News and Media Reports

[QUOTE=Mpduration;6690621][URL]https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/11/asian-brothels-that-serviced-military-officials-politicians-kept/[/URL][/QUOTE]Ignore sensationalist media articles. Theories that a Korean agency is filled with Chinese spas are just dumb.

Google " AFFIDAVIT OF SPECIAL AGENT ZACHARY MITLITSKY IN SUPPORT OF DETENTION" and you can read the actual latest on the feds case, including any info they may have on Johns.

At this point they have the Boston Phone and one of the Virginia phones which were collected during the arrests.

They also have access to the accounting records totaling $1,000,000 (that's minimum 3000 appointments). These didn't include customer names. Just labeled them "New" or "Regular. " The Feds also have access to their Zelle transactions.

The Feds indicated prosecution of Johns would happen at the state level, and Middlesex County says the case has not been referred to them yet (likely the same situation for Fairfax).

Court documents also indicate they are keeping evidence sealed to protect people who may have their identity stolen.

[QUOTE=TommyDawson;6691329]Ignore sensationalist media articles. Theories that a Korean agency is filled with Chinese spas are just dumb.

Google " AFFIDAVIT OF SPECIAL AGENT ZACHARY MITLITSKY IN SUPPORT OF DETENTION" and you can read the actual latest on the feds case, including any info they may have on Johns.

At this point they have the Boston Phone and one of the Virginia phones which were collected during the arrests.

They also have access to the accounting records totaling $1,000,000 (that's minimum 3000 appointments). These didn't include customer names. Just labeled them "New" or "Regular. " The Feds also have access to their Zelle transactions.

The Feds indicated prosecution of Johns would happen at the state level, and Middlesex County says the case has not been referred to them yet (likely the same situation for Fairfax).

Court documents also indicate they are keeping evidence sealed to protect people who may have their identity stolen.[/QUOTE]Federal prosecutors may or may not have the ability or desire to prosecute mongers who patronized this agency. But if they release the customers' names, they can make life a living hell for anyone who patronized this agency or even got screened. Jobs, careers, reputations, security clearances, and marriages could be at stake. Don't forget the fallout when the names of customers in the "DC Madam's" little black book or the clients of Emperors Club VIP were revealed. A couple of elected officials lost their careers as a result.

Hopefully they won't release customers' names, but this underscores the dangers of providing personal identifying information (PII) to agencies and providers. Don't ever be so desperate to see someone that you're willing to put your reputation and career at risk.

[QUOTE=TommyDawson;6691329]Ignore sensationalist media articles. Theories that a Korean agency is filled with Chinese spas are just dumb.

Google " AFFIDAVIT OF SPECIAL AGENT ZACHARY MITLITSKY IN SUPPORT OF DETENTION" and you can read the actual latest on the feds case, including any info they may have on Johns.

At this point they have the Boston Phone and one of the Virginia phones which were collected during the arrests.

They also have access to the accounting records totaling $1,000,000 (that's minimum 3000 appointments). These didn't include customer names. Just labeled them "New" or "Regular. " The Feds also have access to their Zelle transactions.

The Feds indicated prosecution of Johns would happen at the state level, and Middlesex County says the case has not been referred to them yet (likely the same situation for Fairfax).

Court documents also indicate they are keeping evidence sealed to protect people who may have their identity stolen.[/QUOTE]Just read through the latest affidavit (as you referenced) and it's entirely geared toward keeping the defendants detained until trial. Lots of discussion about their financial shenanigans, including use of offshore accounts, and also discussion about financial resources that might exist but haven't yet been fully uncovered by LE. Unless I'm missing something, there were no significant client-centric discussions, nor would I expect there to be.

Here's the news article I found when I did a web search. It contains a direct link to the affidavit:

[URL]https://www.wcvb.com/article/boston-brothel-han-junmyung-lee-detention-hearing/45920414[/URL]

However, just because this latest development doesn't move the needle much (except for the defendants), that doesn't mean there aren't legitimate reasons for some to continue to be vigilant with respect to their own situations. I've posted my opinion about relative risks (linked below) and I haven't seen anything yet that warrants a change in that line of thinking.

