The 2012 Summer Olympics in London, England, provided an environment that human trafficker Jason Gandy recognized as “target rich” and an advantageous opportunity in which to peddle his wares. What Gandy sold was flesh—specifically, that of a 15-year-old boy, Kenny.1 Unfortunately, Kenny was the latest in a long line of boys and young men who Gandy exploited physically, emotionally, and sexually for years. In the end, only the gut instinct of a conscientious Home Office (UK customs enforcement agency) officer stopped Gandy.
Victim Grooming
Gandy met Kenny through a fellow pedophile and befriended him via Facebook. Gandy learned that Kenny was a member of a low-income blended family and lived in a home crowded with children. Like many teens, Kenny struggled with multiple issues, including those related to his sexuality and socioeconomic status.
Kenny wanted what most teenagers want—cool clothes, music, access to funds and new experiences—and Gandy both recognized and preyed on Kenny’s vulnerabilities. Gandy provided Kenny with attention, affection, and material possessions, which were things that Kenny normally lacked. However, Gandy also sexually stimulated himself when Kenny was present, tried to engage Kenny in sexually explicit conduct, watched child pornography in his presence, and coerced him to perform massages with sexual components on Gandy’s clients. Gandy groomed Kenny to become a part of his “male only” massage business with a mixture of cajoling, guilt, and incentivizing, teaching him how to perform massages that culminated in the client’s ejaculation, all while the customer paid extra to grope Kenny.
When Gandy proposed a trip to the Summer Olympics in London and the opportunity for Kenny to see his favorite bands in exchange for performing sexually explicit massages, Kenny quickly agreed. Gandy gathered the passport forms and necessary documents for Kenny’s mother to sign; paid for everything, including the notary; and obtained a letter from Kenny’s mother authorizing this 35-year-old man to travel with her 15-year-old son to Europe. In preparation for the trip, Gandy posted ads in the UK for his massage services and alerted his regular customers of his plans on his massage website.
The Beginning of the End
As they prepared to land at London’s Heathrow Airport, Gandy gave his laptop to Kenny. The laptop contained images of Kenny, some of Gandy’s child pornography collection, and pictures chronicling some of Gandy’s travels to Southeast Asia. Notably, Gandy’s interactions with minors during his travels to these foreign locations were documented in the photos.
During their customs inspection, inspectors separated Gandy and Kenny because the information each provided to the custom officers did not match. Ultimately, authorities denied them admission to the UK. The UK authorities then contacted U.S. Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) in Houston, Texas, their departure city, and Gandy and Kenny were returned to Houston on separate planes.
This was the beginning of the end for Gandy. U.S. officials seized the laptop Gandy gave to Kenny at the border and searched it. Officials then interviewed Gandy and Kenny. During Kenny’s interview, a portrait of “Gandy the predator” began to emerge. HSI Special Agent (SA) Juanae Johnson, with the assistance of Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) Sherri Zack, secured a criminal complaint against Gandy in the Southern District of Texas. With Gandy’s subsequent arrest, United States v. Jason Daniel Gandy became a federal criminal case.2 Search warrants were executed at his residence, which included a multiroom rental property, a massage room attached to the residence, and an RV where massages were performed and Kenny was violated. The court ordered Gandy detained pending indictment and through the end of his trial, which commenced almost six years to the day from the date of his arrest.
Originally charged as a transportation of minors case, the Gandy prosecution evolved with the first superseding indictment into a transportation of minors, attempted production or production of child pornography, and transportation of child pornography case.3 By the time a grand jury returned the second superseding indictment in 2018, when more chargeable conduct relating to three more victims was discovered and nearly four years after arrest, it ultimately became a seven-count human trafficking and child exploitation case, a clear example of how different charges can apply to the same facts and circumstances.4 Unquestionably, without the diligent efforts of law enforcement, this case would have remained a one-count indictment and the depths of Gandy’s depravity and criminality might never have been uncovered.
The law enforcement investigators, based on previous experience investigating human trafficking cases, recognized Kenny could not be Gandy’s first or only victim. SA Johnson began to search for other victims, and agents posted public service announcements. Friends of some of Gandy’s other victims saw these announcements and told them to contact HSI. One such victim, Jose Alfaro, lived outside of Texas when he read about the case online.5 Jose reached out to HSI and became an integral part of the prosecution by providing a great deal of insight into Gandy’s trafficking model.
