Real Sex Trafficking Cases

Since I have written about sex trafficking cases that were not sex trafficking cases in reality, I figure that I should state my awareness that such situations and cases do exist. Recently there was an arrest of a Chinese woman in Queens, Jin Hua Cui, by Suffolk County, New York prosecutors that fits the actual definition of sex trafficking. Why can't the federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York investigate and prosecute real cases instead of the many created cases that come from this area? Either there are none or it's just easier or more newsworthy to bully these defendants with trumped-up, stacked charges.


So what is the difference?

One major difference is that there is evidence, according to prosecutors, that Jin Hua Cui solicited naïve young women by placing ads for nail technicians or attendants in area Korean language newspapers. These women were obviously deceived from the beginning if we are to believe this evidence exists, and I seriously doubt prosecutors would make such a claim without copies of the described ads.

It also looks like she was threatening these Korean immigrant job seekers with physical harm as well as public embarrassment in the community in which they lived – Flushing.

She was held on only $10K bail though – odd for such a case. The driver involved has already pled guilty to a promoting prostitution charge so I would imagine that he has agreed to testify for the state.

I have read several articles on this arrest but the most informative was in the Long Island Press. Writer Timothy Bolger asserted that it is the first state prosecution of its type in Suffolk County, and this in itself tells me that prosecutors actually have a real case and do not throw a sex trafficking blanket on every prostitution case that gets their attention. Bolger wrote:

"There had been 20 arrests statewide for sex trafficking since 2008, resulting in seven convictions with 11 cases still pending as of April 15, according to DCJS."

Federal prosecutors could learn something from Suffolk County District Attorney Thomas Spota, at least according to several of the cases that I have reviewed. It is important that the state and federal sex trafficking statutes are used properly in prosecutions and not as a blanket to cover any prostitution related prosecution in an effort to stack serious charges and coerce a guilty plea to a lesser offense.

At least the Suffolk County D.A. understands the difference, but why such a low bail? Perhaps they expect Cui to lead them to something more.