Playboy Bunnies and a sex dungeon: allegations against US trader

0:00This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK.

0:30Shaun Kent:Whole Foods Market. Make your summer sizzle. How did a ballerina build one of the most controversial companies in finance? This week on Good Bad Billionaire, Luana Lopez Lara, the youngest self-made female billionaire on the planet. Her company, Calci, lets you trade on anything from elections to the weather to war. Supporters say it predicts the future. Critics say it could undermine democracy. So is she a visionary? Or has she turned the whole world into a casino? Good Bad Billionaire. Listen wherever you get your BBC podcasts.

1:05Shaun Kent:Welcome to Fame Under Fire with me, Anushka Matandadawati. Now, just a warning, we have a pretty heavy episode with graphic descriptions of sexual violence and some strong language from the outset. We're going to be going through the new federal indictment of retired Wall Street investor Howard Rubin and his ex-assistant Jennifer Powers. The feds allege that Rubin ran a sex trafficking ring for over 10 years, where, with the help of powers, he would recruit and electrocute women in a room in a Manhattan flat he referred to as the dungeon. They have both pled not guilty to the charges. Joining me is our resident trial attorney, Sean Kent.

1:36Shaun Kent:Hi, Sean. Hey, Nesca, how are you doing? I'm doing good. Like I said at the beginning of this program, this is a pretty heavy one. We've given several warnings to the listeners. You've read through the indictment and the bail letter. I just want to point out where I first found this. It was on TikTok and it was going viral with people drawing parallels between these charges and Jeffrey Epstein. Obviously, Howard Rubin is a New York financier, so I can see why people are making the link. But actually, if we look at the alleged crimes, there are no children involved in this whatsoever. There's no sex trafficking of minors involved in this whatsoever.

2:06None. None whatsoever.

2:08Shaun Kent:And the reason I want to point that out is similarly to when we had with Diddy is because it changes how it's prosecuted. Right. Because you don't have to prove coercion with minors. You have to prove coercions with with adults. You have become like the legal expert in this arena now. You're exactly right. When you're dealing with adults, the defense is almost always going to be there was a lack of coercion. They were consenting adults almost always. So I can see this is doing the rounds on social media. People are a bit confused about what the alleged crimes are and how this is going to be prosecuted in a court of law if it, of course, gets there.

2:39Shaun Kent:There are conspiracy theories. We've heard this before. We heard this all the way through Diddy. But this is a federal indictment. And so we know what the U.S. government are actually alleging. Ten counts plus a bail letter that gives us even more detail. But Sean, I haven't actually said the word federal indictment in a long time. Can you just remind everybody what that actually is? A federal indictment or any indictment is just a charging document. It's a piece of paper that puts the defendant on notice on the charges that the federal government is trying to get against them. Some people make general indictments.

3:09Some people make specific indictments. But the entire purpose of the indictment is you go in front of a grand jury who are a group of individuals in the jurisdiction where the crime is alleged to occur. They take information, they put it in front of this group of individuals and they say, is it likely? Is there a chance? Is there a possibility that the person on the other side of the indictment could have done this stuff? And almost always the grand jury says probably. And if they say probably the case is indicted and that's what's happened here. Now that means he must stand forth against the United States of America charged with the crimes that he's accused of.

3:46Shaun Kent:And remind me, the grand jury isn't a jury where we pick from a selection of the public. This is an investigative body. Yes and no. It is picked from the public, but it still is an investigative body. So they're not professional grand jurors, Anushka. What it is, it's John Q. Public. Like if you were in the United States, you could be picked for the grand jury. But that grand jury in a federal system sits there for a long period of time, for a significant period of time, and then they still investigate what's going on on cases. OK, so we're really going to get into the weeds of this. Like I said, part of this is dispelling conspiracy theories, but it's also extremely interesting and feels kind of similar to the Diddy trial in that these are intimate spaces where these alleged crimes are taking place inside of a bedroom in a Manhattan flat or inside of a hotel room between two adults.

