The federal judge presiding over Sean “Diddy” Combs’ impending sentencing for the two lesser charges he was convicted of in the high-stakes split verdict of his sensational racketeering and sex trafficking trial this past summer is now grappling with a pivotal argument from the mogul’s defense team: his conviction should be overturned if he is compelled to face a new trial.
On Thursday, just over a week before Combs, 55, is set to be sentenced after being found guilty of two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution, Judge Arun Subramanian informed the court that he would deliver a decision “very shortly” regarding the defense’s stance on Combs’ offenses and their connection to the Mann Act. Otherwise, Subramanian remarked, he would “reconvene with everyone here next Friday.” By Friday, as the courts closed for the weekend, there was no word from Judge Subramanian on his ruling.
The high-profile legal squad that steered Combs’ defense during the eight-week federal trial—culminating in his acquittal on the far more serious sex trafficking and racketeering allegations—has pushed for a restrictive interpretation of what qualifies as prostitution under the Mann Act in Combs’ situation. Legal precedent dictates that only individuals who partake in sexual acts or financially profit from prostitution are criminally culpable. Combs’ attorneys explained that he did not reap any financial gain when arranging for male sex workers to participate in “freak-off” parties—drug-infused gatherings that could stretch over days and predominantly featured Combs’ partners engaging sexually with the male prostitutes as he observed—with at least two of his long-term girlfriends over the past two decades. His legal representatives further contend that Combs did not even partake in the sexual activities himself.
At Combs’ trial, evidence emerged that he and the two women involved had procured the services of the sex workers, all of which was financed by the near-billionaire mogul. The Mann Act makes it a crime to transport an individual across state lines for the purpose of prostitution. The crux of Combs’ case, according to defense attorney Mark Tack, now hinges on whether this statute should extend to voyeurism. He insisted to the court that it should not. Prosecutor Meredith Foster countered that this point was irrelevant, as Combs had indeed hired the men and covered their travel expenses, as well as those of his two long-term girlfriends.
The defense team is also advancing the argument that, because Combs would document the freak-off events while orchestrating the unfolding scenes—with lighting, music, and attire all falling under his control, as revealed in trial testimony—his First Amendment rights would be infringed upon if the Mann Act were to be enforced. Federal prosecutor Christy Slavik, in rebuttal, informed the court that the Mann Act criminalizes the transportation of individuals for prostitution, and “it does not criminalize the filming of sex acts in any capacity.”
In a sentencing motion filed this week, defense attorneys contended that Combs should receive no more than 14 months for the two counts. Given the time he has already spent in a Brooklyn federal detention center since September 2024, this would allow the once-dominant figure in the rap world to return home by November. Prosecutors, however, have signaled their intention to pursue a more stringent sentence for Combs, likely a minimum of four years.
Combs faces a maximum sentence of 10 years for each count he was convicted of, meaning he could potentially be handed a total of 20 years when he stands before the federal court on October 3.
