Comments on Current Events In Criminal Law from the Federal Criminal Courts in Texas

February 18, 2008

PROSTITUTION: “THE WORLD’S OLDEST PROFESSION” AND NOW A VERY SERIOUS CRIME

HOUSTON CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY John T. Floyd Discusses Federal Prosecutions of Prostitution Rings

Eric Hayes and Terrence Williams were “pimps” in a nationwide prostitution ring until they were convicted last October in a Toledo, Ohio federal court. In fact, they referred to themselves as “pimp partners.” Their prostitution ring used both juvenile and adult women who were trained and disciplined to live off the earnings from their “johns.” The pimp partners ran a lucrative criminal enterprise that set a fee schedule for particular sexual services, controlled certain areas where only their prostitutes could work, and shared information with other pimps about the activities of the police in their area.

Their immense area of operation spanned 12 states, including Texas, and the District of Columbia.

The “pimp partners” focused much of their recruitment efforts on juveniles, some as young as 12 and 13. Prosecutors charged that they enticed these young girls into prostitution by “selling [them] the dream of love, money, travel, and protection.” When the “dream” did not materialize and the girls asked questions, the pimp partners allegedly resorted to force and coercion to keep them working. Some of the girls and women suffered broken bones and brain injuries from the beatings administered by the pimp partners.

The investigation that brought down the pimp partners was conducted by the FBI, the Pennsylvania State Police, and the IRS. The Pennsylvania State Police would develop information on each prostitute the agency arrested. The FBI then used this information to track the prostitutes around the country, leading to court-ordered wiretaps on the cell phones of the pimp partners. And the IRS tracked over 6,500 Western Union wire transfers from the prostitutes to the pimp partners. These investigations produced enough information to convict the pimp partners of conspiracy to engage in interstate prostitution, interstate travel in aid of racketeering, and coercion of women into prostitution.

The “pimp partners” case was part of a cooperative effort between the FBI, the U.S. Justice Department, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. This investigative initiative began as a nationwide law enforcement effort called the Innocence Lost National Initiative which was established in 2003 to prevent and prosecute child prostitution. Through 2007, this initiative resulted in 374 open investigations, 967 arrests, 195 indictments, 217 convictions and the recovery of more than 300 children.

Writing for the online political newsletter “Counterpunch,” David Rosen in January 2007 published a piece entitled “The Double Life of Prostitution in America” in which he pointed out that since its 1990 release, the movie “Pretty Woman” (Julia Roberts as a streetwise hooker) has grossed more than $465 million. Rosen observed that “prostitution is as American as apple pie. It has been part of the social fabric since the earliest British settlers first colonized the Atlantic Coast. While often tolerated as a necessary evil, prostitution has rarely been regulated or accepted as an economic feature of civic life. It is either constantly denounced by preachers, politicians and others in authority or turned into a caricature, a glamorous indulgence of commercial exchange. For the good of these women and the thousands of others who are forced to sell their bodies, its time America got beyond this false polarity.”

The State of Nevada decriminalized prostitution in the early 1930s and made it legal in 1967. Today there are thirty-six licensed bordellos in the state that paid anywhere from $135,000 to $5 million for their license fees. These legal bordellos generate an estimated $35 to $50 million in revenues annually. David Rosen cited a 2005 University of Las Vegas study conducted by Kate Housbeck and Barbara Brents found that in Southern Nevada there were 20 adult shops and 30 strip clubs operating. In Clark County alone (Las Vegas) there are approximately 100,000 registered “erotic dancers.”

These findings compelled the authors to observe that “Las Vegas is the symbolic center of the sex industry in the United States.”

There is indeed a “sex industry” in the United States. Pornography alone now generates nearly $10 billion each year in this industry. The nation’s appetite for sexual pleasure, no matter how perverse, fuels prostitution rings like the one operated by the “pimp partners.” The United States Justice Department in 2006 estimated that approximately 17,500 people are “trafficked” into this country each year primarily for sexual purposes. The DOJ reported that “human trafficking” produced $9.5 billion in profits worldwide for those who trafficked the nearly 900,000 men, women and children across international borders for either forced sex or labor.

