Law&Crime Sidebar - 7 Bombshell Details from P. Diddy's New Superseding Indictment

Episode Date: January 31, 2025

Disgraced entertainment titan Sean “Diddy” Combs has been hit with a superseding indictment as he awaits trial on federal charges of racketeering and sex trafficking. For now, the trial is scheduled to get underway in May. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber takes a look at the differences between the original and superseding indictments and what it could mean for the case.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: If your child, under 21, has been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes or fatty liver disease, visit https://forthepeople.com/food to start a claim now! HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea & Christina FalconeScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson & Juliana BattagliaGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. View Shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller that will

keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. Sean Combs has just been hit with a new amended superseding indictment out in New York. So what are the differences from the original indictment and what could this mean for his prosecution? We are going to go through it all for you right now. Welcome to Sidebar. Presented by Law and Crime, I'm Jesse Weber. Hey, everybody, this is a law and crime legal alert.

Did you know that children are being diagnosed with serious conditions like type 2 diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and the research is potentially linking ultra-processed foods to all of this? Yeah, well, Morgan and Morgan is stepping in to fight to hold these food companies accountable. With decades of experience fighting large corporations, they are really. ready to stand up for what families deserve justice. If your child under 21 has been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes or fatty liver disease, then visit www.4thepeople.com slash food to learn more. Okay, so sort of a red alert right now. Sean Combs has officially been hit with a superseding indictment. In other words, an amended indictment in the Southern District of New York.

This is in regards to his criminal case. We expected that there was going to be a superseding indictment. The prosecutors in this case even indicated that that might happen. Is this what we expected? Not really. I'll explain why. Because when I say sort of red alert, we've got to be very clear about what this new indictment says and what this new indictment does not say. So let me start off right from the bat. There are no new charges against Sean Combs. There are no new defendants in this case. However, there are very important differences that have now changed the trajectory of this criminal case. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to go through the differences in this superseding indictment from the original indictment. Again, this is all

leading to his trial currently scheduled for May 2025, where he will face sex trafficking, racketeering, and prostitution charges, namely that Combs for years engaged in the abuse of women and other alleged criminal acts like kidnapping and arson and bribery as part of an overarching criminal enterprise that he controlled, and that he used his power and his resources and business empire to carry out this criminal enterprise. Now, let me tell you what I did here. I literally took both indictments, so the new indictment and the old indictment, and I literally went line for line for line to see the differences. And there are some subtle differences, and there are some bigger differences. They are all significant. So I'm going to go through

it with you now, and I'm going to give you my take on why we're seeing these differences. So the first difference is that in the original complaint, there's an allegation that Combs engaged in a persistent and pervasive pattern of abuse of women. And it says, quote, as part of this pattern of abuse, Combs manipulated women to participate in highly orchestrated performances of sexual activity with male commercial sex workers. However, in the superseding indictment, that highly is taken out. So it's just participating in, quote, orchestrated performances. And the superseding indictment adds that this concerns sexual activity not just with male commercial sex workers, but rather, this is another difference, sexual activity with combs and at times with combs and male commercial sex workers.

So in my opinion, first, taking out the highly, that seems to me to broaden out the alleged criminal conduct here. This is about combs allegedly directing or choreographing these sexual events and episodes. It doesn't have to be so elaborate. It might be more subtle. So now this is broadening the different acts that prosecutors are looking at. That's, in my opinion, why they took out the highly. So not only are they broadening out the conduct,

but now saying this is about Combs and Combs' sexual activity and Combs' sexual activity with male commercial sex workers, it seems to me, at least in my opinion, to be prosecutors making sure this is about Sean Combs being present, and an active participant of these sex acts. It's not just sex acts with sex workers, but Combs is there and he is participating. And potentially that you will have witnesses who will say,