[URL]http://www.usasexguide.nl/forum/showthread.php?33082-Agency-Discussion-and-Reviews&p=6680471&viewfull=1#post6680471[/URL]

For me, one of the biggest hurdles faced by Fed and State prosecutors has to do with timing and coordination. The federal case is going to take months, perhaps many months, while local misdemeanor cases would happen faster. If misdemeanor defendants start requesting discovery from the feds, and requesting subpoenas for fed agents and witnesses, that would seem (IMO) to be significant problem. With that in mind, I would be much more interested in what local prosecutors have to say rather than the feds.

[QUOTE=TomMcAn;6691486]Federal prosecutors may or may not have the ability or desire to prosecute mongers who patronized this agency. But if they release the customers' names, they can make life a living hell for anyone who patronized this agency or even got screened. Jobs, careers, reputations, security clearances, and marriages could be at stake. Don't forget the fallout when the names of customers in the "DC Madam's" little black book or the clients of Emperors Club VIP were revealed. A couple of elected officials lost their careers as a result.

Hopefully they won't release customers' names, but this underscores the dangers of providing personal identifying information (PII) to agencies and providers. Don't ever be so desperate to see someone that you're willing to put your reputation and career at risk.[/QUOTE]This is bad news "The Feds also have access to their Zelle transactions".

It better to have blue balls and not give out PII, than to get destroyed in your career and home life.

[QUOTE=Mpduration;6691824]This is bad news "The Feds also have access to their Zelle transactions".

It better to have blue balls and not give out PII, than to get destroyed in your career and home life.[/QUOTE]Check out the Richmond forum. Guys are lining up to do the same for another agency.

[QUOTE=JmSuttr;6690856]By saying that the US Attorney has the ability to go after clients for trafficking, just for using the service, you're giving an opinion on legal issues, right? And, since trafficking is a felony, you're saying that you believe clients have more to worry about than misdemeanor or security clearance issues.

Agree to disagree, I guess, as I haven't seen anything suggesting that clients are facing that level of jeopardy. One way or the other, we should know soon enough.[/QUOTE]It's not an opinion it's a fact, though should clarify it only refers military member or dod employee can be charged by the federal prosecutor for trafficking.

Everyone running around saying it's no big deal and I doubt anything will happen is gambling. Prostitution and soliciting is still on DC and virginas books where this happened. I lean more to the truth it's not that they can't prosecute it's if they choose to. In this case the evidence is overwhelming. So it's more like there choosing how deep they want to go. The problem is I doubt you'll hear about any convictions or repcussions. Due to keeping it quiet people taking plea deals and such. Also military doesn't announce early retirements. But I do know from a friend that several DOD investigative units are now involved.

[QUOTE=David032;6693839]It's not an opinion it's a fact, though should clarify it only refers military member or dod employee can be charged by the federal prosecutor for trafficking.

Everyone running around saying it's no big deal and I doubt anything will happen is gambling. Prostitution and soliciting is still on DC and virginas books where this happened. I lean more to the truth it's not that they can't prosecute it's if they choose to. In this case the evidence is overwhelming. So it's more like there choosing how deep they want to go. The problem is I doubt you'll hear about any convictions or repcussions. Due to keeping it quiet people taking plea deals and such. Also military doesn't announce early retirements. But I do know from a friend that several DOD investigative units are now involved.[/QUOTE]What source does your friend have to back that up?

Check out this DOD guy. He is being charged with "Pandering"? Never heard of that. This is a great example of someone's life being ruined before being found guilty.

[URL]https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12798545/Pentagon-official-undercover-agent-sex-motel-room.html[/URL]

[QUOTE=David032;6693839]It's not an opinion it's a fact, though should clarify it only refers military member or dod employee can be charged by the federal prosecutor for trafficking.

