Police Abuse

A Retired NYPD Officer Pleads Guilty to Running a Prostitution Ring

The operation used its intimate knowledge of NYPD operations to thrive.

|

A former New York detective has pleaded guilty to running a major prostitution and gambling ring.

As Reason previously reported, several current and former New York Police Department (NYPD) officers were involved in the operation. Seven current members—three sergeants, two detectives, and two police officers—were arrested and stripped of their badges. The leaders of the operation were retired NYPD detective Ludwig Paz and his wife, Arelis Peralta, who is a former prostitute.

On Tuesday, both Paz and Peralta pleaded guilty. Paz also pleaded to attempted enterprise corruption and promoting prostitution, and he forfeited $20,840 in profits. Following his sentencing in June, he could possibly spend up to 12 years in prison. Peralta pleaded to corruption and was sentenced to spend less than a year in jail.

With allies on the force—and with an intimate knowledge of NYPD procedures—the police brothel survived for at least four years, and perhaps nearly a decade. And it thrived: A three-year Internal Affairs Bureau probe found that the operation brought in $2 million in a single year.

At times, prostitutes provided sex and massages to NYPD officers as a reward for their work on the streets.

Bonus links: Paz is not the first NYPD officer to run a prostitution ring. Reason's Elizabeth Nolan Brown has done extensive research on officers who have either solicited prostitution or ran their own operations.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

24 responses to “A Retired NYPD Officer Pleads Guilty to Running a Prostitution Ring

  1. I’m conflicted… on the one hand, its prostitution, and quite frankly if two consenting adults want to exchange services for money, they should be able to. On the other hand, the police are at it again with “rules for thee but not for me”

    1. “On the other hand, the police are at it again with “rules for thee but not for me””

      This should be the primary focus here.

    2. On the other hand, the police are at it again with “rules for thee but not for me”

      He used his knowledge of the state to undermine illegitimate state infringement on personal choice. And he’s subject to the same legal prosecution as anybody else. I don’t quite see what you are conflicted about

      1. I bet he gets less punishment than a pleb would, though.

    3. I’m sure it was a glamorous free life for the prostitutes too. Womyn power! Great benefits! Everything an empowered modern individual would want in a job.
      Don’t kid yourself, when you visit a prostitute more is going on than a free exchange of services, particularly in our system.

      1. To the extent that’s true, isn’t it because of people like these cops and those who pass them the enabling decrees?

  2. This sounds like an opener to a fun 80s comedy where two hapless government employees start running a prostitution ring out of the basement of some government building during the night shift where the protagonist eventually falls in love with a hooker with a heart of gold and they get married.

    Of course the whole thing gets too big and successful and hi-jinks ensue.

    1. Was this the one that had Michael Keaton in it? I remember that movie.

    2. ….where the protagonist eventually falls in love with a hooker with a heart of gold and they get married.

      This last part sounds like a McAfee biopic.

    3. Love Brokers! nobody remembers Night Shift.

    4. ‘Night Shift’

      Henry Winkler and Michael Keaton

  3. Who wants to gamble on the odds that Paz still gets to keep his pension?

    1. Why shouldn’t he keep his pension? Do you advocate confiscation of all private property and pensions for any felony? Or based on what principle would you take away his pension?

      1. I would advocate that he lose he pension because the crimes of which he is convicted are materially related to his service as a cop. It wasn’t incidental to being a cop.

        For example, if a retired teacher robs a liquor store, this shouldn’t affect their pension. If a teacher however is convicted of child molestation with his students, he absolutely should lose his pension. Same thing here.

      2. Isn’t his pension technically made of private property stolen from the citizens, though?

        1. No, no, no. It’s all voluntarily provided in response to threats of violence. Totally legitimate.

  4. Would.

    How much extra with the handcuffs?

  5. NYPD
    Fucking you for fun and profit.

  6. These cops should get libertarian medals.

    1. Sucessful free enterprise ventures.
    2. Providing much-wanted community services.
    3. Not shooting citizens or dogs.

    1. I might tend to agree with you if:
      It could be shown that the prostitution business was completely separate from his being a cop. In other words, didn’t use his position to further their own prostitution business at the expense of others; AND
      Had no history of arresting other people for prostitution.

  7. His wife was a former prostitute? Sounds suspiciously like human trafficking….

    1. wonder if he met her through work…

    2. When there is a need, someone will fulfill that need. One down, many more to go, prostitution is not going away. Legalize and tax, taxing would certainly deal a blow to prostitution!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.