Epstein Secrets

s (or had reason to know their ages but willfully blinded themselves to that knowledge), they can be char ed with sex traffickin in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1). In such instances, and also can be charged with benefitting from their participation in a venture engaged in human sex trafficking,

system was a facility of interstate commerce." United States v. Roberts, 2006 WL 827293 n.1 (1 I th Cir. Mar. 30, 2006). See also United States v. Strevell, 2006 WL 1697529, •3 (11th Cir. June 20, 2006) (fmding that a defendant's placing of "numerous phone calls from Philadelphia to Miami in order to ar

interstate commerce to induce or entice minors to engage in prostitution and sexual activi for which any person can be charged, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). Third, Epstein transported in interstate commerce with the intent that engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged, in

ne system was a facility of interstate commerce." United States v. Roberts , 2006 WL 827293 n.1 (11th Cir. Mar. 30, 2006). See also United States v. Strevell , 2006 WL 1697529, *3 (11th Cir. June 20, 2006) (finding that a defendant's placing of "numerous phone calls from Philadelphia to Miami in order to

interstate commerce to induce or entice minors to engage in prostitution and sexual activi for which any person can be charged, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). Third, Epstein transported in interstate commerce with the intent that engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged, in

ne system was a facility of interstate commerce." United States v. Roberts , 2006 WL 827293 n.1 (11th Cir. Mar. 30, 2006). See also United States v. Strevell , 2006 WL 1697529, *3 (11th Cir. June 20, 2006) (finding that a defendant's placing of "numerous phone calls from Philadelphia to Miami in order to

interstate commerce to induce or entice minors to engage in prostitution and sexual activi for which any person can be charged, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). Third, Epstein transported in interstate commerce with the intent that engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged, in

ne system was a facility of interstate commerce." United States v. Roberts , 2006 WL 827293 n.1 (11th Cir. Mar. 30, 2006). See also United States v. Strevell , 2006 WL 1697529, *3 (11th Cir. June 20, 2006) (finding that a defendant's placing of "numerous phone calls from Philadelphia to Miami in order to