http://www.examiner.com/article/pil...d=PROG-NewsBlock1-Article-PilotRunningBrothel The pilot's massive operation, taking place in Houston apartment complexes and office buildings, is the largest ever seen by Harris County Assistant Prosecutor Lester Blizzard. The pilot made about $400/day per worker. He has been relieved of his flying duties by United Airlines.
Lots, lots more at link: http://www.houstonchronicle.com/new...f-brothels-Kingwood-pilot-ID-d-as-7045060.php
Other than tax evasion, was not seeing the big deal initially. Unable to read the Houston Chronicle article without a subscription, so not sure about the circumstances about 'aggravated promotion of prostitution' for the pilot and his right-hand person. Were any of the women physically harmed? Were they making their own choice? It's safer than walking the streets imo. The payment btw was $400 per week - not per day. Wondering if that included rent to live at the brothels.
Some people think tax evasion is a big deal. Prostitution is illegal and this guy had a respected job as an airline pilot. Apparently he is also accused of using his flight school as a front to make sure there were legitimate employment records for the women. "Wallis is also accused of using Eastex Aero, his flight school and charter service in Porter, north of Houston, as a front to make sure the women who worked for him had a "legitimate" employment records and financial statements, according to court records." http://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...ng-brothels-7012096.php?cmpid=twitter-desktop
The payment may have been $400 per week, but as a pimp, I don't assume he let the workers keep everything they earned.
I'm not sure if there's any new information, but here's another link: http://abcnews.go.com/US/united-air...ing-prostitution-enterprise/story?id=37903388 Somewhere in the report (within the video portion) it's stated, "Flight Crews Accused of Bringing Drugs on Board and Running Brothels"
Just to clarify - I agree the tax evasion was a big deal, hence the use of 'other than'. Re-wording - don't see the big deal if these adults chose to participate in this activity - but they should pay the tax on the income. If it was legal - they would. Or some of it anyway. Otherwise, keep your day job.
Unable to assume he was pimping the women. From what I can read (full articles limited outside of US on this one) they did their 'thing' and he gave them a safe haven to do that 'thing' - for a flat rate of $400 per week. So who should pay the tax on the $400 per week income - the pilot or the gals? Or both?
I don't know why you are trying to minimize it. $400 per week is per one woman. Since he had multiple women working for him obviously he was making a lot more than $400 per week. Some reports say he had 20 women working for him. If that is accurate, he was making $400x20=$8,000 per week. That would be his income, not the prostitutes'. So he is the one who would need to pay taxes on this income. However much prostitutes had left after they paid him-that's their income and they would be responsible for paying taxes on that income.
Not trying to minimize this - just looking at it for exactly what it is. I get what his income was from this - a sales transaction imo. An agent (pro) sells a product/service at retail/market value and pays out fees for items/services (pilot) used along the way. Usually a win-win or people wouldn't bother - speaking of only those choosing to do this. I guess the pro could/should claim the total value and deduct expenses. Those receiving payment for expenses should then claim that income.
From the links posted I will not be surprised to find out this man's setup is sex trafficking and not simply pimping out willing participants. He was an international pilot. Many of the women are Russian. He is being held on 'aggravated' promotion of prostitution. It is being investigated by the sex trafficking division. Do they investigate all prostitution crimes, or ones believed to be trafficked?
Most prostitutes are originially child abuse or sex abuse victims. It is hardly ever a choice. It is slavery. Read up on what happens to prostitutes. Violated with bottles, for one. That is why so many have to take drugs in order to do it. It is not Pretty Woman.
A couple of explanations for the charge of 'aggravated promotion of prostitution'. (a) A person commits an offense if he knowingly owns, invests in, finances, controls, supervises, or manages a prostitution enterprise that uses two or more prostitutes. - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/9/43/A/43.04#sthash.cd6JQ7dA.dpuf http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/9/43/A/43.04 Another - knowingly acts; supervises, manages, invests in, owns, finances or controls a prostitution enterprise; when the enterprise uses two or more prostitutes http://www.matthoraklaw.com/CriminalDefense/SexualOffenses/Prostitution.aspx The explanation seems to be, if you knowingly promote prostitution, knowing you shouldn't, you are aggravating the DA. Or something like that. Lots of info being introduced that is not reported for this case - might be, might have, others this, others that ...
I agree there are no charges at this time that indicate sex trafficking. That is why I stated I would not be surprised if it turns out that way. There is always more information that comes out later as the cases proceed. It's a wait in see, but I believe there is more to this story.
