Promoting sex services...

[Lilly Lombard]

I couldn`t help but notice that many women and agencies are advertising sex. It has become quite frequent to go on a provider`s website and see : , greek, cim, msog, etc. Now let`s be honnest, it doesn`t take a PHD to understand the meaning of those acronyms. It`s very simple to find MERB and find the acronym`s signification. It also became quite frequent to see pictures of the the providers naked in very erotic positions (I am not talking about artistic nudes or ``soft core``).

My point here is only this : When I started in this business 6yrs ago, a Montreal lawyer who also worked with Stella had told me that everything I did was legal (besides living off the money I made this way) as long as I didn`t advertise a sexual service. I also had that told to me by a woman at Stella in those times.

This means a woman can advertise companionship and will never have any problems with the law (besides maybe for not declaring her incomes). But a woman who says clearly : ``for 200$ per hour we will have sex`` is at risk of being arrested and prosecuted just as much as a woman who is caught hustling on the street.

So if all this is true, that means the day the governement puts some money into fighting prostitution, there are many agencies and women who will end up with at least a criminal file... and I don`t think the clients who end up being caught at the same time will be spared from prosecution either.

So I don`t know if there is a Quebec licensed lawyer here who could put some light on this? Besides the fact that the police doesn`t have all the ressources to fight prostitution and it is less checked than it use to be, is there anything in the law that has changed and now allows those things? Has hustling also become legal? Is ``pimping`` now something legal too? I really wonder.

 

[Lilly Lombard]

En fait, c'est toléré. Quand les policiers font de l'infiltration, assez souvent ils cherchent des mineurs et/ou de la drogue. Si l'escorte a des pleintes car elle dérange ses voisins, là aussi elle peut avoir des problèmes. Mais sinon, quoique le risque soit présent, il n'est pas énorme.

Mais dans le fond, est-ce que les policiers vont venir chez toi cogner et demander avec qui tu baises et si on s'est échangé de l'argent? Je ne croierais pas. C'est sûr que quelqu'un de moindrement discret n'ira pas faire ça en pleine rue.

Les policiers ont toujours fait de l'infiltration pour la drogue et les mineurs. Sauf que je me rappelle un temps où ils ramassaient la femme qui se faisait prendre à racoller des clients.

C'était lâ même chose pour celle qui vendait du "sex" dans le journal de Montréal ou sur internet.

Même pour aller plus loin que ça, le Incall était quelquechose vraiment pas toléré au Québec. C'est la raison pourquoi plusieurs indépendantes des années passé ne l'offraient qu'en Touring (car c'est toléré en Ontario et dans les autres provinces). Maintenant, les filles reçoivent même chez elles! Ça aussi c'est rendu "toléré"?

Alors j'imagine que ce que tu me dis c'est qu'ils sont de plus en plus tolérant, qu'ils n'en n'ont pratiquement plus rien à foutre et que pratiquement tout, si ça n'implique ni mineurs ni drogues est toléré.

 

[HaywoodJabloemy]

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the laws have not significantly changed in that time. "Hustling on the street" violates section 213 because it is communicating in a public place for the purpose of prostitution.
Pimping is covered by section 212.
"Common bawdy houses" are covered by section 210 and 211.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_VII//en

 

[eastender]

Overlooked Point

The police and the criminal aspects are minor issues.

The main concern is the income tax issue at the federal and provincial levels PLUS the GST and PST that is due on services offered. Generate over $30,000 a year in service related income and you have to pay GST and PST. This is also true for dancers in SCs.

Since avoiding taxes is a criminal matter you would have a number of issues to resolve. Suggest seeing an accountant instead of a lawyer.

 

[Possum Trot]

I wish a lawyer would respond here. My understanding of Canadian law is that prostitution is legal in Canada and that the only thing that isn't is solicitation, living off the avails (pimping/madam etc) and maintaining a common bawdy house ( incall).

So basically outcall escorting is legal. And why Montreal is the escort capital of North America.

I'm not sure whether internet advertising falls under the definition of solicitation or not and whether this has been tested in the courts or not.
It would appear that law enforcement isn't particularly interested in escort advertising. Certainly indy outcall ladies, of age, would appear to have noting to worry about. Has anyone ever heard of any being busted ?

The two Montreal agencies that were busted years ago (LFMJ and Heartbreakers) were busted because of underage girls were they not ?

Where's JohnHenry when you need him.

PS I understand most of the acronyms except I haven't seen anyone advertise PHD
PPS You have great taste in duo partners

 

[YouVantOption]

The two Montreal agencies that were busted years ago (LFMJ and Heartbreakers) were busted because of underage girls were they not ?

zzcream.

countless pictures in Alo Police of people doing the walk of shame out of 'bawdy houses'.

