Playboy Bunnies and a sex dungeon: allegations against US trader

Summary

---

Fame Under Fire

Episode: "Playboy Bunnies and a sex dungeon: allegations against US trader"

Host: Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty
Trial Expert: Shawn Kent
Date: October 16, 2025

---

Episode Overview

This episode unpacks the high-profile federal indictment of retired Wall Street investor Howard Rubin and his former assistant Jennifer Powers. They're accused of running a decade-long sex trafficking ring involving elaborate BDSM encounters, alleged extreme violence, and "the dungeon"—a soundproofed Manhattan penthouse room. Both plead not guilty, and the stakes are high. Host Anoushka is joined by trial attorney Shawn Kent to dissect the legal complexities, the difference between civil and criminal proceedings, and the realities of trying such intimate, sensational cases amid media frenzy, misinformation, and conspiracy theories.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Origins of the Case & Social Media’s Role

• The indictment went viral on TikTok, with users drawing parallels to the Jeffrey Epstein case and the recent Diddy trial, though the Rubin case does not involve minors.
• [01:41] Anoushka clarifies: "There are no children involved in this whatsoever. There's no sexual trafficking of minors."
• Distinction is crucial as it influences how the case will be prosecuted—coercion must be proven with adult victims.

2. Explaining Legal Fundamentals

• Federal indictment basics:
  • The grand jury weighs whether there’s enough evidence for charges—not guilt.
  • Lay language: A federal indictment is "just a charging document... a piece of paper that puts the defendant on notice" (Shawn, [03:01]).
• Role of the Grand Jury:
  • They're ordinary citizens serving as an investigative body.
  • They sit for extended periods ("If you were in the United States, you could be picked for the grand jury" — Shawn, [03:55]).

3. Alleged Crimes and Modus Operandi

• Scope and Details:
  • Activities from 2009-2019: Rubin and Powers are accused of recruiting women, often ex-Playboy models, for paid BDSM encounters in NYC luxury hotels and a custom "dungeon".
  • Victims sometimes sought medical treatment for injuries.
• Recruitment and Payment:
  • Many women approached via social media, modeling pages, or "high-end prostitution networks."
  • NDAs were standard, often signed without legal counsel.
  • The indictment alleges "material misrepresentation" of the severity of what they'd endure.

4. Consent, Coercion, and Sex Trafficking Law

• Complex differentiations:
  • Consent does not preclude being a trafficking victim if coercion or force exists—including psychological or situational.
  • As Shawn notes: "You can force or coerce somebody and they not even realize they're being forced and/or coerced." ([06:02])
• Safe words and limits:
  • Prosecutors claim Rubin sometimes ignored or rendered safe words unusable by gagging or restraining women.
  • Defense likely to stress the contractual nature: "Did you take the money?...That's our contract." (Shawn, [11:21])

5. Why Civil and Criminal Paths Diverge

• 2017 Civil Suit:
  • Rubin found liable for sex trafficking and assault, paid $3.85 million; Powers was cleared.
  • Notable: criminal case comes after civil, so authorities can use Rubin's own deposition statements as evidence — "which is wild when you think about it" (Shawn, [09:27]).

6. The Role and Limits of NDAs

• Debate around whether hastily signed NDAs without counsel undermine their validity.
• Defense position: "You shouldn't have signed it," but prosecution will highlight duress and lack of informed consent ([11:04]).

7. Specific, Graphic Allegations (with Caution)

• Details (from bail letter):
  • Genital electrocution, beating, restraint, and sexual violence, even when victims were unconscious ([18:22]).
  • Documentation includes emails from Powers, e.g., "I've put chains on the four points... Easy to just throw someone on the cross or on the bed and just strap them..." ([16:21]).

8. Vulnerability and the Law’s Protective Reach

• Some victims were addicts, financially desperate, or had histories of abuse.
• Law stands in to protect "vulnerable adults" who cannot truly consent due to their circumstances.
  • "They could have never consented to these situations. And his defense is going to be, how the hell would I know?" — Shawn, [21:55]

9. Pre-trial Maneuvers, Bail, and Flight Risk

• Powers made bail; Rubin (age 70, with $74 million offshore) was denied — no surprise to Shawn:
  • "He's got a bunch of money and all of his money are offshores. And given his age, there's nothing to say he would not run and not come back." ([23:07])
• Alleged hitman plot and financial resources factored into bond denial ([23:19]).

