
Sean ‘Diddy' Combs could lose his freedom – and his vast empire of mansions, art and cars
Show Caption
Hide Caption
What we know about the case against Sean 'Diddy' Combs
The trial against Sean 'Diddy' Combs is kicking off. How strong is the case against him? Here's what we know now.
Sean 'Diddy' Combs's 1997 hit 'It's All About the Benjamins' sums up the rap mogul's voracious thirst for the good life and ostentatious trappings of wealth: 'Colossal-sized Picassos,' five-carat diamond rings, Cristal Champagne and skiing in Aspen with 'chicks who win beauty pageants.'
By becoming a successful entrepreneur in the music, fashion, liquor and other realms, Combs became a mogul. He bought all that and more – private jets, exotic cars, mansions on both coasts.
Now, as Combs faces a jury trial that could send him to prison for life, he's also fighting a Justice Department forfeiture action that could cost him much – if not most – of an empire that prosecutors allege he used as part of a criminal racketeering enterprise from 2008 to the present.
Combs and his defense team have denied all allegations against him, characterizing some as baseless 'money grabs.' He has pleaded not guilty to federal charges of sex trafficking, racketeering and transportation to engage in prostitution
But in a sign of how serious the disgraced entrepreneur is taking the asset forfeiture effort, his lawyers have hired as a consultant the former deputy chief of the Justice Department's Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section, USA TODAY has learned.
Stefan Cassella, who serves as an expert witness and consultant to law enforcement agencies and wrote two books on the topic, has trained thousands of prosecutors and federal law enforcement agents across the U.S. and their counterparts overseas.
Cassella said he could not comment on the specifics of the case because of his involvement in it. Broadly speaking, though, he told USA TODAY that by charging Combs under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, the government is taking an aggressive approach to seizing as many of Combs' assets as possible.
'RICO forfeiture is intended to be very broad, and so it has significant consequences' for Combs, Cassella said in an exclusive interview. 'So, it's going to boil down to what they can prove was part of the enterprise.'
Prosecutors declined to comment, citing the ongoing case.
'A very broadly worded forfeiture allegation'
In many RICO cases, prosecutors include very specific allegations of what 'instrumentalities' were used as part of an alleged racketeering enterprise, legal speak for what people, cars, planes, houses and companies helped facilitate the criminal behavior, said James Trusty, the former longtime chief of DOJ's Organized Crime and Gang Section.
But in an ominous sign of prosecutors' intentions, Trusty said, the Combs indictment and related court documents essentially target all his business and personal assets.
'They've written a very broadly worded forfeiture allegation,' Trusty said. 'It's so vague and so broad that I would think the defense would push for a bill of particulars,' or a more specific explanation of what the feds are going after.
One thing for certain, Trusty said, is that the fancy cars, houses and planes that Combs has accumulated are in the prosecutors' crosshairs, as are any of his companies that could broadly be construed as being part of the racketeering enterprise in the slightest of ways.
For instance, if an assault took place at a record studio, it could implicate not only that studio but the record company Combs used to pay musical artists to record there, Trusty said.
If Combs is convicted, the jury must then decide how much of his empire is subject to forfeiture, according to Cassella, Trusty, Justice Department law and a breakdown of RICO and asset forfeiture statutes by Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute.
So how much is Combs worth? What is the government explicitly seeking? And how accessible are his assets after years of Combs trying to protect himself from growing accusations of criminal misconduct?
Still wealthy but now worth almost half as much: Forbes
In 2024, Forbes magazine estimated Combs' net worth at $400 million – a significant drop from its 2019 figure of $740 million. Both Combs and his team later claimed he was a billionaire, Forbes said, despite offering no documentation to back up the claim.
According to publicly available documents and news reports, Combs' most valuable personal possession is likely his 17,000 square foot, 10-bedroom mansion in the tony Holmby Hills section of Los Angeles. Appraised at more than $61 million, it was raided as part of a criminal probe and listed for sale last September.
Combs also owns a 9,600 square foot house in Toluca Lake just northwest of the Hollywood Sign. And he owns a $48 million mansion at 2 West Star Island in Miami and the adjacent property at 1 West Star Island. On Aug. 20, 2024, Combs paid off the $18.9 million mortgage so he could put up 2 West Star as collateral in his failed efforts to obtain bail and stay out of jail while awaiting trial, documents show.
Combs also owns a Gulfstream G550 jet valued at more than $25 million, known as LoveAir, which he rents out while also seeking a sale to help pay his enormous legal expenses.
