Racketeering and Racketeers

Subterms

    Latest story

    150 Shares178 Views

    Alternate Juror at the Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs Trial: ‘I Understand’ the Verdict

    by

    A Manhattan man who did not deliberate but heard all 28 days of testimony said in an interview that he was not persuaded by the prosecution’s case.An alternate juror in Sean Combs’s federal trial said in an interview that he agreed with the jury’s verdict, which found the music mogul not guilty of sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy. Combs was convicted of two counts of a lesser charge, transportation to engage in prostitution, and remains detained while he awaits sentencing.“I understand how my fellow jurors came to that conclusion,” the alternate, a Manhattan man named George, said in an interview on Thursday with The New York Times.As an alternate, George was not present for the deliberations by the jury of eight men and four women who reached the verdict, though he was seated in the jury box for the entirety of the case, and said he took some 350 pages of notes.He described the panel as a collegial group that ate lunches together and followed the judge’s rules not to discuss the case until they had been told to decide on a verdict.The jury reached its verdict on Wednesday morning after about 13 and a half hours of deliberations.The jurors in the case were granted anonymity by the judge to protect their privacy in a high-profile trial. The Times is publishing only George’s first name because of his concern that he might face harassment. No other jurors have spoken publicly about the case.To corroborate George’s identity, The Times examined public records and his social media accounts, and questioned him about his answers to the judge during the public jury-selection process. He also shared an image of the juror badge given to him by the court.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 150 Shares149 Views

      in Music

      Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs’s Winning Defense: He’s Abusive, but He’s Not a Racketeer

      by

      In defusing much of the government’s case, lawyers for the music mogul did not dispute that he did bad things. They disputed that they matched the crimes he was charged with.Over 28 days of testimony, federal prosecutors called witnesses who gave compelling accounts of harrowing violence, acts of intimidation and voyeuristic sex in hotel rooms with oceans of baby oil. Sean Combs, they said, was the ringleader.Investigators detailed for the jury raids at Mr. Combs’s mansions in Miami Beach, Fla., and Los Angeles, where they carted away several AR-15-style guns and illicit narcotics. People who worked for Mr. Combs, the music mogul known as Puffy Daddy or Diddy, testified that they had procured drugs for him or had witnessed his physical abuse of a former girlfriend.In the face of this evidence, the defense presented a case that lasted less than half an hour. Mr. Combs declined to testify, and no other witnesses were called. The rapid turnaround was startling after six weeks of trial.But in retrospect, the defense’s compact case was a sign that Mr. Combs’s lawyers felt confident the government had not done enough to convince a federal jury that Mr. Combs was, as charged, the boss of a criminal enterprise.That confidence had appeared to waver on Tuesday afternoon, when eight of Mr. Combs’s lawyers somberly huddled near their client after jurors said they had reached a verdict on all but the racketeering charge. But those same lawyers turned jubilant on Wednesday after the jury declared Mr. Combs not guilty of sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy — the two most severe charges against him.While Mr. Combs’s convictions on two lesser counts of transportation to engage in prostitution could result in his spending years in prison, sex-trafficking or racketeering convictions would have carried potential life sentences.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares152 Views

      in Music

      Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs Acquitted of Sex Trafficking but Found Guilty on Lesser Charges

      by

      The music mogul was convicted of arranging for the travel of male escorts across state lines but acquitted of sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy.Sean Combs, the hip-hop mogul who crafted a business empire around his personal brand, was convicted on Wednesday of transporting prostitutes to participate in his drug-fueled sex marathons, but acquitted of racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking, the most serious charges against him.Though Mr. Combs, 55, still faces a potential sentence of as much as 20 years in prison, he and his lawyers were jubilant after the acquittals on the more severe charges in an indictment that accused the famed producer of coercing women into unwanted sex with male prostitutes, aided by a team of pliant employees.Mr. Combs had faced a possible life sentence. Under the transportation charges, set by the federal Mann Act, each of the two convictions carries a maximum term of 10 years, and the judge could set lesser sentences to run concurrently.After the verdict was read in Federal District Court in Lower Manhattan, Mr. Combs put his hands together and mouthed “thank you, thank you” at the jury of eight men and four women. Later, he dropped to his knees, apparently in prayer, and started a round of applause. His supporters and family began clapping and whistling for his legal team, who embraced one another at the conclusion of the eight-week trial.“Mr. Combs has been given his life by this jury,” Marc Agnifilo, Mr. Combs’s lead lawyer, said in court following the verdict.The mood slumped hours later when Judge Arun Subramanian ordered Mr. Combs, who has been held in the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn since his September 2024 arrest, back to jail until his sentencing, which is still unscheduled. Mr. Combs’s lawyers had sought their client’s release so he could return to his family in the interim.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 175 Shares154 Views