I was there with Combs. And remember, this is a criminal case about Combs. So tying him as directly to these alleged criminal events and his participation, that seems to be key. Next up, the superseding indictment moves two lines up from where they were in the original. complaints. So when discussing the description of how since 2009, Combs allegedly assaulted women by striking, punching, dragging, kicking, and throwing objects at them, this indictment

now adds right after the lines, Combs' violence was also not limited to these women. It extended to his employees, witnesses to his abuse, and others. That line was actually later on in the complaint. So they moved it up. Not exactly sure why they did that, because almost everything else from that paragraph seems the same. Maybe they just wanted to make a little bit clearer and make that connection because there's another part of this paragraph that's very important. In this paragraph, it also includes the description of that infamous 2016 incident where Cassandra Ventura, this was Combs' ex-girlfriend, who by the way, we believe, is victim one in this case. She was the one who initially filed that lawsuit against him in November of 2023, got the whole

ball rolling. Remember that video that was released, that was published by CNN, where you can see Cassandra Ventura being allegedly beaten and dragged by Combs in a hotel hallway out in LA while he's just wearing a towel. Maybe by moving the sentences up, it's not to be connected to that. They wanted to create a separation. And I will say there is one more difference in this paragraph we got to talk about. So the superseding indictment adds that when a hotel security staff member tried to intervene in this 2016 attack and Combs attempted to bribe that person to stay silent? Now the superseding indictment adds this, quote, subsequently, Combs with the assistance of several close associates, paid hotel security

staff $100,000 for the hotel surveillance footage of the assault. So that seems to me to be a significant new detail because prosecutors, again, in my mind, they must have learned about this after filing the original indictment and that they learned either through witness testimony, maybe through the staff member, maybe through digital or physical or transactional documents. Remember, there was massive discovery in this case. Prosecutors indicated they have gone through a lot of material. So is this documented somewhere? Can they prove that it was $100,000?

Maybe if it was a secret payment, it'd be hard to, you know, have some sort of documentation about it. But then again, if there are bank records, maybe. But it could also just definitely be that alleged hotel staff member. Who's going to testify about this at an upcoming trial? Remember why this event is so important? It's not just that Sean Combs allegedly beat Cassandra Ventura. It's that prosecutors say she was escaping a freak off.

There was a male commercial sex worker in that room that she was running away from. Okay, so moving on. The next one is actually a very significant difference from the original complaint. So when talking about the criminal enterprise that Sean Combs allegedly led, and that's, by the way, what we mean by the racketeering conspiracy charge. The original complaint read from at least in or about 2008 through on or about the date of the filing of this indictment, Sean Combs and others known and unknown were members and associates of a criminal organization. But in this new indictment, it now reads from at least in or about 2004 through in or about 2024.

So first, you're going back to 2004 now. That is open four more years of potential alleged criminal activity and evidence. And I got to believe that means you have new alleged victims who claim that they were abused since then. Now, how do I know that there might be more victims here, victims that go back to 2004? The new indictment says so. A few pages later, it reads, Combs then use force, threats of force, and coercion to cause victims, including, but not limited to three female victims, victim one, victim two, and victim three

to engage in commercial sex acts. Also, I have to call this out too, the original indictment talked about engaging in freakoffs. This has now brought into commercial sex acts. So we're talking about conduct that may not rise to the level, again, of these elaborate and highly orchestrated sexual performances like freakoffs, but just sexes. acts where something of value is obtained or exchanged. And usually we're talking about the transportation of people across state or international lines. And we're talking about these commercial sex acts and sex trafficking. By the way, Combs lawyer had at one point criticized the prosecution saying, this whole case, it only concerns one victim. One victim we

have here. Well, looks like that has changed. And by the way, I should be clear, this case might not necessarily be limited to victim one, victim two, and victim three. They mentioned in this other victims, so we shall say. But I want to go back to something else, big picture here, 2004. Why the change? Why go back to 2004 from 2008? Well, if you ask me, more victims are now a part of this case and we'll testify. And when you think about who that might be, let me just say a disclaimer, we don't know. We do not know for sure. But what we do know is that Combs has faced a multitude of civil lawsuits that have alleged sexual assault from before 2008. And he has faced lawsuits after he was ultimately indicted. And I will tell you what, when I think about that date,

