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.