18 U.S.C. § 1591 – Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud or coercion

| by Max Soni

Last Updated on: 4th October 2025, 10:40 pm

Federal Sex Trafficking Charges Under 18 U.S.C. § 1591

Being charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1591 for sex trafficking means facing mandatory minimum sentences of 10-15 years in federal prison with no parole. The statute criminalizes recruiting, harboring, transporting, providing, obtaining, advertising, maintaining, patronizing, or soliciting anyone for commercial sex when the person is under 18 or when force, fraud, or coercion is involved. Federal prosecutors secure convictions in approximately 93% of trafficking cases that go to trial, and judges impose sentences within or above guidelines in 78% of convictions.

At Spodek Law Group, we defend clients facing these charges nationwide. The government’s approach to trafficking prosecutions has evolved significantly since FOSTA-SESTA expanded liability in 2018, and understanding current enforcement patterns determines whether you serve decades in prison or negotiate manageable outcomes.

How § 1591 Prosecutions Actually Work

The statute reaches far beyond direct trafficking. Prosecutors charge anyone who “knowingly benefits” from trafficking ventures, which courts interpret broadly. Landlords who rent properties where commercial sex occurs face charges if prosecutors prove they had “reasonable cause to believe” trafficking was happening. Website operators, even those hosting legal adult services, get indicted when any user turns out to be underage. Uber drivers who transport sex workers between appointments face trafficking charges if prosecutors establish knowledge of the commercial nature.

This expansion happens through the “willful blindness” doctrine. Courts hold that deliberately avoiding knowledge equals actual knowledge. When landlords ignore obvious signs like unusual foot traffic and cash payments, or when website operators don’t verify ages despite repeated warnings, prosecutors argue willful blindness. The Second Circuit’s decision in United States v. Sabhnani established that conscious avoidance of facts satisfies the knowledge requirement, transforming passive participants into traffickers facing mandatory minimums.

Why These Cases Devastate Defendants Before Trial

Federal trafficking investigations typically involve parallel civil asset forfeiture proceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 981. The government seizes bank accounts, real estate, and vehicles as alleged trafficking proceeds before proving guilt. The burden then shifts to defendants to prove their assets are legitimate, but they can’t afford lawyers because their assets are frozen. This creates a vicious cycle where defendants can’t mount effective defenses because the government took their resources pretrial.

The detention rate for trafficking defendants exceeds 85% nationally. Magistrate judges rarely grant bail in these cases due to political pressure and the presumption of dangerousness under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). Detained defendants plead guilty at higher rates because they can’t assist in their defense, can’t maintain employment to pay attorneys, and face pressure to resolve cases quickly. The system creates conviction through attrition rather than evidence.

Mandatory Minimums and Sentencing Reality

The statutory minimums tell only part of the story:

Victim under 14: 15-year mandatory minimum, but guidelines typically produce 235-293 month sentences (19-24 years)Victim 14-17: 10-year mandatory minimum, but guidelines typically produce 151-188 month sentences (12-15 years)
Adult victim with force/fraud/coercion: 10-year mandatory minimum, guidelines vary based on specific conduct

These calculations assume minimal criminal history. Prior convictions, multiple victims, or leadership roles push guidelines higher. The “vulnerable victim” enhancement under U.S.S.G. §3A1.1 adds 2-4 levels. The “use of computer” enhancement under §2G1.3(b)(3) adds 2 levels. Obstruction of justice for deleting texts or warning co-defendants adds 2 levels. These enhancements accumulate, pushing sentences toward life imprisonment even for first-time offenders.

The Cooperation Trap Specific to Trafficking Cases

Prosecutors promise substantial assistance departures under U.S.S.G. §5K1.1 for cooperation, but trafficking cooperation rarely produces significant benefits. Unlike drug conspiracies where identifying suppliers matters, trafficking cases focus on victimization. Cooperators must detail every victim interaction, creating new counts and increasing sentencing exposure. Prosecutors demand complete financial disclosure going back years, finding new tax crimes or money laundering charges.