The social damage caused by human trafficking (either for sex or labor) and the kind of prostitution rings operated by the “pimp partners” has resulted in a greater emphasis by law enforcement prostitution-related crimes. FBI figures show that in 1999 there were 92,200 prostitution arrests made in this country. By 2005, the number had decreased to 84,891 – nearly an 8 percent decline indicating the suggesting success of such programs like the Innocence Lost National Initiative, Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (produced a 405% increase in trafficking indictments by the Justice Department), and the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 which increased to a maximum of 20 years the penalty for sex offenders who do not register with the National Sex Offender Registry.

There are primarily four federal statures U.S. Attorneys utilize to prosecute sex trafficking offenses involving adult and juvenile victims: 18 U.S.C. § 2421, § 2422, § 2423, and § 1952.

18 U.S.C. § 2421 provides:

“Whoever knowingly transports any individual in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, with intent that such individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.”

§ 2421 is a derivative of the White-Slave Traffic Act (more commonly known at the Mann Act passed by Congress in 1910. The law prohibited the interstate transportation of females for “immoral purposes.” The primary purpose of the infamous Mann Act was to attack prostitution, immorality, and human trafficking. The first person prosecuted under the law was African-American heavyweight boxing champ Jack Johnson. The boxing legend was accused taking a white woman, who he later married, from a brothel and traveling with her across a state line.

From the very beginning, the Mann Act has enjoyed a colorful legal history. The United States Supreme Court in 1913 held that while Congress could not regulate prostitution, it could regulate “travel” to facilitate the “world’s oldest profession” and prevent the nation’s highways from being used for “immoral purposes.” See: Hoke v. United States, 227 U.S. 308, 322 (1913). That same term the Court also observed that the law was not limited to “prostitution” but to general “debauchery” as well. See: Athanasaw v. United States, 227 U.S. 326, 328 (1913). Four years later the Court expanded the scope of the Mann Act even further by saying it not only applied to prostitution but to non-commercial consensual sexual liaisons as well, including consensual extramarital sexual affairs on the premise that such affairs amounted to “immoral sex.” See: Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 484-85 (1917).

These Supreme Court decisions opened the door to many high-profile examples of injustice:

•Charlie Chaplain, the famous British film actor, was prosecuted under the Mann Act for his involvement with actress Joan Barry. Although acquitted, the Mann Act prosecution permanently damaged Chaplin’s image in the United States.
•William J. Thomas, the pioneering sociologist, had his academic career destroyed at the University of Chicago after he was charged with a Mann Act violation when he was caught in the company of the wife of an American military officer stationed in France, even though he was also acquitted.
•Elizabeth Smart, the famous Canadian author, was arrested in 1940 under the Mann Act when she crossed a state border with her lover, British poet George Barker. She later wrote about the incident in a fictionalized account entitled “By Grand Central Station I Sat Down and Wept.”

In 1944 the Supreme Court finally applied some legal restraint to the broad reach of the Mann Act. See: Mortensen v. United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944). The defendants in Mortensen operated a brothel in Grand Island, Nebraska. They transported two prostitutes to Salt Lake City, Utah for a two-week vacation. They were indicted upon their return to Grand Island for a Mann Act violation. Their indictment, and subsequent conviction, occurred even though the two women did not engage in any acts of prostitution during the vacation, and, in fact, did not even discuss prostitution during that two-week period. The Supreme Court reversed their convictions, finding that the sole purpose of the vacation was recreation even though the two women planned to, and in fact, did return to prostitution upon their return to Grand Island. In overturning the defendants’ conviction, the Court held that “an intention that the women or girls shall engage in the conduct outlawed by Section 2 [§ 2421] must be found to exist before the conclusion of the interstate journey and must be the dominant motive of such interstate movement.” Id., 322 U.S. at 374.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, has never been unduly impressed with the “dominant motive” phrase expressed in Mortensen. While the Fifth Circuit acknowledged that one of the essential elements of the Mann Act is that the defendant transport the victim with an intent to engage her in criminal sexual activity, the court added:

