Law&Crime Sidebar - New Bombshell P. Diddy Indictment Slaps Music Mogul with New Charges

Episode Date: April 4, 2025

Federal prosecutors filed a third superseding indictment Friday against Sean “Diddy” Combs. The disgraced music mogul now faces five counts related to sex trafficking and racketeering crimes. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber breaks down the key details in the latest grand jury filing with former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani.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 & Jay CruzScript 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 Diddy Combs was just hit with two new federal charges in his sex trafficking and racketeering case. With trial set to start in just weeks, we're going to break down what the government is now alleging with their third superseding indictment, and also the government's new request of the court to protect the identities of certain alleged victims who plan to testify. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by law and crime. I'm Jesse Weber. We're now essentially a month away from Sean Diddy Combs' trial in New York City, and he has just been hit

with a new third superseding indictment. What's new? What's different? Why now? I'll tell you what. There's some significant things that we've got to talk about. Now, the main theme doesn't change here. Federal prosecutors from the Southern District of New York have accused him and are continuing to accuse him of essentially running a criminal enterprise that focused on his apparently insatiable sexual appetite. Combs was indicted last fall with three counts, racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion, transportation to engage in prostitution. And since the first grand jury indictment came now, We have seen superseding indictments that have changed some of the language, maybe given hints to what evidence or what kind of evidence the prosecution might have against the music mogul.

But now we have this third superseding indictment. And this one actually adds two new charges and has a little bit of a difference in language. So we're going to break it down. And also we're going to break down the government just filed papers with the court asking to protect the identities of certain. alleged victims who plan to testify at trial. Now, to be clear, Combs has always, always adamantly denied any wrongdoing the charges, any of the allegations he faces in the numerous civil lawsuits that he faces, and he said he looks forward to his day in court. All right, so I'm not going to do this alone. We have this friend of the show, former federal prosecutor, Nima Romani. Nima's so

good to see you, just the person I wanted to talk to about this. We have so much to get into. First, though, you got to talk to me about this. Combs scheduled to go to trial in May, next month, May 5th, weeks away, really getting to the wire here. Why file this right now? Let's just start there, the timing of it. Jesse, great to be on as always, and I guess better late than never when it comes to the Department of Justice. But really, one month before trial is late, and that's why accompanying the superseding indictment, the third superseding indictment is a letter to the court essentially saying, this doesn't change anything. We've already

produced the evidence in discovery. We've produced the witness statements, the victim statements under the Jenks Act. So Diddy and his team, they have everything because they know the judge is probably going to give him a hard time for this indictment so close to the trial. Now, we know that Diddy doesn't want to push the trial because he's in custody without bail. But typically, if you go to the grand jury this late, this is a very good excuse and a reason for the defense to ask for a continuance. Absolutely. I think it would have been granted. I really think it would have been granted. Now, not saying that that's what they're going to do here. And I'll get into the defense's response or lack thereof, which I think is interesting. But now I want to get into the indictment.

So first of all, this new indictment makes the same overall claim. Quote, for decades, the defendant abused, threatened and coerced women and others around him to fulfill his sexual desires, protect his reputation and conceal his conduct. And a prior superseding indictment updated the date range for the allegations against Combs, pushing it back from 2008 to 2004, claiming that between 2004 and 2024 is what's referred to as Combs Enterprise committed various crimes, like arson, kidnapping, drug possession. And to convict Combs on the racketeering charge, the government is relying on trying to prove these underlying crimes that were committed in furtherance of the enterprise. Hey, everybody, this is a law and crime.