there's one person who has sued Sean Combs and claims that she was groomed into sex trafficking through a number of events that started in 2004. That's Adria English. Remember her? We've talked about her on Sidebar before. So she sued Combs and her complaint reads specifically from 2004 to 2009, plaintiff was sex trafficked by defendant Combs. As described herein, defendant Combs frightened and placed plaintiff in apprehension of harm when he forced and coerced plaintiff to engage in sex work for him during his white parties from 2004 to 2009 at defendant Combs' homes in Miami, Florida, and Hampton, New York. Again, we do not know for sure if she is now a part of this criminal case, but that's where my mind went, okay?

I thought about the time frame. I thought about her civil lawsuit. It's not outside the realm of possibility. So again, we don't know for sure if she's an alleged victim or a key witness in this case. The same way, we don't know for sure if Cassandra Ventura is either. But, you know, we're looking between the lines. Oh, and by the way, let me just add this. Generally speaking, several lawsuits have alleged illegal conduct committed by Combs between 2004 and 2008. Okay. Now, one of the thing I have to mention about this, the significance of this change, is that the original complaint had 2008 to the date of the indictment. Now, it's 2004 through in or about 2024. So that signifies to me they may be talking about a criminal enterprise engaging in a legal activity even after the

indictment. And that's not surprising because as we reported here on sidebar, Combs has been accused of breaking the Bureau of Prison's rules as he's locked up at the Metropolitan Detention Center out in Brooklyn, New York. He's been accused of using other inmates' PAC numbers, engaging in three-way phone calls, using others to try to reach out to victims and witnesses. Now, I'm not saying this is what prosecutors are referring to, but there have been allegations that he and those close to him have been engaging in alleged misconduct since his arrest and indictment. So maybe that's why you see the change in that time period. All right, so now let me move on to the next change that I noticed. And again, this is trying to broaden out in my mind, trying to broaden out

the scope of alleged illegal activity from just freakoffs. This is beyond just freakoffs. Why? Because in the superseding indictment, it says now some of the commercial sex acts were freak off. So you have commercial sex acts that could be illegal that don't, again, rise to the level of freak-offs. There was also another line in the superseding indictment that was new, and I want to tell you about it. It says on page six, in connection with the commercial sex acts, Combs provided the victims with, among other things, monetary payments, career opportunities, and payment of rent and housing expenses. That is a new line. And it seems to me what they're really trying to do, prosecutors here are trying to explain the commercial element of these acts, providing or

promising something of value to coerce these people into doing this? Now, by the way, the defense will say, look, Sean Combs, if these were his girlfriends or these were his romantic partners, don't boyfriends pay for gifts? Don't they give them money if they need it? Don't they help them out? This is not sex trafficking. This is a relationship. That is what I anticipate we will hear from the defense. Okay, now we have another big change in this superseding indictment. Actually, it's a whole new paragraph. This wasn't in the original indictment. This is the new paragraph in the superseding indictment. Quote, other commercial sex acts involved only Combs and a female victim. As with freak-offs, other members and associates of the Combs Enterprise assisted

with arrangements for these commercial sex acts, including by arranging travel and accommodations for victims. At times, Combs with the assistance of other members and associates of the enterprise transported and caused to be transported, victims across state lines, and internationally in connection with the commercial sex acts. Like the freak-offs, these commercial sex acts involving combs and a female victim were pre-arranged, sometimes lasted multiple days, were sometimes electronically recorded by combs, and often involve combs distributing a variety of controlled substances to the victim, in part to keep the victim obedient and compliance.