“[I]t is not necessary to a conviction under the Act that the sole and single purpose of the transportation of a female in interstate commerce was such immoral practices. It is enough that one of the dominant purposes was [criminal sexual activity]. It suffices if one of the efficient and compelling purposes in the mind of the accused in the particular transportation was illicit conduct of that kind. The illicit purpose denounced by the Act may have coexisted with other purpose or purposes, but it must have been an efficient and compelling purpose.” See: United States v. Campbell, 49 F.3d 1079, 1082-83 (5th Cir. 1995). See also: Forrest v. United States, 363 F.2d 348 (5th Cir. 1966) [precedent relied upon by Campbell court].

The Fifth Circuit in Forrest dealt with a case involving a two-count conviction under § 2421. The court outlined the facts of that case as follows:

“In March, 1964, appellant rented an apartment in a suburb of Birmingham where he and ‘Nancy,’ one of the three women, lived and operated a house of prostitution. Appellant and ‘Nancy’ recruited the other two young women, each of whom were given regular scheduled days of residence in the apartment, where they filled ‘dates’ of prostitution. The three women, with ‘Nancy’ as madam and sometime prostitute, also filled ‘dates’ as call girls from the apartment. Either appellant or ‘Nancy’ collected forty percent of the girls' earnings.

”During April, 1964, appellant and the three women decided to take a vacation trip to Pensacola, Florida, it being agreed that neither appellant nor ‘Nancy’ would take any percentage of the girls' earnings while there, and that any money received for ‘dates’ would be divided equally between the two interested participants. Prior to departure, appellant telephoned an acquaintance in Pensacola and suggested that the girls would be available there for plying their trade. Upon their arrival, appellant's contact provided one customer, whose $50.00 was divided between the two girls excluding ‘Nancy.’

”The week-end sojourn ended, the four returned to Birmingham to resume business; that very evening a ‘date’ was filled. Appellant's business continued as usual until the apartment was raided by local law enforcement officers late in May, 1964.” Id., at 349.

The Fifth Circuit concluded that the evidence was sufficient to show that the defendant transported the women for the “dual purpose” of taking a vacation and for the girls to fill dates of prostitution. The court noted that all four of the vacationers discussed the opportunities the three women would have to make expense money on the trip. The court pointed out that the only difference between these money-making opportunities and the usual order of business was that neither the defendant nor “Nancy” collected forty percent for the house. Id., at 351. The court concluded:

“There was conflicting testimony concerning the prior arrangements by telephone with a person in Pensacola. Appellant urges that the government's evidence as to the telephone call was legally insufficient in that the only documentary evidence of such was a telephone company bill showing a call originating from appellant's apartment, to Gulf Breeze, Florida, a suburb of Pensacola, on April 27, 1964, some seven days after the group returned to Birmingham, as evidenced by a motel bill paid by appellant on April 20, 1964. We agree this inconsistency creates a negative inference as to whether any such call was made prior to the interstate trip, but at the same time agree with the trial court that the evidence preponderates that such a call was made by appellant prior to the commencement of the trip. Two of the government's witnesses, ‘Nancy’ and one of the girls, testified unequivocally that appellant made such a call; all three of the women testified, uncontradicted by appellant who merely stated he could not recall, that the four vacationers had discussed at length the prior telephonic arrangement that the girls would ‘date’ in Pensacola.

”Taken as a whole, the evidence that such a call was made, when added to the other evidence of prior planning, clearly supports a finding that the intent or purpose to facilitate acts of prostitution was present in appellant's mind at or prior to the inception of the interstate transportation.