Eventually, authorities identified four young men whom Gandy victimized prior to their 18th birthdays. Though to be Gandy’s first victim, one of the young men, Tom, met Gandy through his father, who was a massage client of Gandy’s. Gandy lured Tom to his property under the guise of having him fix a tractor and do handiwork on his property. Tom was 15 years old, struggling with his sexuality, and “falling in love” with Gandy. While Tom never performed a commercial sex act, Gandy took Tom to the brink.6 After honing his skills with Tom, Gandy moved on to other victims. Unfortunately, Tom never got over his first love, instead returning to Gandy later, only to find Danny, another identified victim, installed in “his place” alongside Gandy. After exploiting Tom, who had light hair and eyes, Gandy sought out a specific type of minor male. Specifically, Gandy chose Hispanic, effeminate males with very boyish builds, each virtually homeless and desperate for acceptance.
Prosecuting a Trafficker
The prosecution against Gandy progressed at a painfully slow pace due to Gandy’s antics and delay tactics. Early in the case’s progression, the prosecution sent Gandy a proposed plea deal, one that would have resulted in Gandy receiving a much lower prison term than the sentence he ultimately received. The prosecution also sought the forfeiture of the property where Gandy victimized Kenny, including the RV. When Gandy declined to admit his illegal actions before the court, the investigation continued, and new evidence led to the filing of new charges. By February 2018, the date of the final superseding indictment, Gandy had been in custody for over five years.
During trial preparation and the trial itself, the prosecution team had several legal hurdles to overcome, including motions for reconsideration of bond, several motions to suppress, and a motion for a speedy trial. These issues began with the interview of Gandy at Houston’s George Bush Intercontinental Airport. Errors administering Miranda warnings and interviewers not having a well-developed plan at that early stage resulted in an unusable statement. The statement was unfortunately the basis for a residential search warrant; therefore, the evidence found at the residence could not be used in trial.
When interviewing victims in sex trafficking cases, other potential charges such as child pornography offenses, coercion and enticement, and potential conspiracies should always be considered. The haste with which things occurred in the Gandy case led to incomplete information being obtained from Kenny at a critical phase of the investigation. Fortunately, these deficits were overcome. Statements and information obtained from victims need to be taken with a big picture in mind, not only the incident at hand. Search warrants need to be written with the knowledge that they will be scrutinized by defense counsel who will attempt to preclude the use of the obtained evidence at trial and by the courts.
During the six-year pendency of this case, the prosecution team and investigators learned many lessons about human trafficking cases, especially those involving minor male victims. The model for the domestic sex trafficking of boys and young men is different in many ways than cases involving females. Notably, male sex trafficking cases tend to follow a “one-on-one” model, meaning the trafficker usually exploits a single victim at a time. In addition, many male victims are particularly vulnerable because they may be struggling with their sexuality or gender identity and fearing rejection by their family or even expulsion from their homes—often with no food, money, or permanent shelter.
“Human trafficking task forces must bridge gaps in community engagement, dispel stereotypes, and defeat gender bias to properly serve this vulnerable community and to enhance investigative abilities.”
The men that prey on young, male sex trafficking victims are usually much older than their victims, and provide shelter, food, and safety from the streets. These predators often present themselves as the victim’s patron or savior. The traffickers find these boys near bus stations; outside closed businesses; wandering the streets after the bars close; and, more often than not, online. Usually, as in the Gandy case, the traffickers welcome the victims into their homes and beds. Gandy took it to the next level, putting his victims to work in his massage business. The business provided its clients with “happy ending” massages. Gandy charged some of his victims for rent and food, monitored their diets and workout routines, controlled their dates, and maximized his profit margin.
The initial interview of a defendant, whether in a human trafficking or other type of case, must be approached by investigators and the prosecution team strategically, seeking maximum information while protecting against future legal attacks on the defendant’s statements. While different courts and law enforcement agencies have differing opinions on what “in custody for purposes of Miranda” means, the safest route is to assume the defendant is in custody and to always provide Miranda warnings. This approach requires law enforcement to advise defendants of their rights at the beginning of the interview. Prosecutors welcome waivers that are recorded via audio, video, or both. Certainly, written waivers are also helpful. Interviewers should think beyond what the defendant is saying to how it can be corroborated prior to the search—either with other evidence or by making sure the search warrant affidavit delineates the knowledge of the agent as it relates to human trafficking, as well as the characteristics and common practices of traffickers in general.
