FBI sting targets 'sex tourists' but raises legal questions

[eastender]

Consequences

There is a lot of speculation that the Spitzer investigation was politically motivated by officials at his bank but I tend to think regardless what you think of Spitzer politically, the bank officials had legal cause to issue a SAR based on Spitzer's behavior. Spitzer supporters (if there are any left) may argue that it was an attempt to railroad Spitzer by political enemies, but I don't buy that. What I do buy is that Spitzer fucked up.

EB,

To put things into perspective could you explain what the consequences would be to the bank officials if they had not issued a SAR.

 

[EagerBeaver]

I am not here to give a dissertation on how to properly understand how the law works. If you guys want me to do so, send me a check.

Regarding John Lennon, from Wikipedia:

In 1972, the Richard Nixon Administration wanted to silence Lennon by trying to have him deported from the U.S., as Richard Nixon believed that Lennon's support for George McGovern could lose him the next election. Republican Senator Strom Thurmond suggested, in a February 1972 memo, that "deportation would be a strategic counter-measure" against Lennon. The next month the Immigration and Naturalization Service began deportation proceedings against Lennon, arguing that his 1968 misdemeanour conviction for cannabis possession in London had made him ineligible for admission to the U.S. Lennon spent the next four years in deportation hearings.While his deportation battle continued, Lennon appeared at rallies in New York City and on TV shows, including a week hosting the Mike Douglas Show in February 1972, where Jerry Rubin and Bobby Seale appeared as his guests.

On 23 March 1973, Lennon was ordered to leave the U.S. within 60 days, while Ono was granted permanent residence. In response, Lennon and Ono held a press conference at the New York American Bar Association on 1 April 1973 to announce the formation of the conceptual state of "Nutopia"; a place with "no land, no boundaries, no passports, only people", and all of its inhabitants would be ambassadors. The Lennons asked for political asylum in the U.S. while waving the white flag of Nutopia; two white handkerchiefs. The entire press conference can be seen in the (2006) Lion's Gate movie The U.S. vs. John Lennon. In June 1973, Lennon and Ono made their last political statement by attending the Watergate hearings in Washington, D.C.

Lennon's order of deportation was overturned in 1975. After Lennon’s murder, historian Jon Wiener filed a Freedom of Information request for FBI files on Lennon. The FBI admitted it had 281 pages in its files on Lennon but refused to release most of them, claiming they were national security documents. In 1983, Wiener sued the FBI with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. The case went to the Supreme Court before the FBI settled out of court in 1997; releasing all but ten of the contested documents. The story is told in the documentary The U.S. vs. John Lennon, by David Leaf and John Scheinfeld, released in theatres in September 2006, and on DVD in February 2007. The final ten documents in Lennon's FBI file were released in December 2006.

In 1976, Lennon's U.S. immigration status was finally resolved favourably, and he received his green card. With the departure of Nixon from the White House, his successor, Gerald Ford, showed little interest in continuing the battle. When Jimmy Carter was inaugurated as president on 19 January 1977, Lennon and Ono attended the Inaugural Ball.

 

[EagerBeaver]

LMAO!

So technically as prostitution is illegal in the states...people who book a Montreal SP (adult) using their lap top / phone while they are still on US soil do break the law. Right?

Wrong, but you also assume that is what happening in most cases when it isn't.

Also, you guys are always focused on what the law is when all that matters is whether a particular law is enforced. But what the law says......is that prostitution is illegal if the activity happens in CT. It doesn't say it is illegal if it happens in Montreal. So to answer your question again.....wrong.

You want to know anything more, send me money.

 

[bond_james_bond]

If you are a member of the US military, it is a violation of UCMJ to engage in prostitution anywhere in the world. How that can be enforced, I don't know.

As a private citizen, US LE can do nothing if you see adult prostitutes in foreign countries where prostitution is legal.

There are State Department documents and U.N. proclamations opposing sex tourism, but those are "feel good" measures which carry no legal weight.

Even if she is physically located on foreign soil (Costa Rica or Canada) if the booking / sollicitation of the prostitute is done on US soil via the phone or internet are you not breaking US laws?

Most state laws say something like "shall not solicit another person ..." This implies that the solicitor and the person being solicited are both physically present in the state.

 

[EagerBeaver]

That's right

As a private citizen, US LE can do nothing if you see adult prostitutes in foreign countries where prostitution is legal.

Bingo! They are powerless because the activity is legal. If the activity is legal then nothing else matters.

 

[LoveWhiteGirls]

so it seems these charges can be laid in the case:
Travel With Intent To Engage in Illicit Sexual Conduct
Attempt and Conspiracy to Engage in Illicit Sexual Conduct in Foreign Places

but it's the "intent" part that's really tricky

Below is the section of the United States Code ...
(b) Travel With Intent To Engage in Illicit Sexual Conduct.— A person who travels in interstate commerce or travels into the United States, or a United States citizen or an alien admitted for permanent residence in the United States who travels in foreign commerce, for the purpose of engaging in any illicit sexual conduct with another person shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

...
(e) Attempt and Conspiracy.— Whoever attempts or conspires to violate subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d) shall be punishable in the same manner as a completed violation of that subsection.

 

[LoveWhiteGirls]

i guess technically booking a Montreal prostitute is illegal (solicition of prostitution, attempt to hire prostitute)
but booking an escort (payment for for companionship only) is legal

LMAO!

So technically as prostitution is illegal in the states...people who book a Montreal SP (adult) using their lap top / phone while they are still on US soil do break the law. Right?