”Admittedly, appellant came to Pensacola with several purposes in mind in addition to recreation and facilitation of the girls' immoral acts: to introduce ‘Nancy,’ whom he planned to marry, to a friend; to show off his new car; and to follow up on a business deal. But the conclusion is inescapable that recreation and prostitution were the predominant ones.” Id., at 352.

The second federal statute, § 2422, is known as the “Adam Walsh” act. It provides:

“ (a) Whoever knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, to engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

”(b) Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life.”

The following facts from a Fifth Circuit case offer an example of the kind of crimes the statute targets:

“On November 7, 2004, thirty-eight-year-old defendant-appellee Horacio Armendariz visited the Yahoo ‘Lil Boys for Older Men’ Internet chat room and began an online conversation with a person whom he believed to be a thirteen-year-old boy named Toby. ‘Toby’ was in fact a female undercover law enforcement officer pretending to be an underage boy. Following their initial interaction, Armendariz contacted Toby via the Internet on November 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, and 18. During these online chats, Armendariz described sexual encounters that he would like to have with Toby, expressing his desire to teach Toby how to ‘do it in a bed,’ perform oral and anal sex on him, and take a shower with him. He also told Toby that he would teach him how to perform oral sex and how to do other things of a sexual nature. Armendariz and Toby also exchanged phone numbers, and on November 10, Armendariz called Toby on the telephone, still believing that the officer who spoke with him was a thirteen-year-old boy. During that conversation, Armendariz told Toby that he would like to meet him in person for sex, but acknowledged that it was illegal for him to ‘go out’ with someone who was underage. In subsequent Internet conversations with Toby, Armendariz admitted that he had masturbated after they had talked on the phone, and began planning to travel from Marshall, Texas, to Houston, Texas, for the purpose of having a sexual encounter with the boy.

”Although Armendariz had originally planned to travel to Houston to meet Toby on November 12, Armendariz had to cancel because of his work schedule. They agreed to meet instead on Friday, November 19, when Armendariz said that he could take the entire weekend off of work to spend with Toby. Armendariz booked a Houston hotel room for that weekend in advance and encouraged Toby to fabricate a story to explain his whereabouts to his mother. They arranged to meet that Friday at 3:30 p.m. in a parking lot near Toby's school where Armendariz said that he would be waiting for him in a red car.

”On November 19, 2004, Houston law enforcement officials arrested Armendariz in the parking lot where he and the undercover officer posing as Toby had agreed to meet. Armendariz admitted that he knew that Toby was thirteen years old and that, even though he knew it was wrong, he had traveled to Houston to meet Toby because he was lonely. Armendariz also admitted that he believed that Toby was expecting to have sex with him that weekend, but Armendariz denied that he was expecting the same. However, when the police performed a consent search of Armendariz's single-bed hotel room, they found a pack of condoms, lubricant, and two enemas.

”Law enforcement officials also searched Armendariz's computer and found that he had corresponded with at least four to five other males ranging in age from sixteen to twenty-three, but found no evidence that he attempted to have, or succeeded in having, sex with a minor other than Toby. The officers found no child pornography on Armendariz's computer or in his possession. Prior to this arrest, Armendariz had a steady history of gainful employment and had no convictions or criminal history of any kind.

”On December 13, 2004, a federal grand jury indicted Armendariz on one count of use of the Internet to attempt to entice a minor between twelve and fifteen years of age to engage in sexual activity that would constitute an Aggravated Sexual Assault crime under TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). On January 10, 2005, Armendariz pleaded guilty to the indictment without a plea agreement.” See: United States v. Armendariz, 451 F.3d 352, 254-55 (5th Cir. 2006).

This statute has drawn substantial criticism from both outside and inside the judicial arena because an individual can be prosecuted and convicted without an “actual minor” being involved in the alleged offense.