So that is very, very similar to the description of the freak-offs. I guess what's happening here, prosecutors might be looking at their case and saying, we're going to describe these alleged illegal sexual episodes, these instances of sex trafficking. And if the term freakoff wasn't used or it's not characteristic of a freakoff, then a jury could look at this and say, you know, prosecutors, I don't think this is a freak off, as you described. But now broadening it to say, we're talking about generally illegal commercial sex acts that may or may not be freakoffs. That is how they're trying to win this case. That's my take at least.

is really to solidify and crystallize that sex trafficking charge. And you see the addition of commercial sex acts with the freakoffs. For instance, we see lines like this one in the superseding indictment that creates that separation. Quote, Combs subjected victims to physical, emotional, and verbal abuse to cause the victims to engage in freakoffs and other commercial sex acts. Okay, now we have another line that was changed from the original indictment. In the original indictment it read, Combs also threatened victims' careers and livelihoods, including if they resisted participating in freakoffs. In the new indictment, it says, Combs also threatened victims' careers and livelihoods, including if they resisted engaging in sex acts with Combs and

at times with Combs and male commercial sex workers. They're going beyond the specificity of freakoffs. Okay, we have another change that's pretty notable too. So both indictments, they share a paragraph where they discuss how Combs, if anyone threatened, him. If anyone threatened his authority or reputation, meaning employees or witnesses to his alleged abuse, he would take action. Prosecutors say that would include committing acts of violence. But here is where the indictments are different. In the original indictment, it says acts of violence included kidnapping and arson. In the superseding indictment, it says these acts of violence, quote, included arson and multiple acts of kidnapping, including one

instance of kidnapping during which Combs carried and displayed a firearm. And quote, on one occasion, Combs dragged a victim over an apartment balcony. That is new. That is a new allegation. This is now becoming very, very specific. Now, we don't know if that will come from a witness testifying to this or maybe even the person this allegedly happened to. But what I can tell you is this has come up before. This is consistent with the account of a woman named Brianna Banna Bongolyn. She filed a lawsuit against Combs last year. And in that lawsuit, she claimed that back in September of 2016,

while sleeping at Ventura's apartment, Combs barged in, groped her breasts, and then dangled her off a 17-story balcony. She claims in the suit that she almost died, and Ventura had to step in to stop this. So if that is who we may be thinking here, now you would have somebody who would maybe be a supporting witness to Ventura's account. Again, assuming Ventura is victim one and takes the stand here. So now you have

a supporting witness. But this is a really big additional detail. Now I have to say this too. With everything that we're saying, and specifically with this allegation from Ms. Bongolin, Combs has adamantly denied these allegations and all of the allegations that he's facing on a criminal and civil level. And he has not been found guilty. He has not been found liable in any of the civil lawsuits. He is presumed innocent. He has a right to do process. I have to make that clear. As bad as these allegations are, he is innocent. He is presumed innocent at this moment. Okay. Here is another notable difference, too, between the two indictments. So when describing all the alleged illegal activities that this purported criminal enterprise led by Sean Combs was engaged in, prosecutor said that

included multiple acts of kidnapping that are crimes under state law. But here is the difference. In the original indictment, prosecutors just list certain California criminal laws like the kidnapping statute, attempt, aiding and abetting, conspiracy, all California statutes. In the superseding indictment, those statutes are still there, but also those same crimes are now listed under New York statutes. So New York statutes are now included as part of this. So now we're talking about alleged kidnapping or attempted kidnapping in California. and New York, right? I think it's a fair assumption to say that's what we're dealing with.

But to be clear, look, the context, the descriptions, the specific events, we don't know that yet, but the prosecutor's case seems to now focus on two different states. And maybe we will know about that soon. Keep that in mind. I'm going to explain that in a minute. And then we have another difference towards the end of the indictment. And this is for the third count, transportation to engage in prostitution. So unlike the original indictment, they actually list out the victims. They say victim one, victim two, and victim three. We didn't have that in the original indictment. And more specifically, it reads, from at least in or about 2009, up and to and including in or about 2024 in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, Sean Combs, the

defendant knowingly transported individuals in interstate and foreign commerce with intent that the individuals engage in prostitution and attempted, aided, and abetted, and willfully caused the same to wit. Combs transported, aided, and abetted, and willfully caused the transportation of female victims, including but not limited to, victim one, victim two, and victim three, and commercial sex workers in interstate and foreign commerce on multiple occasions with the intent that they engage in prostitution. So here's something that's interesting. If you told me that victim two and victim three were now added to this superseding indictment, I thought that they would be added to the specific count of sex trafficking by

forced fraud or coercion. But when you read this superseding indictment, that is still only only with respect to victim one, not victims two and three. I find that interesting. Anyway, now I have one final difference that I spotted, and it's that this indictment was signed by the new acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. We have Danielle R. Sassoon, who came into office after President Donald Trump took office. She replaced the original United States attorney who brought this case against Combs,