legal alert. 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 this? Yeah. Well, Morgan and Morgan is stepping into fight to hold these food companies accountable. With decades of experience fighting large corporations, they are ready to stand up for families who deserve justice. So if your child under 21 has been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes or fatty liver disease, then visit www.4thepeople.com slash food or scan the QR code on screen to learn more. Now, going back to the new indictment, the third superseding indictment, as Nima just mentioned, a letter submitted to Judge Rune Sub-Romanian

by acting U.S. Attorney Matthew Poldowski lays out what this is about, lays out the three big differences in this new filing. Quote, the third superseding indictment contains three substantive changes to the charged offenses. First, count four, which is, by the way, a new count, count 4 charges an additional substantive count of sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion with respect to victim 2. Victim 2 was previously identified as a victim of sex trafficking in count 1 of the second superseding indictment. And if you look at count 1 in the second superseding indictment, which is racketeering conspiracy,

it reads in part, Combs then use force, threats of force and coercion to cause victims, including but not limited to, three female victims, victim 1, victim 2, and victim 3, to engage in commercial sex acts. 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. Okay, so again, that was count one in the second superseding indictment.

But now Combs is facing a new individual sex trafficking charge against victim two. And it reads, quote, from at least in or about 2021, up to and including in or about 2024 in the Southern District of New York, New York and elsewhere, Sean Combs, and then it says, recruited, enticed, harbor, transported, and maintained victim two, and attempted, aided, and abetted, and willfully cause victim two to engage in commercial sex acts, knowing, and in reckless disregard for the fact that

victim two was engaging in commercial sex acts as a result of forced fraud and coercion. Nima, why do this? Why create this separate charge for victim two? Jesse, the reason you want to create a separate charge for victim two is because you have have that and language. And again, I'm not saying this is highly likely, but it's a possibility. The government's saying that did he sextract victim one, two, and three.

Well, for some reason, the jurors think that did he extract three, but not two, you're gonna get a not guilty on that count. So they separated it out, really out an abundance of caution. So I just stop, can I just stop you right there? What happens if the jury selection, excuse me, jury instructions, jury, Even though it says victims one, two, and three in this racketeering count, if you find that he sex trafficked either one or two or three, he's still guilty of it. Couldn't they say that? Or you need this separate charge.

You can absolutely address this issue in the verdict form. Doesn't necessarily need to be split up in the indictment. For some reason, maybe there was just a different story with respect to victim to. Victim one, we all believe, or at least I believe, is Cassie Ventura, right? That's fair. That's fair. Yep. I think, and then Victims 2, 3, and 4 now, or witness 4 who's going to testify. We don't know who they are, and we're going to talk about it. I'm sure they want to remain anonymous or at least be identified by just their initials. So, you know, to the extent that Victim 2 has a different story than Cassie Venture, obviously Cassie Venture was in a long-term relationship with Combs, spanning more than a decade. We've all seen the video from the hotel here in Los Angeles that CNN was able to obtain.

probably victim to has a different sex trafficking story and I think that's why the government an abundance of caution wanted to separate her out let's say she or he was a commercial sex worker she she was a commercial sex worker and wasn't necessarily someone that combs was in a long-term relationship with may be better just to separate her story out so she can tell it and it's not and in order to get a conviction against them why not include this at the second superseding indictment. I mean, they could have made that a separate charge. Why wait for this one?

Was there additional evidence that they look back in and said, huh, maybe we weren't as clear as we could be? Why not just do it? I think it was at the beginning of March when the second one came out. I think that's probably it. They're preparing for trial and they're saying, you know what, maybe we pled this in a way that we shouldn't have. And look, they're not just thinking about the trial, Jesse.

They're thinking about the inevitable appeal that's going to follow if Combs is convicted. Obviously, he has essentially unlimited money. The last thing you want is the Second Circuit or some appellate court looking at this and saying, well, this was unconstitutionally vague or the jury conflated all this evidence together. So I think just the best practice was

let's separate victim two out. And maybe this evidence sort of came to light because there's reportedly more than 100 victims. Obviously, the government's not going to put 100 victims on the stand. We know many of them have filed civil lawsuits. They're going to pick and choose the people they think are their best victims, right? The three, four, five, six, whatever the case may be, there's other prior bad acts witnesses. So during their witness prep and trial prep,

