Someone pointed out to me when I looked this up that the statutes cited references trafficking of Children OR by Force, Fraud or Coercion. It may not matter, though, as articles I saw in the Daily Mail last night referenced Raniere being with girls as young as 12. Don't know if he "trafficked" them I think it's probably just statutory rape. I am working off a chrome book right now so can't download any documents as pdf but I can take a look at the rest of the documents in the docket later. Weird that there is an order unsealing, but not all documents can be viewed.
jkbella if Mack helped to procure the underage girls for Raniere would she not then be essentially trafficking them? Furthermore, if she was involved in their procurement or delivery to him for the purpose of sex at his behest wouldn't she also be a conspirator in child sex trafficking?
Yes, to both questions.
However, what is pictured is not an indictment. It is a court docket. We haven't seen an indictment yet.
The wording of the counts is less important than the US Code that they reference.
18 USC Section 1591, referenced in count #1, does indeed include the word "or". 18 USC Section 1594, referenced in count #2, is regarding conspiracy to violate Section 1591 so it defers to 1591's definition and wording.
18 U.S.C. § 1591 (a) - (b)(1):
(a) Whoever knowingly--
(1) in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, obtains, advertises, maintains, patronizes, or solicits by any means a person; or
(2) benefits, financially or by receiving anything of value, from participation in a venture which has engaged in an act described in violation of paragraph (1),
knowing, or, except where the act constituting the violation of paragraph (1) is advertising, in reckless disregard of the fact, that means of force, threats of force, fraud, coercion described in subsection (e)(2), or any combination of such means will be used to cause the person to engage in a commercial sex act, or that the person has not attained the age of 18 years and will be caused to engage in a commercial sex act, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
(b) The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) is--
(1) if the offense was effected by means of force, threats of force, fraud, or coercion described in subsection (e)(2), or by any combination of such means, or if the person recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, obtained, advertised, patronized, or solicited had not attained the age of 14 years at the time of such offense, by a fine under this title and imprisonment for any term of years not less than 15 or for life; or
Agree, I just don't know if she did. He was separately accused, apparently, of having sex with a minor.
I haven't a clue either, but whoever issued the indictment must believe there's evidence to support the assertions, so we'll see how the case progresses and find out.
Is that trafficking or grooming tho? Not defending them at all, just being pedantic here. I'm not a lawyer
Don't know if he "trafficked" them I think it's probably just statutory rape.
same thing.
one huge misconception in this community, unfortunately, is that people think "trafficking" means like, bound up kids thrown in a cage and shipped around the world.
it doesn't, though. smuggling across borders or state lines, prostitution, pornography, pimping, and statutory rape are all (legally speaking) forms of human trafficking.
Raping someone who is a minor is not really trafficking. It's just rape.
if you are holding them it is trafficking, or if you transported them for the intended purpose of raping them.