10. Is More Coming? Superseding Indictments and Co-conspirators

• Anonymous co-conspirators ("Jane Does" and unnamed aides) may soon be named in an updated indictment ([25:00]).

11. Trial Prospects and Plea Dynamics

• Unknown if Rubin will go to trial or cut a deal — depending on what prosecutors offer and whether he cooperates:
  • "I don't know what he has to lose. He's 70 years old. I don't know what deal the federal government would offer him..." ([24:16]).

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On social media confusion:

  • "People are a bit confused about what the alleged crimes are and how this is going to be prosecuted in a court of law..." — Anoushka, [02:34]

• On nuance of consent and coercion:

  • "One of the lines inside of the sex trafficking allegations is force and/or coercion. And so what they'll end up saying is you can force or coerce somebody and they not even realize they're being forced" — Shawn, [06:02]

• On legal strategy for indictments:

  • "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... this is incorrect. This is a lie." — Shawn, [17:36]

• On legal protection for adults:

  • "Yes, the law does stand in and protect adults if they are in vulnerable situations." — Shawn, [20:04]

• On women signing NDAs:

  • "The idea is going to be from the defense. You shouldn't have signed it. But... did you take the money?...Did he fulfill his end of the agreement?...That's our contract." — Shawn, [11:21]

• On why the sex trafficking statute exists:

  • "There were true victims out there who said, I was in a situation and nobody was looking out for me. I did stupid stuff, but I had no choice based upon my lot in life." — Shawn, [22:21]

• On the reality of federal prosecutions:

  • "It is not a fair fight because they've been working on it so long... that's one of the reasons everyone always says the federal government has such a high conviction rate, because they've been working on it forever and no, it's not fair." — Shawn, [13:49]

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• [01:08]: Trigger warning & episode premise
• [01:41]: Social media perceptions and distinction from Epstein case
• [03:01]: What’s a federal indictment?
• [04:52]: Who is "Jane Doe"?
• [05:01]: Alleged crimes and the meaning of sex trafficking under the law
• [06:02]: Consent vs. coercion, legal gray areas
• [09:01]: Civil case background, relevance in criminal trial
• [11:04]: NDAs and material misrepresentation
• [12:17]: Use (and ignoring) of safe words
• [16:21, 18:22]: Evidence of Powers’ involvement; graphic allegations in bail letter
• [20:04]: Where consent ends and legal protection begins
• [21:23]: Vulnerable adults and expert testimony
• [23:07]: Bail decisions for Rubin and Powers
• [25:00]: Possibility of superseding indictments
• [24:16]: Prospects for settlement or trial

---

Episode Tone and Language

• Anoushka maintains a measured, fact-based tone, constantly emphasizing nuance and caution against conspiracy thinking.
• Shawn is pragmatic, slightly world-weary — focused on legal realities, rarely sensationalizing, and clear-eyed about how such prosecutions function.

---

Summary

This episode offers a forthright, legally insightful exploration of the Howard Rubin sex trafficking indictment, mapping out the lines between consent and coercion, the evidentiary maze of BDSM-related prosecutions, and where power, wealth, and the law collide. It tackles both the sensational allegations and the sobering realities of how these cases unfold, serving as a myth-buster amid viral rumors while never losing sight of the victims and the presumption of innocence.

If you've not listened, this summary covers the essential details, legal structures, and arguments to understand what’s at stake and why this trial, like Diddy’s, will dominate headlines, courtroom debates, and cultural conversations in the weeks ahead.

Transcript

[A]

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the uk. This is the story of the One. As a custodial supervisor at a high school, he knows that during cold and flu season, germs spread fast. It's why he partners with Grainger to stay fully stocked on the products and supplies he needs, from tissues to disinfectants to floor scrubbers, all so that he can help students, staff and teachers stay healthy and focused. Call 1-800-GRAINGER Click grainger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done. This is the story of the 1. As a maintenance supervisor at a manufacturing facility, he knows keeping the line up and running is a top priority. That's why he chooses Grainger.