4:34Shaun Kent:The federal indictment alleges that from 2009 to 2019, the defendants, Howard Rubin and Powers, together with others, operated a network whereby they recruited women, including Jane Doe's one through 10, individuals whose identities are known to the grand jury. Sean, can you just remind us what is a Jane Doe? Jane Doe is just a pseudonym. It's an anonymous name that they put on when they don't want to release the name of the actual person involved. They want to protect the victim's anonymity. Now it says,

5:28Shaun Kent:operating and maintaining the trafficking network herein. So we have a charge of sex trafficking. We have a charge of transportation for prostitution under the Mann Act. If you are propositioned as somebody to do a commercial sex act and you say, yes, if you pay me this money, I'll do that. Can you also be sex trafficked if you were willingly engaging in a commercial sex act? I'm willing to go here and participate in this. You don't have to be forced to be sex trafficked? It doesn't have to be against your will for you to be a victim of sex trafficking. That is such a nebulous question, because remember, one of the lines inside of the sex trafficking allegations is force and or coercion.

6:08And so what they'll end up saying is you can force or coerce somebody and they not even realize they're being forced and or coerced. And that's what we learned from the Diddy trial, is they're saying you might have think you were consensual, but it wasn't consensual because you were forced and or coerced. And you remember Diddy's case, they offered an expert who specifically said a lot of these people don't even realize that they're under the trauma of coercion or so forth. So yes, you can fit both categories, even if you don't think that you are being coerced.

6:34Shaun Kent:So it goes on to say between 2009 and 2011, it is alleged that commercial sex acts primarily occurred at luxury hotels in Manhattan. Prosecutors say in 2011, Howard Rubin and Jennifer Powers transformed one of the bedrooms in the penthouse. So they have a penthouse into a sex dungeon that was painted red and soundproofed, had a lock on the door and was furnished with BDSM equipment to which women could be strapped and restrained and contain devices to shock or electrocute them, among other items. The pattern that's laid out is these women were approached by Powers and or Rubin on social media, modelling pages or high-end prostitution networks.

7:10Shaun Kent:Many of them were former Playboy models. They were then flown to wherever Rubin was, at which point they signed an NDA, that they did not get a chance to check before engaging in BDSM and sex acts. that indictment says that Rubin materially misrepresented to the women the extent, manner and or degree to which Rubin would engage in physical and sexual violence. Again, Rubin and Powers have pled not guilty to this. But the fact that these women were approached on different sites, some of them on high end prostitution network sites by Powers or Rubin, doesn't that directly work against the idea that they're victims?

7:42Absolutely. Like that is going to be the defense. They signed up for aggressive sex, if you will. They signed up for some type of beating, but they didn't know it was going to go that far. That's their allegation. That's a scary allegation, as you realize, to make to say, wait a minute, you women knew you were going to go. You knew it was going to be aggressive. You knew you were going to get paid for it. You knew they were going to get beatings. It just went further than you thought it will. That's going to cut towards the government. The cross-examination of them is going to be withering. You knew that this was going to be aggressive, nasty sex to the point that you needed a safe word.

8:15So you knew this was going to be aggressive. And now you chose to sue. And as a result of suing, then the federal government bought these criminal charges.

8:23Shaun Kent:So, well, in this case, could you end up bringing in an expert in BDSM to say this is what it is? These are the parameters. This is what typically happens. And this this is beyond. Here's the weird part. You're probably going to have conflicting BDSM experts. Somebody is going to say this should be expected. And somebody says this shouldn't be. I could see there being conflicting experts. And that's usually what happens. One expert can say one thing and one can say another because here's the real situation. Who really is an expert on BDSM? Like, you know, I mean, who knows what somebody else's kink or actual fetish is?

8:54Who knows what these people signed on? Who knows what they agreed to? That's going to be his defense. Yeah.

8:59Shaun Kent:So Howard Rubin was also sued in the civil courts in 2017. The action lasted until 2022, and a jury found Rubin liable for sex trafficking and assault, awarding$3.85 million to several women. Powers was cleared of any wrongdoing. Rubin is now appealing the verdict. If a jury sits for a federal trial, will they be aware of that civil trial, the ruling, and what that jury came to? And if so, is that not biasing the jury pool? There could be an argument that he stood trial, but what they 100 % will be aware of is his own statements. those statements of his can be used. Remember, he testified and he gave a deposition.