Cops running prossies out of the streets of the west end a few years back.

C'mon. it isn't that uncommon.

 

[HaywoodJabloemy]

...It would appear that law enforcement isn't particularly interested in escort advertising... Has anyone ever heard of any being busted ?..

In 1990 the publishing company of Now magazine in Toronto was charged under the communicating law, but the charges were eventually dropped.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOW_(magazine)

The wording of section 213 appears to refer to the behaviour of a person in a public place -- stopping cars or other people, etc. -- so attempting to apply it to print ads would probably be a stretch.

But ads for agencies or incalls that list specific services are in effect advertising that they are "living on the avails of prostitution" and/or "keeping a common bawdy house"... Although I would assume the police and everyone else know they are in the sex business even if the services are not listed. What I find puzzling is how even the raving abolitionists don't complain about the usual indifference of the police. You'd think they would be angrily urging the police to enforce the laws.

 

[Lilly Lombard]

But ads for agencies or incalls that list specific services are in effect advertising that they are "living on the avails of prostitution" and/or "keeping a common bawdy house"... Although I would assume the police and everyone else know they are in the sex business even if the services are not listed. What I find puzzling is how even the raving abolitionists don't complain about the usual indifference of the police. You'd think they would be angrily urging the police to enforce the laws.

I certainly agree with you on this. That is exactly my point! How come no one has complain yet? I am sure there are neighbors to incall places. I am sure there are angry women who's husband uses one of those services. I mean, it's gone far from a few years ago. And I remember when I was younger many massage parlors who didn't advertise any sex were busted.

Nowadays it would be so much simpler to do it, no need to even visit them and receive services in order to know they do it. On many level people are publicly breaking the law some, on all levels :

- Agency run by a manager, promotes a detailed sexual services in public on their website, they offer incalls and live off the money from sex trade.

That would be so easy to go and bust them.


I do not know how comfortable I am with it really, I don't think I am. Just like Charlotte said in a previous post, it goes completely against all the legal advices I've ever received.

 

[Possum Trot]

In 1990 the publishing company of Now magazine in Toronto was charged under the communicating law, but the charges were eventually dropped.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOW_(magazine)

The wording of section 213 appears to refer to the behaviour of a person in a public place -- stopping cars or other people, etc. -- so attempting to apply it to print ads would probably be a stretch.

But ads for agencies or incalls that list specific services are in effect advertising that they are "living on the avails of prostitution" and/or "keeping a common bawdy house"... Although I would assume the police and everyone else know they are in the sex business even if the services are not listed. What I find puzzling is how even the raving abolitionists don't complain about the usual indifference of the police. You'd think they would be angrily urging the police to enforce the laws.

Interesting case about now but they should have tried to charge the person that placed the ad and not the paper I think to make the charges stick.

The ads for incall do seem like a taunt for police though don't they.

 

[YouVantOption]

I think it's more a matter of 'what are LE's resources to act on complaints?'

JAG

Yes. Precisely right. Ergo the focus on sex-slaves and children, which are circumstances both egregious and a small enough subset upon which to focus scant resources.

 

[Possum Trot]

The internet could be considered a public place. I'm not aware of such a case ever setting a precedent however, here or in the US. If it did, a lot of people would have a lot to lose, least of which would be the escorts. If the internet can be considered a public space, then wouldn't newspapers as well, which have advertised escort services for years? Agencies would have a lot to lose - their advertising power and by extension their revenue - but who cares. What percentage of the J de M's revenue comes from their adult ads? Take into consideration that those ads cost 3 times regular ads. Does that revenue not also create revenue for the provincial and federal levels of government in the form of income tax? Finally, take into account that the big three papers require a business registration to advertise. That means the municipal court has money to lose as well. But there's a lot more to lose: once we open this internet sollicitation can of worms, won't we also need to look at other possible offences, such as aiding and abetting the commission of a crime, procuring (newspaper adult want ads) and living off the avails?

JAG

The legality of this is a concern/interest of mine and I remember asking Emma when she was joining FKS. She said, for what it's worth, that they set it up with legal advice so that it was legal.

The online gambling sites seem to dodge the law by setting up with offshore addresses and IP providers or on Native reserves. Perhaps something similar is being done by some of the more sophisticated agencies.

I have another question concerning the "living off the avails". I have a gut feeling that this only applies to pimps and agency owners and not the person providing the service. I guess it doesn't apply to newspapers either. It is so prevalent that it must have been tested at one point - perhaps it was this Now case.