Everyone running around saying it's no big deal and I doubt anything will happen is gambling. Prostitution and soliciting is still on DC and virginas books where this happened. I lean more to the truth it's not that they can't prosecute it's if they choose to. In this case the evidence is overwhelming. So it's more like there choosing how deep they want to go. The problem is I doubt you'll hear about any convictions or repcussions. Due to keeping it quiet people taking plea deals and such. Also military doesn't announce early retirements. But I do know from a friend that several DOD investigative units are now involved.[/QUOTE]For one thing, active duty military personnel fall under the UCMJ, which hasn't even been touched on in this forum and which, as far as I've seen or heard, hasn't been discussed by LE or prosecutors at the Fed or state level.

For another, civilian DOD employees are subject to exactly the same laws as everyone else. So your statement that DOD employees have some kind of exceptional legal jeopardy makes zero sense. In fact, a DOD official was recently arrested in a so-called "trafficking" sting, and he's being charged with the usual pandering-solicitation misdemeanor. No mention of potential federal charges at all.

[URL]https://www.military.com/daily-news/2023/11/22/dodea-americas-chief-of-staff-arrested-human-trafficking-sting-operation-georgia.html[/URL]

Also, just to be crystal clear, at no point have I ever said that this isn't a big deal. What I have done is point out the relative risks, and also pointed out the challenges local LE will face in bringing misdemeanor prosecutions that involve conduct that's at the heart of an ongoing federal case.

Misdemeanor prosecutions are certainly possible, but they won't necessarily be an easy undertaking. And there's also no incentive for any local prosecutor to keep things quiet. In fact, the opposite is more likely to happen. Local District Attorneys have every reason to jump on the "anti-trafficking" bandwagon. And, with the extreme level of media attention, it's hard to see how anything connected to this multi-state bust can be kept quiet. Anything filed in MA or VA courts, state or federal, will immediately be picked up on by the reporters who scour those records every day.

As far as military early retirement is concerned, that's a non-criminal outcome that's certainly possible and falls into the same sphere of non-criminal jeopardy as security clearance or "code of conduct" issues. And, for anyone who works as a govt contract employee, there are applicable provisions in the Federal Acquisition Regulations that might come into play. All of these would fall under the purview of DOD investigative agencies, of which there are several.

Bottom line: If ANY client is federally charged, that would be a huge deal and (IMO) impossible to keep quiet. I've seen no indication that the federal case isn't 100% centered on the three named defendants, and I've seen no indication that's likely to change.

[QUOTE=DirteeBoy;6694904]Check out this DOD guy. He is being charged with "Pandering"? Never heard of that. This is a great example of someone's life being ruined before being found guilty.

[URL]https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12798545/Pentagon-official-undercover-agent-sex-motel-room.html[/URL][/QUOTE]Although LE calls everything "trafficking" these days, this is the kind of garden variety prostitution sting that's been going on for a long time. The other common type of sting involves using undercover women cops as streetwalkers. Most experienced SW mongers have their own hunting techniques that help them avoid getting stung. But going into the hotel room of a "provider" who is almost certainly unreviewed, and using a brand new or very recent ad, is a recipe for disaster.

I will never understand why so many mongers want to be at the front of the line to see every new hottie that posts an ad. It's a real roll of the dice, as this guy has just found out. At a minimum, he's flushed his entire career (20 years? 30 years?) down the toilet.

Use the forum, do good homework, and think with the big head!

P.S. I think every state has their own terminology for solicitation. Pandering must be what Georgia uses.

[URL]https://annandaletoday.com/police-seek-victims-in-massage-parlor-robberies/[/URL]

[URL]https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/feds-investigating-mass-va-brothel-bust-seek-charges-against-28-alleged-clients/3222986/[/URL]

[QUOTE=SNE1124;6721641][URL]https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/feds-investigating-mass-va-brothel-bust-seek-charges-against-28-alleged-clients/3222986/[/URL][/QUOTE]Time to lawyer up in VA if you're in the following groups:

-a year or less since using the service (1 yr statute of limitations in VA for class 1 misdemeanors).