[B]

Because when a drive belt gets damaged.

[A]

Grainger makes it easy to find the.

[B]

Exact specs for the replacement product he needs.

[A]

And next day delivery helps ensure he'll have everything in place and running like clockwork.

[B]

Call 1-800-GRAINGER Click grainger.com or just stop.

[A]

By Grainger for the ones who get it done.

[B]

Welcome to Fame Under Fire with me, Anushka Mutandadawati. 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 alleged 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 not guilty to the charges. Joining me is our resident trial attorney, Sean Kent. Hi Sean.

[A]

Hey, Aneska, how are you doing?

[B]

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 sexual trafficking of minors involved in this whatsoever.

[A]

None. None whatsoever.

[B]

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.

[A]

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.

[B]

So I could 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. 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 US 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]

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, some 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 occurred. 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.

[B]

And remind me, the grand jury isn't a jury where we pick from a selection of the public. This is an investigative body.

[A]

Yes and no. It is picked from the public, but it still is an investigative body. So they are 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.

[B]

Okay, 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 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. 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 does 1 through 10 individuals whose identities are known to the grand jury. Sean, can you just remind us what is a Jane Doe?

[A]

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.

[B]

Now, it says these women it alleges were recruited to engage in commercial sex acts with Rubin in exchange for money. Those acts involved bdsm. Now, that's an abbreviation for bondage, discipline, domination, submission, sadism, and masochism. During many of these encounters, it alleges Rubin brutalized women's bodies, causing them to fear for their safety and or resulting in significant pain or injur, which at times required women to seek medical attention. It goes on to say Reuben and Power spent at least $1 million of Reuben's money 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 man 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. If you, 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.

[A]

That is such a nebulous question. Because remember, one of the lines inside of the sex trafficking allegations is force and, or coercion. And 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, 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.

[B]

So it goes on to say between 2009 and 2011. It is alleged the 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 contained devices to shock or electrocute them, among other items. The pattern that's laid out is these women were approached by Powers and or Reuben on social media, modeling pages or high end prostitution networks. Many of them were former Playboy models. They were then flown to wherever Reuben was, at which point they signed an NDA that they did not get a chance to check before engaging in BDSM and sex acts. The indictment says that Reuben materially misrepresented to the women the extent, manner and or degree to which Reuben would engage in physical and sexual violence. Again, Reuben 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 Reuben, doesn't that directly work against the idea that they're victims?

[A]

Absolutely. 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 that you were going to go, you knew I 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. So 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.

[B]

So, well, in this case, could you end up bringing 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.

[A]

Here's the weird part. You're probably going to have conflicting BDSM experts. Somebody's 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? Who knows what these people signed on? Who knows what they agreed to. That's going to be his defense.

[B]

Yeah. So Howard Rubin was also sued in the civil courts in 2017. The action lasted until 2022, and a jury found Ruben liable for sex trafficking and assault, awarding 3.85 million dol to several women. Powers was cleared of any wrongdoing. Ruben 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?

[A]

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 because remember, he testified and he gave a deposition, and 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.

[B]

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 meat for that?

[A]

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. I 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 a hurt hurt. And his response is going to be, like I told you, gonna get hurt. I didn't get into specifics, but then.

[B]

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 prosecutions 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 there, well, you shouldn't have signed it.

[A]

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. Did he tell you were 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.

[B]

But the indictment goes on to allege that Reuben would give the women a safe word, which, if you look into bdsm, this is a common practice, so. 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?

[A]

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. I 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.

[B]

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 did he happen 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?

[A]

Diddy's case moved at lightning pace. Did his 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 Uska. 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.

[B]

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?

[A]

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 they're 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 and Noah's not fair. But that's our this is the story of the 1. As a custodial supervisor at a high school, he knows that during cold and flu season, germs spread fast. It's why he partners with Grainger to stay fully stocked on the products and supplies he needs, from tissues to disinfectants to floor scrubbers, all so that he can help students, staff and teachers stay healthy and focused. Call 1-800-GRAINGER Click grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done. Hello, it's Ray Winstone. I'm here to tell you about my podcast on BBC Radio 4 histories, Toughest Heroes. I got stories about the pioneers, the rebels the outcasts who define tough. And that was the first time that anybody ever ran a car up that fast with no tires on. It almost feels like your eyeballs are going to come out of your head.

