Incalls getting around LE?

[woolf]

Is this worth discussing?

There was a post on Romeo's site where someone asked about paying an SP via paypal. I believe he was getting at paying sort of an set of instalment payments over the month via paypal through and then when the proper amount was built up, the appointment could be made ... that got me thinking.

Considering what happened recently with KH, I was wondering if rather than having an incall service where cash changed hands, or credit cards were processed, would transferring the funds using paypal, if not "get around", maybe make it much harder for LE to be able to prove that there was any "prostitution" happening?

What are the actual charges that LE uses? I had just assumed that actual prostitution being legal, it was the fact that a property was being used as a "common" location for providing prostitution services by people who are not listed as the owner or the leaser.

I also assumed that if the location is "your" own home or rented apartment that "you" are perfectly within your legal rights to sell sex there... it's only when you allow others not registered as the owner or leaser where you got in trouble.

Now I also assume that if a bunch of people got together at a private dwelling, that two consenting adults having sex where no money is being exchanged is perfectly legal.

So, rather than using cash or CCs, if a service like paypal were used where LE would have to go after your bank information, the providers bank information, and paypal records them self (instead of simply finding cash, or having a single merchant account to go after that shows both sides of the transaction in one place,) to try and match the transactions, that this would make it way more work than it's worth to try and go after for a simple prostitution charge.

So if KH had been using paypal for all their transactions, LE would have burst in, found a few rooms of people having sex, but no easily provable evidence that money was being exchanged ... what case would they have then?

Anyway, please feel free to knock down my assumptions, as I was just "brainstorming" and that's what happens when I let a strong wind blow through my head.

 

[scattered]

I don't think your characterization of the legalities represents a scenario where you'd successfully evade either prostitution or "bawdy house" charges. Going through PayPal means that there's a clearer cash flow, not a more hidden one.

 

[woolf]

I really don't know all the legal issues for what constitutes what owners, workers, and "found ins" get charged with. That's why I'm asking ... any clarification would be appreciated.

My assumptions, and they may well be wrong, is that the usual charges against in call services are basically "bawdy house" violations.

Because of the recent SC decision regarding "swinger clubs" in Quebec, it should make it harder for the police to have charges stick if there is no proof that money exchanged hands.

The trick, if I am correct in my previous assumption, is to make it as hard as possible for the police to find evidence of money exchanged for services ... if they come into a house with a bunch of people having sex, then, as I understand the SC decision, they have to show that a bunch of people having sex in a private abode in that area is against community standards ... a hard thing to prove in a city as large and diverse as Toronto.

I suggest "paypal" because it puts a layer of obscurity between the payer and payee.

Looking at normal transactions:

Cash: I assume that unless cash is exchanged or offered to be exchanged to an undercover officer, or it has been viewed being exchanged, then there is nothing to prove that the sex was in exchanged for money ... but that exposes the house to the danger of undercover officers.

CC: A CC transaction shows up on your statement with the name of the "merchant account" you are making the payment to ... I imagine it is pretty easy for police to get a warrant for a merchant account, or even a personal CC account to see the transactions.

Paypal: A paypal account adds a layer of obscurity to the transaction. Unless. like cash, this is an undercover sting and the officer has direct knowledge of the exchange, then in order for them to make the connection they will have to get warrants for the payer bank / CC account to show the money going to paypal; a warrant for the payee merchant account to show the money coming in; and a warrant for the paypal accounts (a US company) to show that the "out and in" matched up.

Now, it may be that my assumptions are wrong, and that there is no need for the crown to show that money exchanged hands, and that simply a bunch of people found in a house having sex is sufficient proof to lay charges .... but that's part of the reason why I'm asking this question ... to be educated on the legal issues of this hobby.

 

[woolf]

I don't think your characterization of the legalities represents a scenario where you'd successfully evade either prostitution or "bawdy house" charges. Going through PayPal means that there's a clearer cash flow, not a more hidden one.

"Clearer" maybe (but not as clear as a CC transaction) but "clearer" in a different country where it would be harder (maybe) to get a warrat.

 

[goalie000]

If the owner of the establishment is the only one using it to serve her clients, does that make a difference as far as bawdy house charges are concerned. Would LE even bother with something like that.