-electronic / verifiable payment to the agency.

-interviewed and admitted something to the investigators.

You should be in the clear if it's been over a year. Sucks for Massachusetts which holds a six year statute on misdemeanors.

[QUOTE=Budentist;6721963]Time to lawyer up in VA if you're in the following groups:

-a year or less since using the service (1 yr statute of limitations in VA for class 1 misdemeanors).

-electronic / verifiable payment to the agency.

-interviewed and admitted something to the investigators.

You should be in the clear if it's been over a year. Sucks for Massachusetts which holds a six year statute on misdemeanors.[/QUOTE]The news report states the potential referrals for prosecution are taking place in Massachusetts. I've yet to read or hear about any similar referrals in Virginia. Keep in mind that the general statute of limitations for federal prosecutions is five years. Hopefully, someone with a much better legal mind than mine can clear up which would prevail in this instance.

For now, the best advice is to keep aware but don't panic. In the future, avoid giving out personal identifying information (PII) when seeking out agencies or providers.

[QUOTE=TomMcAn;6722119]The news report states the potential referrals for prosecution are taking place in Massachusetts. I've yet to read or hear about any similar referrals in Virginia. Keep in mind that the general statute of limitations for federal prosecutions is five years. Hopefully, someone with a much better legal mind than mine can clear up which would prevail in this instance.

For now, the best advice is to keep aware but don't panic. In the future, avoid giving out personal identifying information (PII) when seeking out agencies or providers.[/QUOTE]I received a question, via PM, about this development:

[QUOTE]Hello sir hope youve been well.

Curious your thoughts on the latest.

Seems there is appetite to charge the Johns.

The number charged exceeded the number of people they interviewed, meaning they are likely pursuing charges based solely PII.

To me the big question is what the referral process to Virginia looks like. Will they contact local police and use them to go straight to a magistrate judge, get probably cause, and release names? Or will they send evidence to the Fairfax DA?

I think your put everyone in a database and evaluate from there analysis looks more or less correct.[/QUOTE]And here's what I wrote in response:

Two things stand out from that release: 1. The relatively small number (28) of sex buyers against whom they say they'll be pursuing further action. 2. The fact that they came right out and admitted that they don't yet have probable cause for any of those 28.

When you consider how many clients were being seen in Boston alone, probably hundreds during the course of the investigation, 28 seems rather a small number.

Probable cause is the minimum requirement for an arrest, or issuance of a search warrant. If they don't have probable cause at this point in time, it's hard to imagine what missing piece might magically fall into place to meet the required standard. If some poor schmuck has already made self-incriminating statements, then maybe they'll be able to make a (misdemeanor) case against him. Other than that, it still seems like they have some major issues they haven't yet solved.

I could be wrong, but that statement almost seems like a face-saving measure intended to placate the "What about the Johns?" crowd. Otherwise, what's the point of saying that you're going after 28 guys, but you can't name them because you don't yet have the evidence. That's a real head-scratcher, IMO.

One possible positive note for Virginia mongers is that, if they have only been able to garner 28 names from the Boston side of the case, it's possible the Virginia list could be even smaller. No guarantees, of course, but it's always been my sense that the majority of the activity investigated centered on MA, with VA being an offshoot of the main investigation. It's also noteworthy that, unless I've missed something, VA local authorities have been radio silent so far.

While some Fed LE can bring cases directly to a local District Attorney, it's more customary to partner with the local PD or SO for the jurisdiction in question. That would be Fairfax PD or Sheriff, right? Unless / until statements start coming out of the relevant local VA agencies, I think VA mongers are probably OK. The Boston Feds can huff and puff, but so far it's not moving the needle in VA. There's been nothing preventing VA agencies from publicly jumping aboard the "anti-trafficking" bandwagon. And yet they've pointedly refrained from doing so.