Damien Williams. He was nominated by President Joe Biden. But those are the differences. And it's interesting when looking at this. Again, no new charges, no new defendants. We had all wondered whether there would be new charges, particularly with respect to minors, right? Because Combs has been accused in multiple lawsuits of sexually assaulting underage people. We thought an element of minors might be included here.

But again, a civil lawsuit, the burden of proof is very different between a civil lawsuit and ultimately a criminal case. And remember, those are allegations from plaintiffs, very different than the case the prosecutors bring on. But we also thought there might be additional victims laid out specifically in that sex trafficking charge, but as I said, there aren't. Or we thought there might be other defendants. And it's interesting to think about that because Combs is accused of leading a racketeering criminal enterprise where you need other people to be a part of this. It's a conspiracy. He's actually charged with racketeering conspiracy. He can't do this on his own. Prosecutors say he didn't carry out this whole alleged pattern of abuse of women for years by himself. He has to

had AIDS. He had to have co-conspirators. And yet, he's the only one criminally charged in this action. So we thought there might be more defendants. You have to imagine that if there were going to be additional criminal defendants, that would have happened by now? I mean, the trial slated for May. Or, you know, you may be seeing a lot of alleged co-conspirators cooperating with the government as key witnesses. Maybe you'll see prosecutions at another point in time. Maybe after Sean Combs' case. We'll see. Or maybe, you know, prosecutors just can't identify who these people are. A lot of different possibilities here. We also, by the way, anticipated that there may be specific charges that were added to this case based upon what I mentioned before. Combs alleged

bad behavior at the MDC, the Metropolitan Detention Center, more specifically like charges of witness tampering. Now, we may see that evidence presented as part of the overarching racketeering case, But again, it doesn't appear he's going to be individually charged for that alleged conduct. And if there were going to be more charges, you would think they would happen by now. But I want you to keep that in mind because Combs' attorney, Mark Ignifalo, released a statement to CNN. And he said, the latest indictment contains no new offenses. The prosecution's theory remains flawed.

The government has added the ridiculous theory that two of Mr. Combs' former girlfriends were not girlfriends at all, but were prostitutes. Mr. Combs is as committed as ever to fighting these charges and winning a trial. So he seems to be referring to victim two and victim three. However, as reported by CNN, prosecutors did indicate yesterday in a letter to Judge Arun Sub-Romanian, quote, as the government has previously indicated, its investigation remains active and ongoing. The government will endeavor to return any further superseding indictment as promptly as possible, mindful of the May 5th, 2025 trial date in this case.

Okay, now before we wrap things up, one more thing I have to highlight as we're seeing the prosecutors getting a bit more specific and enlarging their case. As we've discussed here on Sidebar, Combs' legal team has been asking prosecutors to be more specific about the racketeering charge. Give us more details so we can properly prepare for this case and defend our client. And that would include providing more details about individual events. So I want you to be on the lookout for an upcoming enterprise letter. from prosecutors. That may lay out things like dates, locations, participants in individual

illegal criminal acts that may make up the racketeering charge. For example, why are we seeing New York kidnapping charges as part of the racketeering case? Those are the kinds of explanations that we are looking for because when you think about it, this case is still a little nebulous in terms of what exactly is being alleged and who the witnesses are and who the victims are. We're using our judgment to make educated guesses here, but sometimes in these kinds of federal cases, we may not know the details until much closer to trial. And based upon the pretrial schedule, it appears prosecutors are on their way to file that enterprise letter. But that's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar. Everybody, thank you so much for joining us.

And as always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time. You can binge all episodes of this law and crime series ad free right now on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.