Photo Credit: Getty Images
Sean “Diddy” Combs is mounting a robust defense challenge following his conviction on two counts for transporting individuals for the purposes of prostitution under the Mann Act. In legal documents obtained by TMZ, his team asserts that prosecutors applied an inappropriate definition of “prostitution,” and they are now pushing for either an acquittal or a new trial.
Passed in 1910 as the White Slave Traffic Act, the Mann Act originally defined “prostitution” as “a woman who had sex outside of marriage.” Diddy’s defense argues that the court should apply that historical meaning rather than the modern definition of “sex for hire.” In their view, the current interpretation does not align with the statute’s original text or intent.
Moreover, Diddy’s lawyers maintain that he did not actually pay the male escorts to have sex with his then girlfriends. Instead, they argue the men were paid solely for their time, not for sexual services, and that Combs himself did not participate in any sexual acts. They characterize the encounters as “amateur pornography,” private performances recorded for personal use, rather than commercial sex, suggesting that this conduct falls outside the scope of the Mann Act and may even be protected under the First Amendment.
Diddy was acquitted in July of more severe charges, including sex trafficking and racketeering, but a jury found him guilty on two counts relating to transportation for prostitution. He is due to be sentenced on October 3. His legal team filed the motion shortly after the verdict, requesting Judge Arun Subramanian to overturn the convictions or grant a new trial based on these arguments.
The defense’s appeal also emphasizes the unprecedented nature of this case. They claim that no prior conviction under the Mann Act aligns with these facts, with no coercion, no minors, and no profit involved. They argue that their client appears to be the first person ever convicted under this law for such circumstances.
As sentencing approaches, Diddy’s legal team is likely to pursue additional avenues if this motion fails, including further appeals and potentially seeking a presidential pardon. For now, their focus remains squarely on this argument. The government used the wrong definition of prostitution, and if the original 1910 meaning had been applied, the outcome could have been entirely different.