9:36And so he has explained a lot of this information. So all of that is fair game. What makes this case to me so rare is usually the criminal case comes first and then we have a civil case. If the government in the Diddy case, think about it, would have waited for his civil cases to go through and Diddy having to sit for a deposition and then using his own words against him, how different would the trial against Diddy would have been? So in this unique situation, they have all of his words against him, which is wild when you think about it for a criminal prosecution.

10:10Shaun Kent:I just want to get into a phrase that's used. Prosecutors say that these women are signing NDAs, non-disclosure agreements. They are being booked in some sense or propositioned or asked on a date, but aware that BDSM is going to take place. It says he materially misrepresented the extent to which they could sustain injuries from that or that sexual violence was going to be involved. What is material misrepresentation? And is there a specific bar you have to meet for that? No, it's just a fancy lawyer word to say that you basically tricked us. A material representation is, I promise you when you come to my house, you will leave full.

10:45I will feed you. And you come to my house and I give you seven chickpeas. Well, you materially misrepresent it. You told me you were going to feed me, but you didn't feed me a lot of food. And so in this situation, you told me I was going to get hurt, but you didn't tell me I was going to get hurt hurt. And his response is going to be like, I told you you're going to get hurt. I didn't get into specifics.

11:01Shaun Kent:But then if we look at the NDA, which they've signed, and I'm sure that's going to be a key part of what the prosecution say when they look at these documents. But these women are saying they signed it without their own legal counsel reading it or even having a chance to properly look over it themselves. Does that weaken the NDA or is the idea that, well, you shouldn't have signed it? The idea is going to be from the defense. You shouldn't have signed it, but it's really going to come through, I think, a simple concept. Did you take the money? And so from a defense lawyer standpoint, they're going to make it very contractual.

11:28Did he tell you we're going to get hurt? Yes. Did you sign an agreement? Yes. Did he fulfill his end of the agreement? Yes. Did he pay you? Yes. Were you hurt? Yes. But I didn't think it was going to go that far. That's our contract. You may not like it now. And as a result, you sued for more money. but there was an agreement and you agreed to it. I know that sounds sick and abhorrent but that I think is going to be the defense.

11:54Shaun Kent:But the indictment goes on to allege that Rubin would give the women a safe word which if you look into BDSM this is a common practice so if this goes too far say this word and we'll stop. But it says that he often disregarded it or that the women couldn't use it because they were bound or gagged. Now if they consented to being bound or gagged could he use that as a defense and say well they were bound or gagged so I couldn't hear them? Well he's going to use that for a defense And he's going to, unless these things are recorded, guess what? It's my word versus your word. You never said the safe word.

12:21I didn't hear you say it. You know, I didn't hear it. I don't know what you're talking about. You signed on for this. This is not what happened. When things aren't being recorded and it's just your words, that's going to be his defense. I believe he's like, that never happened.

12:34Shaun Kent:Now, we mentioned that this has made its way through the civil courts in 2017, settled in 2022. We're going to look at that in more detail in a future episode. But the allegations are very similar in the civil suit to what's in the indictment. Now, the lawyer who represents those claimants told me that his firm had been cooperating with the U.S. Attorney's Office during the last few years. Now, I've only done one other federal case, but Diddy happened really fast from raids to indictment to court to trial and verdict. It was like two years wrapped. Is this more normal that it's over a period of several years or was Diddy more the pace that things usually move at?

13:07Diddy's case moved at lightning pace. Diddy's case is one of the faster cases we've seen. And, you know, we go back to the very early talkings with me, you and Nushka, what we basically said is as a defense attorney, you would rather go against an unprepared federal government than a prepared federal government. A prosecutor working on one case, building it up brick by brick, making sure they have a perfect case. And that's usually what happens is once they've indicted him, they know everything that they need to know. They've interviewed everybody, talked to everybody, gotten all the witnesses and they're ready for a prosecution.

13:37Shaun Kent:How does that make it a fair fight then if his defense are like, you've been working on this for years and we only have months? Do they then petition for it to go longer and longer? It is not a fair fight because they've been working on it so long. And usually when the federal government comes and gets you and we have clients and they say, look, I'm under the I get a target letter from the federal authorities. And like, man, they've been looking at you for a long time is what that means. And they built the case. It's not a fair fight. And that is one of the reasons everyone always says the federal government has such a high conviction rate because they've been working on it forever.

