appeared there in one case that was settled, and I only ever dealt with Magistrate Go. Time to do some research, I guess.

[+ quoththeraven]

On the hearsay/best evidence issue: The original or a photocopy/screenshot that doesn't raise claims of manipulation is the best proof of what something says. Once you start relying on other people's reports, you open the door for bias, typos, and incorrect recall. If the intermediate reporter whose word is being relied on is not available for cross-examination, you also have a constitutional issue (not being able to confront adverse witnesses).

 

Yes, the outcome of many legal matters is tilted in favor of the status quo, but the application of the FRE (Federal Rules of Evidence) is mostly cut and dried. State rules of evidence may vary from federal to some small degree - I don't know if this is still true, but spousal privilege used to be one area of significant variation - but there is a fair amount of overlap.

 

I can be indefinitely boring on the topic of the FRE if anyone wants me to be, but the above probably suffices for now. Perhaps I should have aspired to teach law rather than practice it.

[+ quoththeraven]

Judge Margo K. Brodie bio from EDNY website:

 

https://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/content/judge-margo-k-brodie

 

Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy bio, same source:

 

https://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/content/magistrate-judge-robert-m-levy

 

It's interesting that Magistrate Levy's background is in human rights and public interest law and Judge Brodie's is in government/prosecution as a long-term member of the U.S. Attorney's office for the Eastern District of New York. FWIW, both were appointed to office during Democratic administrations (Clinton for Magistrate Levy, Obama for Judge Brodie).

 

I am also considering registering for PACER, which would give me internet access to federal court filings across the country, but the dropdown menus on the registration form are not working properly on my tablet, so I will need to use my desktop instead. Also, unless I misunderstood, there is a 10¢ per page access fee simply for viewing a page of a filed document, presumably to help maintain the service.

[+ FreshFluff]

3. I would not assume the allegations came from interviews with Rentboy employees unless they couldn't possibly come from e-mails, which seem to be the primary sources. Remember, the feds control and have unfettered access to all of Rentboy's operations and systems.

 

Agreed.

 

4. While the alleged practice regarding age-verification for Asian escorts seems unsound and inconsistent, keep in mind it is true that Asians often look younger than others their age. *points to video of Kpop group EXO posted in the Gallery thread on Taeyang's nipples - they all look like high school kids but are in their 20s* *refrains from reposting vid here no matter how much I might want to*

 

If I were a juror, I'd have a hard time buying this. The employee who said that Asian escorts on RB look young presumably knew that Asians look young for their age. After all, RB approved ads one-by-one from escorts across the age spectrum.

 

As for the peculiarities of IDs and birth dates in each country: Porn production companies are responsible for understanding the vagaries of IDs and birth dates in each of the markets in which they operate or recruit talent. The same is likely true for RB.