When interviewing a victim, investigators should think about what the victim is saying and whether the victim is being asked the right questions. It’s also often helpful to ask about social media use and photographs. Where did the trafficker and the victim go together, did either take photos, where are the photos located, how can they be accessed, were photographs taken of sex acts between the victim and trafficker, were photographs taken for advertisements? Much can be learned from social media and mobile devices when the correct questions are asked.
Next, when crafting the affidavit for a search warrant in any criminal case, the prosecution team should always try to delineate as many reasons for probable cause as are available, so if one is later lost, there are others to fall back on. Consider whether this evidence has been found without the information from either the defendant or the victim.
Issues with the search warrant could have been resolved if Kenny’s statement had been developed further at the initial interview, and that information had been used in the affidavit. Understandably, Kenny was not completely forthcoming in the beginning. This is why law enforcement can benefit from an enhanced understanding of male victims. One can maintain a trauma-informed approach and still obtain the information needed to move forward quickly. Knowing that male victims are the most reluctant to report exploitation, the ability to ask the questions that support probable cause is crucial. Focusing on acts perpetrated upon the victim or seemingly noncriminal conduct can lead to valuable information. Interviewers should not initially focus on acts for which the victim may feel he is responsible. Many victims often are afraid they are being investigated or they may have committed a crime. In addition, as happened here, victims like Kenny and Tom may want to protect their trafficker, as they have formed a trauma bond with them.
Gandy, after a contested hearing, was detained pending trial and indictment.7 Law enforcement must be prepared to testify and articulate why a defendant is a flight risk, a danger to the community, or both to convince the courts to detain the individual. In this case, Gandy was both: he had assets, a passport, was connected to target-rich communities, and had emotional sway over the victim. Unsurprisingly, Kenny did not understand that he was a victim and was unwilling to acknowledge that at the inception of the investigation. At one point, Gandy attempted to get Kenny to change his testimony and contemplated having the AUSA, the lead SA, and a local law enforcement officer killed.
Finally, after multiple changes in defense attorneys, failed plea negotiations, and 14 defense continuances and competency evaluations and restorations, a trial ensued. Gandy’s antics continued during the trial when he injured himself in what he claimed was a suicide attempt. After a brief postponement, the trial finished with Gandy wearing a large bandage on his neck to cover the self-inflicted wound, seemingly meant to evoke juror sympathy.
The four named victims testified over the course of the four-day trial, each sharing their hauntingly similar experiences of victimization by Gandy. Their feelings about Gandy, whether still blinded by “love” or emotionally removed, affected their testimony and their abilities to condemn Gandy’s actions. All four victims demonstrated unbelievable courage as they testified before the jury and a courtroom full of strangers about the intimate, emotional, and sexual exploitation they suffered because of Gandy’s greed and sexual interest in children.
Tom, who was trafficked during the summer of 2005, was still so emotionally affected by his first love, Gandy, that he had difficulty articulating the extent of his victimization in court. During Tom’s testimony, Gandy continued to make puppy eyes at Tom. Jose, the victim with the least emotional attachment to Gandy, gave incredibly devastating testimony, which corroborated what the other, more emotional victims testified. Danny, who was trafficked from 2006 to 2008, testified about his experiences with Gandy. Danny was victimized for the longest period of time and suffered a great deal of emotional trauma. His testimony mirrored the experiences of the other victims. All of the victims, at some point after being trafficked, struggled with substance abuse.
Forensic evidence found on the computer seized at the airport furthered the prosecution. One of the counts against Gandy was attempted production/production of child pornography of Kenny. Gandy photographed Kenny in shorts rolled up to look like a loin cloth and his exposed buttocks and genitals. While only the clothed images were able to be presented in court (due to a court ruling suppressing the unclothed images), the strength of Kenny’s testimony about the images and circumstances around Gandy taking them sealed Gandy’s fate on that count. It was clear from the other admissible images found on Gandy’s devices that he had a sexual interest in children. Key to any human trafficking, or other investigation, is a meticulous digital forensics analyst who can testify in such a manner that even the most technologically challenged juror can follow. HSI SA Jeff Chappell presented his findings and deftly dispelled any attempts by the defense to discredit the evidence found on Gandy’s laptop.