      in Music

      Jury in Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs Trial Reaches Verdict on All Counts but Racketeering Conspiracy

      by

      The jury will keep deliberating on a racketeering conspiracy charge in the morning after saying there were “unpersuadable opinions on both sides.”A jury in Manhattan reached a partial verdict on Tuesday in the federal case against the music mogul Sean Combs, but it did not announce its decision because it was deadlocked on a final charge of racketeering conspiracy. The jury left for the night and will return to continue deliberating on Wednesday morning.The jury, comprising eight men and four women, said there were members “with unpersuadable opinions on both sides” on the racketeering count. After deliberating for more than 12 hours, they reached a verdict on the four other counts in the case, two each of sex trafficking and transportation to engage in prostitution.Mr. Combs has pleaded not guilty to all charges, and his lawyers have denied that any of his sexual activities with the women in the trial were nonconsensual.After the jurors alerted the court to the partial verdict at about 4:05 p.m. on Tuesday, Judge Arun Subramanian, who is presiding over the case, brought them into the courtroom and encouraged them to continue their discussions.“I ask at this time that you keep deliberating,” Judge Subramanian said.He reread the panel an excerpt from the jury instructions that said “no juror should surrender his or her conscientious beliefs for the purpose of returning a unanimous verdict.”At that point, the jury decided to conclude its deliberations for the day and return on Wednesday at 9 a.m.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares117 Views

      in Music

      At the Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs Trial, Jurors Are Ready to Deliberate

      by

      The panel of 12 will be asked to decide whether the music mogul is guilty of racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking.A jury in the federal trial of the music mogul Sean Combs will begin deliberating on Monday after receiving legal instructions from the judge in the complex sex-trafficking and racketeering conspiracy case.The panel, made up of eight men and four women, heard closing arguments from the government prosecutors on Thursday, followed by a presentation by the defense and a final rebuttal from the government on Friday.Judge Arun Subramanian, who is overseeing the trial, then opted to send the jurors home for the weekend so they could “come back fresh on Monday morning” to receive his directions. The judge estimated it would take him a few hours to go over the fine points of the laws at the core of the government’s case, a process known as “charging the jury,” before the jurors could start deliberations.The anonymous group was not sequestered throughout the trial and spent the weekend at home following the passionate final pleas from both sides last week.“You’ve heard the closing arguments, but I will ask you to continue to keep an open mind about the case,” Judge Subramanian told jurors on Friday, before adding the standard instructions he has given throughout the trial: “Do not speak with each other about the case. Do not speak with anyone else about the case. Do not read or research or look up anything about the case.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Music

      What Happened in the Closing Arguments of the Sean Combs Trial

      by

      The jurors will begin deliberating on Monday. The music mogul has pleaded not guilty to sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy.The federal government and Sean Combs’s defense team presented their closing arguments this week after extensive testimony in which the music mogul’s ex-girlfriends said they were pressured to have sex with male escorts in drug-dazed marathon sessions.Mr. Combs is charged with sex trafficking, racketeering conspiracy and transportation to engage in prostitution, and has pleaded not guilty, saying the sexual encounters were consensual. Jurors are expected to begin deliberating on Monday, which will mark the eighth week of the trial in Federal District Court in Manhattan.Here are some key observations from the closing arguments:The ChargesSex TraffickingThe federal prosecutor who delivered the government’s closing argument on Thursday, Christy Slavik, emphasized to jurors that convicting Mr. Combs of sex trafficking required only one example of him coercing his girlfriends into sex with prostitutes.For examples of such coercion, Ms. Slavik pointed to Mr. Combs’s 2016 assault on Casandra Ventura at a Los Angeles hotel that was captured on surveillance video, and a fight between “Jane” and Mr. Combs in 2024 before he directed her to have sex with another man.Jane, who was identified by a pseudonym, testified that she repeatedly said “I don’t want to” before Mr. Combs asked, “Is this coercion?”The next day, the defense lawyer Marc Agnifilo argued that Ms. Ventura, the singer known as Cassie, was a willing participant in the frequent sex sessions that Mr. Combs called “freak-offs.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Music

      Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs Trial: Takeaways From Defense’s Closing Arguments

      by

      Mr. Combs’s lead lawyer made a final appeal to the jury, arguing in often sarcastic tones that the government’s evidence contradicted its case against the hip-hop mogul.Sean Combs’s lawyer made a final appeal to the jury at his racketeering and sex trafficking trial in New York on Friday, arguing in often sarcastic tones that the government’s evidence contradicted its case against the hip-hop mogul.The lawyer, Marc Agnifilo, portrayed his client as a deeply flawed man who led a swinger’s lifestyle, had a drug problem and sometimes physically assaulted his girlfriends. But he argued government’s accusation that Mr. Combs was a sex trafficker or the ringleader of a racketeering organization was “badly exaggerated.”“He did what he did,” Mr. Agnifilo said. “But he’s going to fight to the death to defend himself from what he didn’t do.”Here are some takeaways from the defense’s closing argument.The defense focused on consent, credibility and overreach.Friday’s summation was the most substantive argument made to date by the defense, which called no witnesses during the trial and declined to put Mr. Combs on the stand.Mr. Agnifilo devoted long stretches of his four-hour closing argument to highlighting testimony, texts and video evidence, that he said demonstrated that Casandra Ventura and “Jane,” who testified under a pseudonym, consensually participated in the marathon sex parties that are central to the government’s claim that the women were sex trafficked.“You want to call it swingers, you want to call it threesomes,” he said, “whatever you want to call it, that is what it is — that’s what the evidence shows.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in Music

      Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs Trial: Takeaways From Prosecution’s Closing Argument

      by

      After seven weeks of testimony, the government detailed to jurors why it says the mogul is guilty of sex trafficking and racketeering.A federal prosecutor summed up the government’s case against the music mogul Sean Combs on Thursday, weaving strands of evidence from his seven-week trial on sex-trafficking and racketeering charges to portray him as the head of a criminal enterprise who “used power, violence and fear to get what he wanted.”The prosecutor, Christy Slavik, focused much of her closing argument on the methods Mr. Combs used to coerce two women he dated — Casandra Ventura (the singer Cassie) and a woman who testified under the pseudonym “Jane” — to have sex with hired men while he watched in drug-fueled sessions known as “freak-offs,” “hotel nights” or “wild king nights.”Here are four takeaways from the prosecution’s closing argument:The prosecution said proving that women were coerced into one ‘freak-off’ was enough for a sex trafficking conviction.A key point of contention has been whether Mr. Combs coerced the two women at the heart of the case into having sex with hired men, or if they were willing participants. In cross-examinations during the trial, the defense highlighted text messages in which the women expressed enthusiasm or excitement for the sessions.Ms. Slavik clarified for jurors that the government is not arguing that all of the sex nights with male escorts constitute sex trafficking. She said the women had initially been willing to engage to please Mr. Combs, but later became unwilling participants who complied either because they feared he would hurt them physically or cut them off financially.Christy Slavik, one of the prosecutors, delivered the government’s closing argument in Mr. Combs’s federal trial.Ted Shaffrey/Associated Press“If there is one time — one single freak-off that jurors find were the product of force, threats of force, fraud or coercion, Mr. Combs should be found guilty of sex trafficking,” Ms. Slavik said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares159 Views

      in Music

      How Prosecutors Have Charged Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs With Racketeering Conspiracy

      by

      Prosecutors aim to show jurors that Sean Combs ran a criminal enterprise responsible for years of sex-trafficking, drug distribution and other crimes.Among the five charges Sean Combs is facing at trial is one count of racketeering conspiracy, based on a federal law that was originally written to combat organized crime but is now used by prosecutors much more widely.To convict Mr. Combs on that charge, prosecutors must prove that he did not merely lead a typical celebrity entourage, but instead ran a criminal enterprise responsible for years of sex-trafficking, drug distribution and other crimes.The federal law — the 1970 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO — was once seldom used, but has been central to recent cases against R. Kelly, Young Thug, Wall Street executives, street gang members and President Trump.The charge allows prosecutors to present a sweeping narrative that includes accusations about a defendant’s misdeeds that could stretch back decades, sometimes long past the statute of limitations.In the wake of the #MeToo movement, the racketeering statute increasingly has been used by federal attorneys to prosecute a series of high-profile men accused of sexual abuse.To convict a defendant of a racketeering charge, jurors need to find that they knowingly joined an unlawful conspiracy and agreed that they or a co-conspirator would commit at least two criminal acts to further the enterprise.In Mr. Combs’s case, those crimes include allegations that in 2011 he kidnapped an employee to help confront a rival and then his alleged co-conspirators set the rival’s car on fire weeks later with a Molotov cocktail, as well as accusations that he dangled a woman off a balcony after she witnessed his abuse.The racketeering charge is sometimes used against a pool of defendants — as in the case against Mr. Trump that accused him and his allies of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia — but can also be used against individuals who prosecutors deem leaders of an operation, as in the R. Kelly prosecution.Mr. Combs was the only person known to have been charged with racketeering in his case, but the prosecution listed several others it said were part of a conspiracy, including his former chief of staff Kristina Khorram, his bodyguards and other lower-level staff described as “foot soldiers.”Mr. Combs has pleaded not guilty to all the charges against him. The defense has denied the existence of any criminal conspiracy and argues that he is not responsible for what the government has outlined as crimes. More