[B]

Tough enough for you?

[A]

Subscribe to History's Toughest Heroes wherever you get your podcast system.

[B]

Yeah, I don't want to keep going back to Diddy as well. But it, there's such a reflection in this because it is, it's taking place in similar venues. That's the allegation, right? It's taking place inside of bedrooms between the defense 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 U. S Attorney's office asking that Reuben 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 30 July 2012. This is from Powers to Reuben. 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. 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?

[A]

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

[B]

It 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, perhaps nice. Very important. Trust me, very important. And she responds saying, okay, I am being nice. I just hope you know what you're doing. 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.

[A]

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. You 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 stands 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.

[B]

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 pool 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 Reuben 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?

[A]

Because 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 intensive 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, he's been divorced. If you get him a bond, he's gone. That's the real point of the letter. But they managed to put all that other stuff in there so everybody could read it and know the case against him. That letter could have been done in a page and a half. And guess what? They really didn't even need the letter.

[B]

But if we go to some of what they've described as being the alleged crimes, I mean, electrocution of the genitals is something that jumps out, right? My question to you is, even if it was in the NDA, please sign this and then we can shock you. Even if they said yes to all of these things, is there a point where the law can just step in and say, even though you've consented, this is too far, because this is damaging, like you as a person, and we're stepping in now and taking over? Or if, when you're an adult, if you consent to something, is that just it?

[A]

There's a couple of ways that we look at consent. One, I don't care who you are, a minor can't consent. Then there's vulnerable individuals. If they have a mental incapacity to the point that they cannot form the necessary mens re, the necessary intent to agree to something, then we say we protect those people. So we try to protect. Vulnerable is the best category. And then we go to the next category. And that's what we were talking about here. What about these consenting adults? Is there a point in time in which the law stands in and tries to save people from themselves? Yes. And that's this type of situation. You could say, look, I did sign the agreement. I did agree to this. I did say this, but it went too far. And then you say the next. The only reason I agreed to it is I was in such a financial disparate situation. He had such power and control over me. I had to do this. We see this a lot in unequal situations. Let's say somebody is your boss and you can't live without him. And he says, look, I want you to agree to this, this, this, this, this, and this. Sign this agreement, and if you don't, you're losing your job. So, yes, the law does stand in and protect adults if they are in vulnerable situations.

[B]

Well, in that bail letter, the government say that some of these women were addicts, were financially Vulnerable or were sexually abused in childhood. So I'm assuming those are some of the protected ca.

[A]

Check, check, check. You're hitting it. They're all protected categories. Are these vulnerable adults. And that's what you. The trial is going. You've already sprayed out the trial. There will be an expert, an expert will testify. And they were not going to be able to give consent based upon past trauma, based upon financial situations, based upon disparate impact, based upon drug use, based upon unequal situations. All that will come out that even though we have their signature, it doesn't matter. They could have never consented to these situations. And his defense is going to be, how the hell would I know?

[B]

Well, there are some texts included in the bail letter where Howard describes Jane Doe number 10 as quote, hating, submissive, but she will do anything. She hates it, but she's so submissive, we've got to make her cry. There are a few messages in there that seem to be an acknowledgment that somebody doesn't want to do this, but they're doing it for financial gain or because they're in a tough spot. So are we starting to see the prosecution's rebuttal to that then?

[A]

Absolutely. And this is why sex trafficking was created. Because there was that loophole, that nuance based upon exactly what you're saying, that people were able to say they did consent, they did agree. And the person said, I did consent, I did agree, I did tell them I want it, but they knew the bad situation that I was in and they shouldn't have taken advantage of that. And so that this is the whole reason why the sex trafficking statute was created. Because there was that loophole that there were true victims out there who said, I was in a situation and nobody was looking out for me. I did stupid stuff, but I had no choice based upon my lot in life.

[B]

Now, Reuben and Powers have both pled not guilty. Powers was granted bail after posting an850,000 bond, but Reuben was denied it. Now he's a 70 year old man. Does that not, does that surprise you that he was denied it?

