Investigation of Somali Human Trafficking Ring Goes Beyond Sex Crimes – Part 2

In our last post we discussed the indictment and arrest of individuals involved in a human trafficking and underage prostitution ring based in Minneapolis that stretched to Tennessee and Ohio.

In this post, we will discuss the additional financial crime charges that authorities are investigating and how the sex crime charges led to the financial crime investigation of the Minneapolis based Somali gangs.

According to sources close to the investigation, the underage prostitution ring is a small part of a larger criminal scheme that involves credit card fraud, tampering with witnesses and burglary. Prosecutors often look to implicate defendants involved in cross state crimes on federal charges because federal crime charges have longer prison sentences in comparison to state crime charges. Authorities involved in the human trafficking case also alleged financial crimes in order to indict more gang members involved in the cross state criminal scheme.

Human trafficking cases can also be hard to prove, so federal investigators and prosecutors look to other actions that occur across state lines such as tax evasion, mail fraud or cyber crime to build a more successful case. Human trafficking cases often involve other crimes and investigators will follow money trails to financial crimes.

The financial crimes alleged in the indictments against the Somali gangs include counterfeit credit card production and use and stolen cash, payroll checks and credit card numbers. The gangs allegedly created 500 fake credit cards and used them to shop at Walmarts in the Twin Cities and in Missouri. Gang members were also accused of possessing 166 credit card account numbers and using the credit card information to purchase $231,000 in goods and services. The credit card information was allegedly gleaned by gang members who worked for a hotel in the Twin Cities. Authorities say they will follow whatever criminal charges lead to building the best case against the gangs.

Source: Star Tribune, “A Huge Web of Gang Crime,” David Chanen and James Walsh, 11/10/10

Max Keller has won countless jury trial cases involving misdemeanors and felonies, sex crimes, and DWI’s. He is a member of the Minnesota Society for Criminal Justice, which only allows the top 50 criminal defense attorneys in the state as members. Max is a frequent speaker at CLE’s and is often asked for advice by other defense attorneys across Minnesota.

Years of Experience: Approx. 20 years
Minnesota Registration Status: Active
Bar & Court Admissions: State of Minnesota Minnesota State Court Minnesota Federal Court 8th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals State of Maryland

What to Do If You Have Been Charged with a Criminal Offense

The Surprising Cost of a Guilty Criminal Plea in Minnesota

Defendants in Minnesota may plead guilty or accept deals without understanding the hidden cost of a guilty criminal plea. A guilty criminal plea, regardless of how appealing it appears, can leave you dealing with substantial lifelong consequences. You may skip lengthy trial proceedings and likely get a lenient sentence, but end up with a criminal record. The record can lead to various financial and collateral consequences, including difficulty in securing employment, loss of housing rights, license revocation, and immigration issues.

What You Can Expect at a Pre-Trial Motions Hearing in Minnesota

The pre-trial motions hearing is a court session you attend after your first arraignment. At the hearing, the prosecution and defense appear before a judge to clear several details about the case before trial. These details include pre-trial motions, evidentiary queries, and constitutional matters.

Refusing Arrest vs. Resisting Arrest in Minnesota: What’s the Difference?

Highly publicized incidents of police using excessive force over the past few years have led to people wondering, “What’s the difference between refusing arrest vs. resisting arrest?” Resisting arrest in Minnesota occurs when you use force to prevent a police officer from making a lawful arrest. Refusing an arrest, on the other hand, involves statements or actions that show reluctance to cooperate with an officer’s instructions without using force.