 

[Lilly Lombard]

I have another question concerning the ``living off the avails``. I have a gut feeling that this only applies to pimps and agency owners and not the person providing the service. I guess it doesn`t apply to newspapers either. It is so prevalent that it must have been tested at one point - perhaps it was this Now case.

Well, from what I remember, about 4-5 yrs ago, a companion, who was also a university student and lived in a very nice condo in downtown Montreal was caught by Revenu Canada because they found irregularities in her income and lifestyle. I think she would deposit the money into her bank account and that is how they were able to accuse her of tax excape. I remember she ended up owing the governement a big amount of money.

 

[HaywoodJabloemy]

"Not enough resources" is the usual excuse police give for their general inaction. I suppose it has some validity because gathering evidence for a bust is a time consuming process. But in the 1970s in Toronto something called The Disorderly Houses Act was invoked to quickly close all of the massage parlours (which led to a big increase in the amount of street prostitution). And about five years ago police visited all 350 massage parlours in the Greater Toronto Area in one evening, so apparently there was no lack of resources that night.

Whatever the excuse may be, someone has to have decided that it's not important to put much effort into enforcing these laws. It contradicts the usual public police stance arguing against decriminalization. These laws are important enough to keep, but not important enough to enforce very much?

And police ignoring supposedly outlawed prostitution operations does not give the appearance of an honest justice system.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,21725996-5012936,00.html
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/extras/oq/book10lewis.html

 

[Kepler]

the day the governement puts some money into fighting prostitution, there are many agencies and women who will end up with at least a criminal file...

The criminal code makes it an offense to communicate for purpose of prostitution in "a public place". (defined in s. 213 (2) C.cr). When looking at the context, it is very probable (but not 100% certain) that a judge would rule that the internet is not "a public place" for purposes of s. 213 C.Cr. Therefore, the girls will most likely be OK if they pay their taxes (do you have a GST #? ) and respect the rest of the C.Cr.


The agency owners are taking a risk. By openly advertising their sexual services, they are helping to prove that they are "living off the avails" (s. 212.(1)(j) C.Cr.). If the police investigate, they could easily arrest them.

 

[Kepler]

Haha! Yep, I do have a GST and PST number! But I do not live of the "avails of".

Having seen your website, it seems clear that you "live (in part) on the avails of prostitution". This is not illegal in Canada. What is illegal is living "wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person" (s. 212 (1) j) C.Cr.)

The money received for companionship is a gift and in Canada, gifts are NOT taxable because they are given after taxes was already taken on it (I love accountants who read the grey zones).

There is no gray zone here. If your accountant says there is, get a new accountant! (or at least a second opinion.)

You are in the business of providing escort services. Any money received is therefore business income. It is not a gift, just like I do not give gifts to my plumber when he comes to fix my sink.

If you had a very very limited client list (eg: 5 people), no website, no set fee, etc. Then I could buy the "gift" theory. The facts in this case are very different.


Of course you can do what you want, but if you want to be legal, you must report this as business income.




("s. 5 (1), ITA: Subject to this Part, a taxpayer’s income for a taxation year from an office or employment is the salary, wages and other remuneration, including gratuities, received by the taxpayer in the year."

Under s. 6 of the act, you must even include as income jewelry and other gifts received from clients. It's sad, but true.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowFullDoc/cs/I-3.3///en )

 

[metoo4]

Lilly, as Kepler said get another accountant, or a second opinion or tell your accountant do do some homework... He's actually likely putting you in trouble if he's telling you you can't legally declare your income gained by escorting. As far as stating the money you get from unknown gentlemens is gifts these guys are giving you just because they are so generous, good luck having the tax guys believe this! You would have to reach these generous guys and have them confirm the gift for this explanation to be even considered, let alone accepted.

Legally, as long as the money you gain by escorting is declared and is only used for yourself, for your children or for a relative who's legally impaired in some way and living with you, that money is clean and... taxable!

The Internet topic, same as newspapers, has been discussed in court and it has been decided these were no public place in the sense where you need to be "invited" to come in, wherever by picking-up and reading the paper or accessing a web site. Both requires a deliberate action. Nobody is forcing anybody to read a specific newspaper or accessing a specific web site and, it is possible to avoid reading escorting ads in a newspaper or an escort site on the web, thus negating the "public" definition of a "public place" where you can't avoid to find yourself in by some way or another.

Now, if prostitution advertisements would be on top of newspapers or, for web site, if somebody would sell computers with the default home page pointing to an escort site, things could be different and possibly considered "public" but, as things are standing now, no risks.