Most importantly, safety concerns limit cooperation value. Trafficking organizations often involve violence, and cooperators face real threats. The government’s witness protection resources are limited, and most cooperators don’t qualify. Judges recognize these dangers and often refuse to grant substantial departures even when prosecutors request them, reasoning that cooperators chose criminal associates knowing the risks.

Defenses That Can Work (In Limited Circumstances)

Lack of knowledge about age or coercion: Requires proving reasonable belief that victims were adults acting voluntarily. This defense fails when any “red flags” existed – victims seeming young, nervous behavior, or third-party control of money or documents.

No commercial sex element: The statute requires payment or thing of value for sex. Personal relationships without commercial elements don’t qualify, though prosecutors argue drugs, housing, or gifts constitute payment.

Jurisdictional challenges: Federal jurisdiction requires interstate commerce nexus. Purely local conduct without interstate travel, communications, or financial transactions might escape federal prosecution, though states have parallel statutes.

Multiplicitous charges: Prosecutors often charge single courses of conduct as multiple counts. Successful double jeopardy challenges can reduce counts significantly, though mandatory minimums still apply to remaining counts.

The Political Reality Driving These Prosecutions

Trafficking prosecutions generate positive media coverage and career advancement for prosecutors. The DOJ’s Human Trafficking Prosecution Unit provides additional resources to offices pursuing these cases. U.S. Attorneys tout conviction numbers in press releases. This creates incentives to pursue marginal cases and resist dismissals or reasonable pleas.

Judges face similar pressures. Lenient sentences in trafficking cases generate negative media coverage and political backlash. The Federal Judicial Center’s training emphasizes victim trauma and societal harm from trafficking. Judicial performance evaluations track downward departures in trafficking cases. These dynamics push judges toward harsh sentences regardless of individual circumstances.

Venue-Shopping and Forum Manipulation

The government can file trafficking charges in any district where any act in furtherance occurred. This includes districts where:

• Victims were recruited
• Transportation occurred
• Advertisements were posted
• Money was transferred
• Communications happened

Prosecutors strategically file in districts with harsh judges, conservative jury pools, or favorable precedent. The Eastern District of Virginia’s “rocket docket” pressures quick pleas. The Middle District of Florida has adverse appellate precedent on entrapment defenses. The Eastern District of Texas jury pools convict at higher rates. Defense attorneys must immediately challenge venue or face predetermined outcomes.

Electronic Evidence and Digital Forensics

Modern trafficking prosecutions rely heavily on digital evidence – text messages, social media, advertising platforms, and financial apps. The government uses specialized software to recover deleted messages, track cryptocurrency, and link online personas to defendants. They obtain search warrants for Google location history, Facebook messages, and Snapchat communications going back years.

Defense attorneys must understand these technologies and their limitations. Deleted messages can be recovered, but metadata can prove tampering. IP addresses can be traced, but VPNs and public WiFi create reasonable doubt. Cryptocurrency appears anonymous, but blockchain analysis reveals patterns. Understanding these technical aspects creates opportunities to challenge evidence or provide alternative explanations.

Immigration Consequences and Victim Dynamics

Many trafficking cases involve immigrant victims who receive T-visas or Continued Presence in exchange for cooperation. These immigration benefits create powerful incentives for testimony, regardless of truth. Victims facing deportation suddenly remember details supporting prosecution theories. Those already receiving benefits fear losing them if their testimony doesn’t satisfy prosecutors.

Defense attorneys must carefully handle victim credibility without appearing to attack vulnerable individuals. Juries sympathize with victims, making aggressive cross-examination counterproductive. Instead, focus on inconsistencies between statements, immigration applications, and testimony. Highlight benefits received and conversations with prosecutors about maintaining status. Document coaching sessions where prosecutors shape testimony.

Call Now

212-300-5196

Federal trafficking prosecutions move quickly once initiated. Pre-indictment seizures can happen within days of learning you’re under investigation. Target letters often provide just two weeks to respond before indictment. The government’s conviction rate in trafficking cases exceeds 93% because most defendants don’t get specialized counsel until it’s too late.

At Spodek Law Group, we’ve defended trafficking cases nationwide and understand both the law and the politics driving these prosecutions. We know which defenses work in specific districts, how to challenge venue manipulation, and when negotiation serves clients better than trial.