Federal prosecutors are ramping up their efforts to ensure that music mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs remains convicted on two counts under the Mann Act, following a high-profile trial that has gripped both the entertainment world and legal observers across the nation. On August 21, 2025, prosecutors filed a pointed motion urging a federal judge to swiftly deny Combs’ request for acquittal or a new trial, arguing that the evidence against him is not just sufficient but "overwhelming," as reported by multiple sources including The New York Times and Associated Press.
Combs, the founder of Bad Boy Records, was found guilty in July 2025 on two counts related to orchestrating prostitution across state lines. These charges, under the Mann Act, stem from what prosecutors described as elaborate, multiday sexual events involving male escorts who were transported between states from as early as 2008 through 2024. The verdict followed a lengthy trial that saw Combs acquitted of far more serious racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking allegations—charges that could have led to a minimum of 15 years to life in prison. Instead, he faces a maximum of 20 years, with each Mann Act violation carrying up to 10 years behind bars.
According to court filings and testimony cited by CNN and Reuters, the prosecution’s case centered on the experiences of two of Combs’ former partners: R&B singer Casandra “Cassie” Ventura and another woman identified in court as “Jane.” Both women painted a picture of control, coercion, and manipulation that went far beyond consensual adult relationships. Ventura, who dated Combs from 2008 to 2018, testified that he demanded weekly sexual encounters with male escorts, events she called “freak-offs” or “hotel nights.” She described being left so physically and emotionally drained by these encounters that her own music career suffered as a result.
Jane, who was involved with Combs from 2021 until September 2023, offered similarly harrowing testimony. She recounted participating in sexual events that sometimes lasted several days, often against her will and even when she was feeling unwell. Both women alleged that Combs used video recordings of these encounters as leverage, threatening to release the footage if they refused to comply with his demands. Prosecutors asserted that this pattern of behavior amounted to a clear abuse of power, with Combs exerting “substantial control” over the women’s lives, careers, and finances.
“He asserted substantial control over Ventura and Jane’s lives… controlled and threatened Ventura’s career, controlled her appearance, and paid for most of her living expenses, taking away physical items when she did not do what he wanted,” prosecutors wrote in their latest filing, according to Associated Press. They further alleged that Combs paid Jane’s $10,000 monthly rent and threatened to stop if she refused to participate in the sexual meetups.
Combs’ legal team, for their part, has pushed back forcefully against the government’s narrative. In a motion filed in late July, his attorneys argued that the trial was tainted by unrelated allegations of racketeering and sex trafficking—charges the jury ultimately rejected. “The government painted him as a monster,” the defense wrote, claiming that prosecutors relied on a “20-year racketeering enterprise and of sex trafficking multiple women… [that] were not supported by credible evidence, and the jury rejected them.”
Central to the defense’s argument is the claim that the acts in question were consensual and private, falling under what they describe as a “swingers’ lifestyle” or “amateur pornography” protected by the First Amendment. “It is undisputed that he had no commercial motive and that all involved were adults,” Combs’ lawyers stated. “The verdict confirms the women were not vulnerable, exploited, trafficked, or sexually assaulted.” They further contended that the Mann Act’s application in this case is unprecedented, arguing that the law is unconstitutionally vague and infringes on due process and free speech rights.
Prosecutors, however, have flatly rejected these claims. In their recent court filing, they insisted that the Mann Act is neither vague nor unconstitutional, and that the conduct at issue—transporting individuals across state lines for prostitution—falls squarely within its scope. “The evidence supporting the defendant’s guilt was overwhelming,” they reiterated, emphasizing that extensive testimony and physical evidence demonstrated Combs’ active role in orchestrating, financing, and directing the encounters for his own sexual gratification. They also highlighted that Combs meticulously documented the events, using video recordings as a means of coercion and control.
Notably, the prosecution’s filing detailed the methods by which Combs maintained his influence over Ventura and Jane. He was said to have managed their careers, dictated their appearances, and used his financial resources to ensure their dependence. For Ventura, this included paying for most of her living expenses and threatening her professional prospects if she did not comply. For Jane, the threat was more direct: the possibility of losing her housing if she refused to participate in the meetups.
The defense’s position, meanwhile, hinges on the absence of traditional elements associated with prostitution or sex trafficking. They argue that all parties were consenting adults, that no one was trafficked or assaulted, and that Combs derived no commercial benefit from the encounters. “These acts were private, consensual, and fell under the umbrella of ‘amateur pornography,’ protected by the First Amendment,” the defense maintained. They characterized the events as a form of consensual voyeurism rather than illegal prostitution.
Yet, for prosecutors, the core issue is not just consent, but the power dynamics and the use of threats and coercion to maintain control. They argue that the jury’s verdict was well supported by the evidence and should not be overturned. Moreover, they have opposed any leniency in sentencing, insisting that Combs should serve several years in prison.
Since his arrest at a Manhattan hotel in September 2024, Combs has been denied bail and remains in federal custody in Brooklyn. His sentencing is scheduled for October 3, 2025. Despite his legal team’s appeals for minimal jail time, the prosecution’s stance remains unwavering.
The case has sparked considerable debate about the boundaries of consent, the interpretation of the Mann Act, and the responsibilities of powerful figures in the entertainment industry. As the October sentencing date approaches, the outcome will likely resonate well beyond the courtroom, serving as a stark reminder of the legal and ethical complexities at the intersection of celebrity, power, and the law.
With all sides digging in, the final decision now rests with the judge, who must weigh the overwhelming evidence presented against Combs with the defense’s arguments about fairness, consent, and constitutional rights. The eyes of the nation—and much of the music world—remain fixed on what comes next.