Agencies are more at risk to be accused of "living of the avails" because they basically don't provide any services to the customers and take a cut out of the requested fee but, as somebody else mentioned, as long as there's nothing else hiding in the closet, they are pretty safe. A good example is Asservissante who's been around forever and is quite reliable. A way to possibly navigate around this risk is the model consisting of a group of Indies where there's a fixed amount to pay, no matter the amount of customers and this amount goes to predefined expenses and, theorically, no profits are made with these fees.

For the Indys who are totally independent, with their own site, no problems whatsoever, even with explicit pictures showing exactly the act they're willing to do for money so, acronyms and descriptions are quite benign. Again, moderation is always better to avoid undue attention and a total bust would be a link from a "family-oriented" site!

 

[Kepler]

(1) This is how an advisor who works with sex workers was telling me to make it out of a legal problem. [...] (2) To prove I meet many people and not only one or two, you have to follow me around town for a very long time [...] (3) I raise way less eyebrows [...] (3) much easier to live under the radar like this. [....] (4) I could try the : "I'm not an "escort" I am an "hostess"

1- He gave you bad advice. Get a refund.

2- When dealing with 'Revenue Canada', the burden of proof is reversed. They can say: "You got this money from multiple guys, and they were customers not sugar daddies", and now you must prove that you only had a few.

3- Just as long as you understand that just because many people get away with it, doesn't mean they get away with it forever.

4- No need for you to do this (except for personal reasons), since escorting is legal. You can declare it (as long as you don't employ other girls).


Seeing the low quality of advice offered out there, I think I should start charging for any further advice.

 

[sean_kato]

There are a few different issues that are being bounced around here...
Lilly, you are right about doing what you can to stay under the tax-man's radar. Staying under the scrutiny of any government agency should be the ultimate objective for everyone.

Now, as for the legality of it all... There are two issues that have been brought up by other posters... The first is the criminal aspect (prostitution related laws) and the other is the tax aspect (tax evasion).

The laws are quite grey. How you advertise your business and how you conduct it will determine how easy you are to be prosecuted. I will not get into the details as they have been mentioned before. What we all need to remember is that the police are not lawyers. They don't give a rat's ass about the fine print or the little details that may help to ultimately keep your ass out of jail. Simply put... if it smells fishy, then it is, period. They arrest you for "being at the wrong place at the wrong time" and now you and your lawyer do your best to keep you from becoming someone's cherry pie in the pen. Sometimes they get lucky and find a stash of this drug or an ounce of that drug on the premises. Now you have to defend yourself against these new accusations, as well. "No officer they aren't mine, I swear I didn't even know they were there next to the pile of condoms, no really!"
The repercussions of this can be quite severe, even before you make it into a court room. You will have to explain to your family and/or your employer what you were doing with that girl in the first place. "No boss (or honey), I didn't go there to pay for sex services, I did it for her company, but since I was already there and there were condoms on the nightstand I decided 'what the hell' I might as well nail her! But I never paid her for sex, just her time… the sex was free! Honest!" Damage-control would be on max. Your life could be ruined regardless of the outcome in the courts. So, the cops would have achieved their goal, one way or the other.

As for the tax-men...
You cannot claim "tax-free" gifts for any purpose if you receive them "habitually". You can receive a gift here, and maybe one there, but not thirty or more per month, and they can be gifts ‘in kind’ cannot be ‘cash’ gifts. Also, there are provisions in the tax law that allow the tax-man use tests such as "habitual" or "intended purpose" to determine what they deem to be your true intent or use. What that simply means is that they can say "well, we deem these gifts to be income because you receive them in an ‘habitual’ basis and you will be taxed accordingly on them, if you disagree, you can take us to court, in the meantime, you owe us this much $$$. And we seized your bank accounts until you pay us”. Get yourself a good tax lawyer. Ça va couter chère!

The point of my rambling is that we can debate where the legal line in the sand is all we want, but ultimately, nothing beats staying under the radar.

SK

 

[Lilly Lombard]

Seeing the low quality of advice offered out there, I think I should start charging for any further advice.

Indeed!

 

[Possum Trot]

Living off the avails is short for 'living of the avails of another person' or 'of a minor'. So no, it doesn't apply to the person providing the service. Why wouldn't it apply to newspapers? Aren't they making at least part of their earnings from the prostitution of other persons - where does the agencies' money to pay the ads come from?

I agree this isn't going to go to court any time soon though.

JAG

I don't know because it's blatantly in half the newspapers in the country. Perhaps because it is not transaction based ? I. e. it's not a portion of service perfomed and the fee collected? or that in the newspapers the ads do not specify sexual acts ? or there is something in the statutes that gives the press a loophole legally.