14:06and no is not fair, but that's our story.

14:12Shaun Kent:The ultimate cookout starts with the ultimate ingredients. At Whole Foods Market, no antibiotics ever, burgers and kebabs are prepped and ready to throw on the grill. Fire up a juicy ribeye, grab creamy potato salad and savory flatbreads from the prepared foods department and round it all out with 365 brand condiments, chips and dips at everyday low prices. Whole Foods Market. Make your summer sizzle.

15:05Shaun Kent:Get your BBC podcasts.

15:12Shaun Kent:Yeah, I don't want to keep going where to Diddy as well, but there's such a reflection in this because it's taking place in similar venues. That's the allegation, right? It's taking place inside of bedrooms between the defence will say two consenting adults and then the prosecution are saying a victim and the perpetrator. As far as the indictment goes, though, it outlines the alleged sex trafficking operation and venue, but there's not that much in the way of actual detail that seems to come in a letter from the US Attorney's Office asking that Rubin doesn't get bail so we get some more detail in this letter about Jennifer Powers involvement with setting up the quote dungeon that's what the prosecution are alleging in an email on the 30th of July 2012 this is from Powers to Rubin it says quote I've put chains on the four points of your cross and four points of the dungeon bed on the end of each chain is a cuff.

16:01Shaun Kent:I've done this because it will be very, all caps, easy to just throw someone on the cross or on the bed and just strap them into the pre-made chains and cuffs. So in terms of establishing her as a co-defendant, is that what that's there for? That's what is there is just to show that she is a co-conspirator, that she is part of it and make sure they establish that she is a part and parcel of the sex trafficking that he, and remember, a co-conspirator does not have to do the exact same things that you have done. But once they have been named a conspirator, they are responsible for everything you've done.

16:36And it's almost like rinse and repeat. It's so weird if you look at it.

16:41Shaun Kent:And you talk about the relationship there. Obviously, Powers is listed as a co-defendant. But what they talk about is the recruitment process, saying that Powers was engaged in recruiting these women, saying, oh, you need to meet Howard Rubin, and this is what's going to happen. But then they also go some way in describing her participation in sort of cleaning up afterwards. And they include this text from Howard to Powers. It says, it got very rough, Jen. We need to be very, very, very, in all caps, nice. Very important. Trust me, very important. And she responds saying, OK, I am being nice. I just hope you know what you're doing.

17:15Shaun Kent:Sean, why weren't these details in the indictment? Surely these are crucial pieces of information, if not for anything other than when you spoke about Diddy, you said they do stuff sometimes to catch our attention as the general public. So there are eyes on this case. Why not have this in the indictment? So we're looking. I personally think this indictment is smarter than the Diddy indictment. And here's why. As a defense lawyer, I love when a prosecution puts a very specific indictment, because later when they can't prove these small elements in front of the jury, then I can get in front of the jury and say, look, you went in front of a grand jury.

17:49You got an indictment against this human being. You said he did this, this, this, this and this. Ladies and gentlemen, have you heard any of this information? This is incorrect. This is a lie. The United States of America is lying to you today, as opposed to the United States saying, look, this is very general. We're generally saying this stuff happened. And then the letter that they put in front of the court is where they put all the specificity to it. It's actually kind of brilliant that now they can still get their information out and it's not in a form indictment order.

18:16Shaun Kent:And in that letter, we also get a closer look at what the government are alleging was part of the BDSM activity. It says, and I give another warning here because this is quite graphic, it included electrocuting their genitals, probing their genitals with pull cues and performing violent sexual acts on their bodies while they were unconscious. So that's some of the sexual crimes that they are alleging that Rubin did to these women. Once again, this is in the letter, but it's in the letter which is also a public document so anyone can read it. So why can't they say that the federal government's lying about what's in this letter?

18:47Because that's not the formal charging document. They didn't put that letter in front of the grand jury. All they put in front of the letter in front of the grand jury was the indictment. That letter, for all intents and purposes, even though it's sensational, even though everybody's going to read it, the real point of it is, judge, don't give this person a bond. That's the only point, supposedly, of the letter. It's saying you don't need to give him a bond for two reasons. He's a danger to the community, and he's a risk of flight. He's got so much money. He's got no ties to New York. He's got no family.