[A]

No, it really doesn't. He's got a bunch of money and all of his money are offshores. And given his age, there's nothing to say he would not run and not come back. So, yeah, it makes sense why he was not given a bond and he was treated similarly to most other people.

[B]

I mean, yeah, they talk about threat to community as well. I just wondered if this played into it. There's an allegation that he tried to hire a hitman after he found out one of the Jane does was raising a civil lawsuit against him. That kind of detail. Does that play into denying him a bond?

[A]

Absolutely. And I'm glad you brought this up, because if you read in that paragraph in there, they quote United States of America versus Combs and what they do in quoting United States America versus Combs, there say in this district you have denied bond before for an individual who is possibly threatening potential victims on these cases. And that's what we talk about. You got to be careful with precedential value. So now they're able to say because you denied bond on Combs, you need to deny bond on this guy.

[B]

They also point out that they believe him to have $74.4 million in a bank account on an island in the Cayman Islands. So it definitely has the means to run if he wanted to. Now, do you think this is actually going to go to trial?

[A]

I've been toying with that back and forth, but in this unique situation, I don't know what he has to lose. He's 70 years old. I don't know what deal the federal government would offer him. You know, and that's what happens a lot of times. Unless they offer him such a deal that comes with cooperation, as we've talked about, cooperation against other potential individuals. Maybe he says, you know what? I don't have anyone to lose. I will testify against anybody you want. That's why I've been going back and forth. I don't know.

[B]

There's a question I had. There are co conspirators listed. We have Howard Rubin named, we have Jennifer Powers named. But co conspirators left anonymous. Should I be expecting a superseding indictment where they start to gradually name these people?

[A]

I would think so, because like I said, I. You almost can always see another superseding indictment. And then you can actually see throughout the course of indictment, they mention other co conspirators, unnamed, these might be testifying individuals. Maybe he's going to cooperate against some of those. But I definitely see a superseding indictment coming. I don't know when, but one will be coming.

[B]

They've been working on this case for ages. I told you earlier that the lawyer who prosecuted the civil case says he's been cooperating with the attorney's office, the U.S. attorney's office. Why not just name them all at once at the beginning? You've had time.

[A]

But don't forget, a lot of times what the federal government will do is just because They've worked on it. They haven't told everybody they're being charged because let's say they go to one of his co conspirators and say, hey, you want to cooperate against Mr. Rubin? And so probably what has happened is after the indictment has come out with him, they've now started to tell people, you're either going to be charged or you're going to be cooperating here. The information against you. You got about three weeks before we lay that other indictment down. The superseding. You want to help or not?

[B]

Well, look, Howard Rubin and Jennifer Powers have pled not guilty to the charges. We contacted their attorneys for a comment, but we have not heard back. Sean, thanks for running us through that.

[A]

Thank you for having me. Much appreciated.

[B]

That was our resident trial attorney, Shawn Kent from South Carolina. And that's it for this episode of Fame Under Fire. Send me questions and story suggestions on social media. It's Anoushkamd on Instagram and on TikTok. Make sure you subscribe and turn on your push notifications on BBC Sounds so you never miss a thing if you've been a victim of sexual abuse or violence. Details of help and support are available at BBC.co.uk forward/action line.

[A]

Hello, I'm Amol Rajan and from BBC Radio 4.

[B]

This is Radical. We are living through one of those.

[A]

Hinge moments in history when all the old certainties crumble and a new world struggles to be born. So the idea behind this podcast is to help you navigate it.

[B]

What's really changed is the volume of.

[A]

Information that has exploded and also by offering a safe space for the radical ideas that our future demands.

[B]

Go to the Chancellor and say cut, radically cut the taxes of those with children Telling our stories is is powerful and a radical act.

[A]

Listen to Radical with Amal Rajan on BBC Sounds. Hello, it's Ray Winstone. I'm here to tell you about my podcast on BBC Radio 4, History's Toughest Heroes. I've got stories about the pioneers, the rebels, the outcasts who define tough. And that was the first time that anybody ever ran a car up that fast with no tires on. It almost feels like your eyeballs are gonna come out of your head.

[B]

Tough enough for you?

[A]

Subscribe to History's Toughest Heroes wherever you get your podcast.