Six years is a long time for investigators and prosecutors to maintain relationships with victims. Often, victims do not understand the legal system, the delays, the rulings, and why things are done in certain ways. This is not their problem, but rather the responsibility of the professionals that interact with them— the victim service coordinators, law enforcement personnel, and prosecutors— to make sure the victims remain informed and their needs are met. This case taught law enforcement and the prosecution team many lessons. The most important lesson is that the investigation never ends. Law enforcement and the prosecution team never gave up on seeking justice for the victims and making sure Gandy would never victimize another young boy.
Law enforcement, victim specialists, service providers and prosecutors need to be prepared to deal with the emotional fall out victims may experience facing their trafficker in court and seeing other victims and witnesses going through the same process. Human trafficking task force members cannot assume male victims are tougher or need less services than female victims. Prosecutors must be diligent in protecting all victims by keeping the case moving but to also prepare for the worst-case scenario. In this situation, Gandy was able to delay the case for years, hoping to wear the victims down.
Building and maintaining strong partnerships with the LGBTQ+ community leads to better cooperation, reporting, support for victims, and successful human trafficking task force relationships. Predators know which communities are vulnerable and they count on the lack of a relationship between the community and law enforcement and the fact that young men are less likely to report.
The LGBTQ+ community is a very tight-knit community full of individuals willing to help and who want predators like Gandy brought to justice. It was learned that Gandy was a known entity within the region’s LGBTQ+ community. He was considered an entrepreneur and owned properties that he ran as boarding houses for homosexual men. However, the community did not know that Gandy was exploiting minor males and profiting off that exploitation. Better relationships between the LGBTQ+ community and law enforcement could have identified other victims much sooner. Human trafficking task forces must bridge gaps in community engagement, dispel stereotypes, and defeat gender bias to properly serve this vulnerable community and to enhance investigative abilities. Whether struggling with their sexuality or gender identity or not facing these challenges, male victims, deserve compassion and the same trauma-informed services as female victims.
Conclusion
On December 18, 2018, Gandy was sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge Lee Rosenthal to 30 years in federal prison followed by a lifetime of supervised release.8 Gandy will be required to register as a sex offender and was ordered to pay restitution to Jose. In a civil forfeiture proceeding, the residential property and RV where massages were performed and where Kenny was abused were taken from Gandy.9 Since 2012 and the initiation of this case, the landscape of human trafficking has developed a great deal. Now, cases that might not have been considered human trafficking are being looked at in a different light, and more possibilities exist to maximize the ability of law enforcement and prosecutors to hold perpetrators accountable, including the persons purchasing sex from minors. The Gandy case demonstrated that, with determination and tenacity, traffickers can be held accountable for the irreparable harm they are causing to children around the world.
Notes:
1Pseudonyms have been used to protect the identity of the victims except Jose Alfaro.
2United States v. Jason Daniel Gandy, 4:12-cr-503 (S.D. Tex. 2018).
3Jason Daniel Gandy, 4:12-cr-503, Docket Nos. 11 and 60.
4Jason Daniel Gandy 4:12-cr-503, Docket No. 115.
5Jose Alfaro, now 29 years old, is a successful stylist living in Massachusetts who regularly speaks about his experiences and is writing a book chronicling his journey. Through writing and therapy, he has found peace and has built stronger relationships with his family and friends, allowing him to move forward and to grow into a stronger person despite his past.
618 USC 1591 does not distinguish between an attempted act and committing the act itself. Because Gandy groomed Tom to engage in commercial sex and the goal was that Tom would be caused to engage in commercial sex, the law holds the trafficker as equally responsible as if the commercial sex had occurred. The penalties are the same whether the offense proven is attempted sex trafficking or sex trafficking where a commercial sex act occurs.
7Jason Daniel Gandy, 4:12-cr-503, Docket No. 10. Detention Order issued by then-U.S. Magistrate George C. Hanks Jr. Gandy filed a motion to reconsider detention and consider bond, which was denied by U.S. District Court Judge Lee Rosenthal at Docket Nos. 102 and 111.
8Jason Daniel Gandy, 4:12-cr-503, Docket Nos. 204 and 226, Judgment; U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas, “Houston Man Gets 30 Years for Trafficking Children for Commercial Sex,” press release, December 18, 2018.
9Jason Daniel Gandy, 4:12-cr-503, Docket No. 229. Mandate Affirming Judgment and Sentence.