Nonetheless, this defense has been uniformly rejected by the federal appellate courts [Fifth, Ninth, Eleventh, and Third circuits]. See: United States v. Farner, 251 F.3d 510, 512 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Meek, 366 F.3d 705, 718 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Root, 296 F.3d 1222, 1227 (11th Cir. 2002); United States v. Tykarsky, 446 F.3d 458 (3rd Cir. 2006).

This defense has also been rejected in aggravated sexual assault cases brought under Tex.Penal Code § 22.021. See: Chen v. State, 42 S.W.3d 926 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001).

The defense is known as “legal impossibility.” It occurs when the intended acts, even if completed, would not amount to a crime. See: United States v. Berrigan. 482 F.2d 171, 188 (3d Cir. 1973). The following are examples of legal impossibility recognized by the courts: a person accepts goods he mistakenly believed were stolen; a hunter shoots a stuffed deer believing it to be alive; or a prisoner attempts to smuggle letters out of prison under the mistaken belief the warden has not consented to outgoing mail. See: United States v. Tykarsky, supra. 446 F.3d at 465.

A legal impossibility defense under § 2422(b) involving an undercover agent is premised on the theory that there was no “actual minor child” involved in the online conversations with the potential predator. The federal courts have dismissed their theory, pointing to the “attempt” provisions of § 2422(b). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that this “underscore[d] Congress’s effort to impose liability regardless of whether the defendant succeeded in the commission of his intended crime.” United States v. Meek, supra, at 718. The Eleventh Circuit said the “attempt” provision indicates the “fact that [the defendant’s] crime has not ripened into a completed offense is not obstacle [to a conviction].” United States v. Root, supra, at 1227.

The Third Circuit more recently held that “interpreting § 2422(b) to require the involvement of an actual minor would render the attempt provision largely meaningless because, as a practical matter, little exists to differentiate those acts constituting ‘enticement’ and those constituting ‘attempted enticement’. The attempt provision is therefore most naturally read to focus on the subjective intent of the defendant, not the actual age of the victim.” United States v. Tykarsky, supra, at 466-67.

Defense attorneys continue to raise the defense because at least two U.S. District Court decisions have questioned the legislative intent of § 2422(b), saying that the legislative history of the statute requires the involvement of an actual minor before there can be a conviction UNDER the statute. United States v. Helder, No. 05-00125-01-CR-W.DW (W.D. Mo. August 5, 2005) and United States v. Hicks, No. 05-00042-01-CR-W-D.W, 2005 WL 2090785 (W.D.Mo. August 29, 2005)[both decisions unpublished].

These decisions relied heavily on an unadopted amendment to § 2422(b) that would have made it a crime to “knowingly contact an individual, who has been represented to the person making the contact as not having attained the age of 18 years” for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity. The District Court in Helder and Hicks reasoned by that rejecting the amendment that would have imposed liability on a law enforcement agent posing as a minor, Congress implied the need for an “actual minor” before there could be a violation of § 2422(b). See, United States v. Tykarsky, supra, at 468. See also: United States v. Helder, 452 F.3d 751, 753-54 (8th Cir. 2006)[En Banc decision following lead of other circuits decision that “actual minor” not prerequisite in § 2422(b) cases].

These two Federal district court decisions at the very least legitimize raising the defense until the United States Supreme Court can resolve the matter. The fact that the issue has been presented to so many courts of appeal indicates a legitimate controversy as to whether § 2422(b) requires the use of an “actual minor.”

The third federal statute, § 2423, provides:

“ (a) Transportation with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity. A person who knowingly transports an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any commonwealth, territory or possession of the United States, with intent that the individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life.

”(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.

”(c) Engaging in illicit sexual conduct in foreign places. Any United States citizen or alien admitted for permanent residence who travels in foreign commerce, and engages in any illicit sexual conduct with another person shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

”(d) Ancillary offenses. Whoever, for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, arranges, induces, procures, or facilitates the travel of a person knowing that such a person is traveling in interstate commerce or foreign commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct shall be fined under this title, 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.

