Moira Penza

So again, similarly in the case that I prosecuted, even though we talk about it as the NXIVM case, I did not charge NXIVM as a criminal organization. I charged Keith Raniere and his associates together as a criminal organization who were using NXIVM classes, the individuals who were taking NXIVM courses. to commit these crimes, sometimes as participants in the crime, sometimes as victims.

And so just because there can be legitimate purposes to an enterprise, same thing with the FIFA case, right? There can be legitimate purposes to an enterprise, but where an individual is working with others to commit crimes, even if they are also doing things that are legitimate, that can still be racketeering.

And so just because there can be legitimate purposes to an enterprise, same thing with the FIFA case, right? There can be legitimate purposes to an enterprise, but where an individual is working with others to commit crimes, even if they are also doing things that are legitimate, that can still be racketeering.

So they've charged Sean Combs with racketeering conspiracy. So they have to show that he agreed with at least one other person to engage in racketeering. Then to actually figure that out, what you're looking for is two predicate acts of racketeering that other people were involved in facilitating. So, you know, there can be additional nuances to that as well.

So they've charged Sean Combs with racketeering conspiracy. So they have to show that he agreed with at least one other person to engage in racketeering. Then to actually figure that out, what you're looking for is two predicate acts of racketeering that other people were involved in facilitating. So, you know, there can be additional nuances to that as well.

But I think the government's going to want to make it easy for the jury and say, here are all these instances where the crime that Mr. Combs committed required other people's involvement. So that's I think the way that the government is going to lay it out. And in terms of whether they're there yet, I think they're getting there.

But I think the government's going to want to make it easy for the jury and say, here are all these instances where the crime that Mr. Combs committed required other people's involvement. So that's I think the way that the government is going to lay it out. And in terms of whether they're there yet, I think they're getting there.

I think we've heard testimony that showed the involvement of other individuals We also had testimony from one of Mr. Combs' assistants, and he was going to take a fifth, so he was not going to testify, saying that he would be incriminating himself if he took the stand. And so he was actually granted immunity so that he would, in fact, testify.

I think we've heard testimony that showed the involvement of other individuals We also had testimony from one of Mr. Combs' assistants, and he was going to take a fifth, so he was not going to testify, saying that he would be incriminating himself if he took the stand. And so he was actually granted immunity so that he would, in fact, testify.

And so having individuals who the government is actually saying were were part of this conspiracy testify about what they saw, what they did, that's going to be powerful evidence. And we still have weeks of trial to go.

And so having individuals who the government is actually saying were were part of this conspiracy testify about what they saw, what they did, that's going to be powerful evidence. And we still have weeks of trial to go.

Well, I think this is one of the toughest parts of the job as a prosecutor is really exercising that prosecutorial discretion. So just because somebody did engage in criminal conduct, just because somebody may have been a lower-ranking member of a criminal conspiracy, you may choose not to charge them with crimes, right?

Well, I think this is one of the toughest parts of the job as a prosecutor is really exercising that prosecutorial discretion. So just because somebody did engage in criminal conduct, just because somebody may have been a lower-ranking member of a criminal conspiracy, you may choose not to charge them with crimes, right?

In other situations, you might actually charge somebody with a crime and then they charge cooperate with the government and testify in exchange for the government eventually seeking leniency on their behalf. In other situations, and I can't speak to the exact specifics of how the government made the decision that they made, but in other situations,

In other situations, you might actually charge somebody with a crime and then they charge cooperate with the government and testify in exchange for the government eventually seeking leniency on their behalf. In other situations, and I can't speak to the exact specifics of how the government made the decision that they made, but in other situations,

what you're going to say is, this isn't necessarily somebody who I think should be charged for a crime or there may be other reasons why you don't want to charge them with a crime, but they themselves might say, or through their lawyers, I'm not going to testify because what you want me to say is going to incriminate me.

what you're going to say is, this isn't necessarily somebody who I think should be charged for a crime or there may be other reasons why you don't want to charge them with a crime, but they themselves might say, or through their lawyers, I'm not going to testify because what you want me to say is going to incriminate me.

And so in that situation, the government makes a calculus that you don't want to prosecute the person, but it is also worth, having them testify. And you always want to be doing that when it is helping you get the person who is significantly more culpable. And here, there's clearly no dispute that the defendant, Mr. Combs, was the head of this organization.

And so in that situation, the government makes a calculus that you don't want to prosecute the person, but it is also worth, having them testify. And you always want to be doing that when it is helping you get the person who is significantly more culpable. And here, there's clearly no dispute that the defendant, Mr. Combs, was the head of this organization.

So the government is going to make certain decisions to make sure that they can hold him responsible.