maybe they thought, you know what, victim two has a different separate story. Let's plead her separately. I think that's a really, really good point that you make there, and that makes sense to me. So now let's go into the second difference in this new grand jury indictment. So the prosecution's letter reads, quote, second, count one has been amended to include a second special sentencing factor related to the new sex trafficking offense, charged in count four. So buried in the indictment is some new information about special sentencing factors. And in the second superseding indictment, this section contained only one part. Now, and the third one, the third indictment, it has two. So the first covers years 2009 to 2018,

and it reads from at least in or about 2009 up to an including in or about 2018 in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere as part of his agreement to conduct and participate in the conduct of the affairs of the Combs Enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, Sean Combs, the defendant, agreed to in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, knowingly, recruited, enticed, harbor, transport, provide, obtain, advertise, maintain, patronize, and solicit by any means, a person knowing and in reckless disregard of the fact that means of force, threats, of force, fraud, and coercion, and any combination of such means would be used to cause the person to engage in a commercial sex act. A lot of words to basically say Combs knew that

people were allegedly being recruited and sometimes coerced into performing these commercial sex acts. This was intentional, right? Now, the second part of the special sentencing factor, this section, says the exact same thing, word for word, but now in this new indictment, refers to in or about 2021 up to and including in or about 2024. So referring to victim two. Nemo, again, why do this? Again, victim two. Again, victim two. right seems like this third superseding indictment is all about victim too she is going to be a very important part of the story in this case and it's going to be interesting to see how the defense handles cassie ventura they may say that this is a disgruntled ex it was settled the very next day

we're assuming that there was some significant payout we don't know what the story is with respect to victim too but it's clear that that is going to be a very big part of the case it's not just Cassie is going to be the star witness, victim two is going to take the stand. And that may be the victim that's going to add to victim one story that ultimately puts Didy away. Interesting gap, by the way, right? You 2019 to 2021, or is it that why did it start on 2021? Is that when this alleged relationship, this alleged illegal act started? I mean, interesting that you have that gap right there, right? Definitely. And obviously, the government's arguing that this was continuous dating back 20 years now, going back to 2004, but we don't

know who victim to is when she entered Combs' life, what her story is, but the fact that she's more recent is also going to be more helpful. As these allegations become older, they're tougher to prove. Witness memories can not be as good. Evidence can disappear. So the fact that we have a victim now that is within the past five years bodes well for the prosecutor. And it was this alleged conduct was happening in 2024, right? So after he was sued by Cassie Ventura, settled that lawsuit, then was hit with more lawsuits. That's significant too. Oh, no question, because the Cassie Ventura lawsuit was around November 23, if I recall correctly, that's when the statute of limitations was running there in New York State. So to the extent that

we have conduct continuing after that bombshell lawsuit was filed, that's very good for the prosecution. Okay, now I want to get into the third big substantive change in this third superseding indictment. So it says the government's letter says, quote, third, the third superseding indictment charges the man act in two separate counts and counts three and five covering conduct for victim one and victim two respectively. The second superseding indictment previously charged this conduct as a single man act offense. And if we read this new count, this brand new count five in the third superseding indictment, it now says, quote, from at least in or about 2021 up to and including in or about 2024 in the Southern District of

New York and elsewhere, Sean Combs, and then it says knowingly transported individuals in interstate and foreign commerce with intent that the individuals engage in prostitution and attempted, aided, and abetted, and willfully cause the same to wit. Combs transported, aided, and abetted, and willfully cause the transportation of multiple individuals, including but not limited to, victim two, and commercial sex workers in interstate and foreign commerce on multiple occasions with the intent that they engage in prostitution. So, NEMA, back to you, it's all about victim two here, right? And adding this specific charge, the transportation to engage in prostitution charge for victim two.