 

[bond_james_bond]

There is a similar law for Canadians.

Remember the Vancouver teacher guy, who was in Thailand molesting little boys?

Not sure what Canadian authorities will do with him after the Thai authorities are done with him.

 

[eastender]

Slippery Slope

Also, I do think it's conceivable that some radical anti-prostitution crusaders would find it reasonable to pass a law that would make it illegal for an American to meet any prostitute of any age in any foreign country. I don't think any such law has ever been introduced, but I bet that certain radical feminists would approve of such a law. That's why I'm a little skeptical about Congress passing laws that attempt to regulate the behavior of Americans when they're abroad, because the next step might be to criminalize a common behavior like meeting an adult escort in Montreal.

Captain Renault,

You are correct about the slippery slope element that is inherent in any legislation. Legislators look at the results, the public support - even if there is virtually none, and try to push their agenda.

Metered or Permit parking in Montreal are two prime examples.

One overlooked facet of Americans leaving the USA is that once they are in another country and they get into any type of legal trouble they get help from the USA Embassy or American officials. True for nationals of other countries as well but few countries carry the big stick that the Americans do.

This opens the door for the US government to effectively say to their people "if you want our help outside our borders, you must play by our rules."

 

[bond_james_bond]

Ironically, there are quite a few US states with an age of consent of 16 or 17.

If that were your home state, and you saw a 16-17 year old prostitute, there would be no sex offense, only the morality offense of the prostitution misdemeanor. Remember Amy Fisher? Age of consent in New York State is 17.

If you were to travel to another state with that intention, then the US federal law would come into play, EVEN though you would not have committed a sex offense in the state you are traveling to. If there's no prostitution at all, and you were seeing a 16-17 year old girlfriend in one of those states, you would be violating absolutely no state law, yet violating the federal law.

Again, all in theory. Application, enforcement, and prosecution can be quite a different story.

 

[C Dick]

I do not accept the idea of countries prosecuting their citizens for actions they take in other countries. I do not accept that a government can own people and punish them for outside actions. In this case, he made the arrangements in the US, so fine. But as posters have pointed out, what would stop the US government from saying that US prostitution laws apply to US citizens everywhere? That is not right. Neither is child molesting, but the way to deal with that is to pressure the other countries to make their own laws about it.

 

[YouVantOption]

If you are a member of the US military, it is a violation of UCMJ to engage in prostitution anywhere in the world. How that can be enforced, I don't know

ENFORCED? I'm going two for two here mentioning Thailand in a 2 consecutive posts, but let us just say the whole godamned country's economy is based upon the cash cow of prostitution and the fact that the U.S. Navy likes to 'dock' there.

I would expect the huge number of American-Vietnamese might also speak to this rule being somewhat under-enforced.

 

[YouVantOption]

I do not accept the idea of countries prosecuting their citizens for actions they take in other countries. I do not accept that a government can own people and punish them for outside actions. In this case, he made the arrangements in the US, so fine. But as posters have pointed out, what would stop the US government from saying that US prostitution laws apply to US citizens everywhere? That is not right. Neither is child molesting, but the way to deal with that is to pressure the other countries to make their own laws about it.

No, the way to deal with it is to stick the sick fucks in a foreign jail for a while, let them come home and finish their sentence and quietly beat the living crap out of them when they are in the joint here. Then, castrate them.

All while encouraging other countries to bring their laws up to international standards, which is pretty much what is happening although obviously not nearly fast enough.

What you accept is irrelevant. It won't make much a defense for a kiddie-fucker.Nor should it.

I'm all for someone making an informed decision to sell his or her body. I can even accept pimping an adult. But renting out a kid? Whether or not it is a law somewhere, it is immoral.

 

[EagerBeaver]

What would happen if the American tourist thought he was booking an 18 y.o SP (let's say advertised as 18-19 y.o), eventhought he thought she looked quite young he still had sex with her in a room at le Chablis, there was a police raid, he was arrested and the girl turned out to be 16? In theory, would he be breaking US Fed laws for illicit sex with an underage prostitute on foreign soil?

Wrong. No criminal violation of the statute has occurred. How many times do we have to say this?

Many FBI agents have law degrees and even the ones that don't know that the US attorneys are only interested in cases where intent can be proven. As in the case with the CR moron. The US attorney will never prosecute an "ooops, I thought she was 18" type case under this statute because that is negligence, and under the statute you must prove intent. Negligence does not amount to a criminal violation under this statute.

As I have mentioned a million times here and elsewhere, posters are too caught up in what the law says rather than its intent and how it is getting enforced. Negligence is not a violation under this statute. The people who are getting busted are serial pedophiles who are trafficking children from one country to another or going to another country to fuck children. Someone figured out that a lot of the money being used to fund these overseas criminal trafficking enterprises originates in the USA, and they enacted legislation designed to thwart the sources.

The guy who was busted in the CR sting had a specific intent to fuck an underage girl overseas and moronically disclosed that intent, so case closed against him. The FBI is trying to catch the serial pedophiles but they stumbled upon a complete moron who specifically intended to book with a 14 year old.

The chances of someone being arrested by foreign police in an "oops! I thought she was 18!" scenario, as opposed to the FBI, is so dramatically higher as to not even warrant discussion about concern of the latter.

If you are in the USA unless you call overseas and say, "hello, I want someone underage", or write and say "I want someone underage", you are not even going to be on the FBI's radar let alone charged and prosecuted. And who does this, except the moron mentioned in the original post by GG?