”(f) Definition. As used in this section, the term ‘illicit sexual conduct’ means (1) a sexual act (as defined in section 2246 [18 USCS § 2246]) with a person under 18 years of age that would be in violation of chapter 109A [18 USCS §§ 2241 et seq.] if the sexual act occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or (2) any commercial sex act (as defined in section 1591 [18 USCS § 1591]) with a person under 18 years of age.

”(g) Defense. In a prosecution under this section based on illicit sexual conduct as defined in subsection (f)(2), it is a defense, which the defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant reasonably believed that the person with whom the defendant engaged in the commercial sex act had attained the age of 18 years.”

The Fifth Circuit in United States v. Garcia-Lopez, 234 F/3d 217 (5th Cir. 2000) dealt with a § 2423(b) case. In May 1998 the defendant, Andres Fernando Garcia-Lopez, moved in with Dyanira Barragan and her three children. In August of that year the defendant took Barragan’s 13-year-old daughter, LB, with him to Monterrey, Mexico. The defendant had procured false identification for the teenager to be used by her during the trip. LB said the defendant raped her twice while they were in Mexico. Eventually LB’s grandmother and sister were forced to go to Mexico to get LB and return her to her home in Houston. Id., at 218-19. Garcia-Lopez was sentenced to the maximum 120-month term. Id., at 219.

The last federal statute, § 1952, provides:

“(a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses the mail or any facility in interstate or foreign commerce, with intent to -

1. distribute the proceeds for any unlawful activity; or
2. commit any crime of violence to further any unlawful activity; or
3. otherwise promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or carrying on, of any unlawful activity, and thereafter performs or attempts to perform –
(A) an act described in paragraph (1) or (3) shall be fined under this title,
imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both; or
(B) an act described in paragraph (2) shall be fined under this title,
imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results
shall be imprisoned for any terms of years or for life.

“(b) As used in this section Oi) ‘unlawful activity’ means (1) any business enterprise involving gambling, liquor on which the Federal excise tax has not been paid, narcotics or controlled substances as defined in section 102(6) of the Controlled Substance Act [21 U.S.C.S. § 802(b)], or prostitution offenses in violation of the laws of the State in which they are committed or of the United States, (2) extortion, bribery, or arson in violation of the laws of the State in which committed or of the United States, or (3) any act which is indictable under section 1956 or 1957 of title [18 U.S.C.S § 1956 and 1957] and (ii) the term ‘State’ includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.

“(c) Investigations of violations under this section involving liquor shall be conducted under the supervision of the Attorney General.”

This statute is also known as the “Travel Act.” Its elements are identical to the elements of § 2421 except it has an additional element of conduct in furtherance of prostitution after transportation across a state line for that purpose. See: Pandelli v. United States, 635 F.2d 533 (6th Cir. 1980).

The Fifth Circuit in United States v. Langley, 919 F.2d 926 (5th Cir. 1990) set forth facts that constitute a crime under § 1952:
“Langley owned and operated ‘Kelly's,’ an escort service business in San Antonio, Texas. Langley established this business in order to facilitate the management, promotion and performance of prostitution services.

”In late November 1987, Langley began operations by opening a bank account at Broadway National Bank in San Antonio, Texas. Langley used this account to deposit the proceeds received from Kelly's prostitution activities. In December 1987, Langley filed an Assumed Name Certificate with the Bexar County Clerk's Office. Later that month, Langley rented a residence. This residence and the telephone at the residence were used intermittently in the course of Kelly's business.

”Kelly's clients paid in cash or with checks or credit cards. The typical credit card charge was about $ 150. Kelly's received approximately $ 1,200 per month by this means of payment, representing roughly ten to twenty percent of its total prostitution income. Langley kept slightly less than half of each charge, with the prostitute providing the service receiving the remainder.