I go back to this idea, why wasn't an initially charged this way? And it's significant that they do this. And it makes me wonder if they're making the change this late in the game, does it potentially show a weakness in their case or a weakness on how they're going to present this to the jury? Well, Jesse, it's the same reason, like you said, the reason the sex trafficking of victim two was put in a separate count. Now, victim two, whether it's a different story, whether it's a different timetable, maybe Cassie sex trafficking or the prostitution stopped at 2019. And they want to pick it back up in 2021. For whatever reason, the government thinks that those stories should be told separately.

in separate counts, and that's going to be part and parcel of their strategy in this case. I don't necessarily think it shows weakness. I think there's plenty of individuals that are going to tell similar stories of physical and sexual violence, but for some reason, this is just a different chapter in the same book. Okay, so let me ask you this. Now that I'm going to go to, I'm going to go to a different change that I don't quite understand on the face of it. So the government writes in their letter to the court, in addition, the language of

count one contains two non-substantive changes clarifying that the defendant kidnapped and carried and displayed a firearm to female victim and that the defendant dangled a female victim over an apartment balcony. Let me explain that a little bit more. So you go to this section of the third superseding indictment and it says it's part of count one, the racketeering case. When employees witnesses to his abuse or others threaten Combs' authority or reputation, and members and associates of the enterprise engaged in acts of violence, threats of violence,

threats of financial, reputational harm, and verbal abuse. These acts of violence included arson and multiple acts of kidnapping, including one instance of kidnapping during which Combs carried and displayed a firearm to a female victim, so that part is new. In addition, on multiple occasions, combs through both objects and people, as well as hit, drag, choked, and shoved others. In one occasion, Combs dangled a female victim over an apartment balcony. Now, that addition NEMA of female and female, to clarify that, this is not, I mean, in fairness, this is not a paper from my doctoral thesis where I want to make sure everything is as specific possible. Why does it matter? Why do they have to add female victim? If they're going to,

aren't they going to argue that anyway at trial? I don't understand why they had to be so precise there. It doesn't necessarily have to be a female or a male. We're talking about RICO predicate acts, right? So obviously under the statute, you have to have two or more of these acts, and we've gone through them, kidnapping, arson, extortion, other crimes of violence. But it can be to a male. It could be to a female. I don't think that's going to change the case one way or another. So you're right, Jesse, it's not necessary to identify whether the victim was male or female. And you know what's interesting. We've talked about this before. This balcony incident, this is consistent with the account of a woman named Brianna Banna-Bungolan, who filed a lawsuit against Combs last year.

She claimed back in September of 2016, while sleeping at Ventura's apartment, Combs barged in, groped her breasts, dangled her off a 17-story balcony. She claims in the suit that she almost died, and that Ventura had to step in to stop this. So if that is who we may be thinking, and now you would have someone who maybe would be supporting, a supporting witness to Cassie Ventura's account. Again, assuming she's victim one, that's my take, Neema. I don't think I'm that far off. No, that sounds absolutely right.

Obviously, that's a horrible thing to allegedly happen to anyone, but you would think that there's not multiple people that were dangled off a balcony by Sean Didy Combs, and that probably is her, and at least from the government's perspective, she's going to be testifying in this case. Now, you mentioned this before. At the end of the letter, the prosecution says it's produced all discovery and janks acts material, which is, you know, basically the statements of government witnesses who are going to be testifying, which isn't affected by this new indictment because it seems to concern the same two victims. And the letter also notes that the government doesn't expect this third superseding indictment to affect existing pre-trial deadlines. You know, you mentioned it before that Combs is looking to go to trial as immediately as possible. try to, you know, get it acquittal, try to get out of there.