”Langley laundered the credit card purchases through a merchant account entitled ‘Business Automation,’ a company based in California. Langley would transfer the charge slips to Business Automation, which would then seek payment from the credit card company. When the charge was paid, Business Automation would write a check payable to Langley for a percentage of the amount collected. Langley deposited the checks in Kelly's Broadway National Bank account. The processing of the credit card charges and the client's payment of these charges were accomplished through interstate commerce.

”The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) subpoenaed Business Automation's account records and determined that the credit card charge amounts approximated amounts currently being charged by escort services for one-hour calls. The account record also revealed the names of the credit card holders, whom the FBI identified as having patronized other escort services that accepted credit card payments.

”In March 1988, undercover officers arranged to have Kelly's send employees to the officers' hotel rooms, where the employees offered to engage in sexual conduct for pay. In November 1988, a Kelly's newspaper advertisement listed a new telephone number belonging to a Kelly's employee operating out of an apartment in San Antonio, Texas. It was determined that Kelly's had expanded operations to that apartment and to an adjacent apartment.

”An FBI search of the two apartments, pursuant to a federal search warrant, led to the discovery of various business records associated with Kelly's. Business information contained in the records indicated that Kelly's employed more than twenty prostitutes. The records further reflect Langley's role as owner and operator of Kelly's and his managerial function in the operation of the business..” Id., at 928.

These four federal statutes are increasingly being used to target not only online child sex predators but persons involved in prostitution, especially the kind spawned from human trafficking operations.

A seminar conducted in Rome last October discussed ways to combat human trafficking. The seminar was a joint effort between the U.S. Embassy to the Holy See and the Italian Union of Major Superiors (USMI).

"Human trafficking is a critical (issue) for the Holy See," said Monsignor Pietro Parolin, the Pope's undersecretary of state, in an address to the seminar.
A press release issued by the religious orders said one of the benefits from the seminar was the creation of the International Network of Religious Against Trafficking in Persons (INRATIP). The new organization issued a statement in which it called upon governments "to address the issues of economic inequality, poverty and corruption which lead to the destruction of so many lives."

The statement went on to say, "We urge all people of good will to open your hearts to the victims and to act to change the root causes of human trafficking -- poverty, gender inequality, discrimination, greed and corruption. Our hope rests in a vision of humanity which honors the principle that no woman, child or man is a commodity for sale."

To combat the evils associated with human sex trafficking, some like David Rosen have called for the legalization of prostitution. This approach would be a mistake, according to a recent study of legalized prostitution in Nevada by Melissa Farley. In her book entitled “Prostitution and Trafficking in Nevada: Making the Connections,” Farley concluded that the only people served by legalizing prostitution are pimps and brothel owners.

Some lawmakers point out that legalization of prostitution has other significant drawbacks. Writing in the forward of Farley’s book, U.S. Representative Carolyn Maloney said that the legalized sex trade in Nevada has made the state one of the primary destinations of human [sex] trafficking.

“Sex trafficking happens when and where there is a demand for prostitution and a context of impunity for its customers,” Farley explained in her book which was the result of a two-year study of how prostitution works in Nevada. Farley supported this contention by saying that illegal prostitution in Nevada is nine times greater than the state’s legal brothels.

“We live in a world saturated with pornography and where prostitution is increasingly presented as a mainstream activity,” she observed. “It's a world where only too often girls and women are presented as sexual objects for men's gratification, and where sexual assaults against children are at ever-higher levels ...

“Legal prostitution has set the stage for discrimination against women, especially those who are most vulnerable: poor and ethnically marginalized women."
Farley concluded by pointing out that legalizing prostitution only increases sex trafficking because it expands the market.

"It's actually deceptive to make a distinction between trafficking and prostitution because the implication is that it is the distance she is moved in order to be sold for sex that matters rather than being sold, used and prostituted per se," Farley wrote.

The human suffering produced by global human trafficking, whether for sex or labor, has given the “world’s oldest profession” a really bad name. It forced the federal government over the last decade to target human sex traffickers like the “pimp partners” and online child sex predators.

“Pimps and prostitutes” are no longer considered a minor social vice.