But I wonder, is this fair to the defense? Is this trial still going to happen May 5th? I do think the trial is still going to happen May 5th, because ultimately, Jesse, we know it's the defendant's right to a speedy trial. And the defense is going to ask for a continuance. If they say, listen, you're dropping this on us at the 11th hour. If they don't make the request for a continuance, then the judge is going to keep the trial date. So now I have one final thing I have to ask.

you about. This is putting aside the third superseding indictment. So the government filed with the court a motion in limine. Basically, you know, that's regarding how evidence will be limited or restricted in a trial. And the government argues that pursuant to the Crime Victims Rights Act, the court needs to put in some measures to protect the privacy of some of the alleged victims who plan to testify, namely victims two, three, and four, not victim one. The prosecutors indicated that victim one, again, who we believe to be Cassandra Ventura, is prepared to testify under her own name, revealing herself. But essentially, with regard to the other victims, they're arguing that they should be referred to by pseudonyms, that the defense can't elicit personally

identifiable details of them when they have an opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses, that the court seal certain exhibits to protect their identities. And really what the prosecutors highlighted was that their testimony is going to be extremely sensitive and personal. I mean, think about what they're going to be testifying to, and that this will cause them embarrassment and anxiety and social stigma if their identities are revealed, both for them and their families. And the prosecution supports that with a legal argument. For example, they say the confrontation clause may guarantee defendants a right to cross-examine and confront their witnesses or confront the government's witnesses, but it's not absolute. And the prosecutors even cited the Galane Maxwell case where

victims were allowed to testify under pseudonyms. Nima, good argument? It's an okay argument, and it's really up to the discretion of Judge Subramanian, but there's a presumption that trials in this country are public and they're accessible to the public. And really testifying under a pseudonym or filing documents under sealed, that's the exception rather than the rule. Now, the federal rules, judges do have a lot of discretion and they look at factors like potential harm to the victim, the sensitive nature of the testimony. But ultimately, we're talking about a criminal trial and I respect victims, but the person that probably has the most rights here is Sean Diddy Combs. And to the extent that he objects to this, I would probably guess that

the victims may not have this protection that the government is asking for. Why would it be be why does the defense need to know this? I mean, they know who these people are. Why do they want them to not have to testify under pseudonyms? Why does that affect their case? For the same reason why Combs' civil defense lawyers, they're trying to out and identify the victims. And the judges in those civil cases have ruled, at least some of them, that the victims that they want to proceed with these allegations against Combs in civil court, where we're just talking about money, they do have to identify themselves. And not only is he a civil defendant, but he's a criminal defendant.

And to the extent that the defense makes a colorable argument that this affects his ability to try the case fairly. And obviously, we all know with the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause. I do think on balance, judges tend to side with a defense there, especially when they know an appeal is inevitable. So there's a number of civil cases that we've seen where the judges have said you have to identify yourself. And I think the fair argument is you're the one who filed a lawsuit. You're the one who made it public. The defendant has a right to know who you are. And yes, from a defense point of view, if you're putting the pressure on them to identify

themselves, they may drop the lawsuit. They might not want to continue. It is different in a criminal case. These, assuming for a moment that these other alleged victims didn't file lawsuits against Sean Cones, they're not choosing to be government witnesses. I mean, maybe some of them did, but they're subject to a subpoena, right? If they say, hey, we don't want to testify government, the government can't the government come back and be like too bad you have to now of course government can compel their testimony obviously

they're going to have a much stronger argument if they haven't filed a civil lawsuit they've never identified themselves they don't want to testify i'm sure that's something the judge would consider it's just again it's yeah i understand the argument just my prediction given how these cases are typically handled oftentimes and it's sad and we've seen it time and time again, it can be Harvey Weinstein. Bill Cosby, victims of sexual assault do have to testify. Now, sometimes the media doesn't identify them, even though they're testifying publicly in court. And that's decisions that media companies make. But it's really the exception rather than the rule that they can testify under some pseudonym. Nima Romani, so good seeing you.

Thank you so much for breaking down these changes with me. You know, such a pleasure, as always. Thanks for having me, Jesse. Talk soon. we wrapped up this interview with Nima Romani. Turns out, Sean Combs' legal team issued a formal response to this third superseding indictment, and it says, these are not new allegations or new accusers. These are the same individuals, former long-term girlfriends who were involved in consensual relationships. This was their private sex life, defined by consent, not coercion. All right, there you have it, everybody. Thank you so much for joining us here on Sidebar. 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.