Also, potentially open to forfeiture: Combs' Bad Boy Records, which still generates money from recordings and music publishing rights since he launched the company in 1993.
Combs is not known to own any 'Colossal-sized Picassos,' as he sings about in his hit song. But he is believed to have an extensive art collection, including works by Jean-Michel Basquiat and Keith Haring.
In 2018, he was revealed as the mystery buyer of the renowned painting 'Past Times' by Kerry James Marshall for $21.1 million.
At one time, his fleet of at least 20 luxury cars included a Rolls-Royce, Bentley, Ferrari, Lamborghini and an ultra-luxury Mercedes known as a Maybach.
A 2023 'rebranding' of his empire to Combs Global
In February 2023, Combs announced that 'after three decades of entrepreneurial success across his renowned brands,' he was 'rebranding' and changing the name of his parent company from Combs Enterprises to Combs Global.
That, Combs said, more accurately reflected his ambitious vision for the future, including his 'landmark acquisition of becoming the largest minority-owned, vertically integrated multi-state operator in the cannabis industry' for $185 million.
At its founding in 2013, Combs Enterprises included his New York City-based Bad Boy Entertainment, Combs Wines and Spirits, the AQUAhydrate water firm, Revolt Media, Sean John fashion and fragrances, Capital Preparatory Charter Schools and The Sean Combs Foundation.
Over the years, it expanded to include new business units and ventures such as Empower Global, Our Fair Share and Love Records, which focused on R&B.
"Combs Global represents the next chapter in my journey as a business leader and a bigger vision to build the largest portfolio of leading Black-owned brands in the world," Combs said. "I've enlisted world-class teams of top executives, specialists and strategic partners to bring this new dream to life and put us in the best position to keep making history while leading another 30 years of dominance across industries."
The Combs empire begins to crumble
In November 2023, Combs' empire began to crumble following allegations of rape, beatings and abuse by his former girlfriend Cassie, whose legal name is Casandra "Cassie" Ventura.
Combs' partnerships also ended with Love Records, Capital Preparatory Schools and the Empower Global online Black business marketplace. And the cannabis venture ultimately failed due to merger complications.
What is the government going after?
Prosecutors in the Southern District of New York, or Manhattan, have unsealed the indictment against Combs. Other alleged co-conspirators are indicted under seal.
But the indictment also mentions Combs' business, 'headquartered at various times in Manhattan and Los Angeles,' under a variety of U.S.-based corporate entities, including Bad Boy Entertainment, Combs Enterprises and Combs Global.
Collectively, it refers to all of them as the "Combs Business.' And while it avoids specific entities, it says they include 'among other things, record labels, a recording studio, an apparel line, an alcoholic spirits business, a marketing agency, and a television network and media company.'
According to federal law, anything that's forfeited following a criminal conviction could conceivably be used to help some or all of those alleged to have been victimized by Combs.
Both Cassella and Trusty said, however, that the federal RICO statute is designed more to punish the convicted rather than compensate the victims. It does not, for instance, include the kind of headline-grabbing multimillion-dollar awards for the pain and suffering and reputational damage caused by the accused that is common in civil suits like the one brought by Ventura.
Instead, victims in a criminal case would be eligible for using asset forfeiture money for repayment of medical expenses, funeral expenses if a death was involved, 'literal out of pocket reimbursement for victims' costs like that,' Trusty said.
'It's not a full picture of the restitution that they're actually owed under the law,' he said. 'The criminal law has just never been as expansive as civil law' when it comes to making whole victims of criminal acts.
Victims of alleged Combs criminal acts can, however, seek a share of forfeited assets through civil lawsuits and prosecutions, Trusty and Cassella said. To date, more than 70 lawsuits have been filed against Combs, many of them claiming sexual abuse.
In Combs' case, prosecutors and FBI investigators are likely looking for assets that the embattled music mogul may have hidden, especially in recent years as his legal problems mounted.
Combs himself might have alluded to a propensity to stash money away in the 1997 hit that helped launch his rapping career after years as a producer and impresario.
'And what you can't have now, leave in your will,' Combs sings in 'All About the Benjamins.' 'But don't knock me for tryin' to bury, seven zeros over in Rio de Janeiry.'
Josh Meyer is a veteran correspondent focusing on domestic, national and global security issues, including transnational criminal organizations. Reach him at JMeyer@usatoday.com. Follow him on X at @JoshMeyerDC and Bluesky at @joshmeyerdc.bsky.social.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Boston Globe
4 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Republican bid to help Trump move past Epstein falls flat
On Monday, Representative James Comer, Republican from Kentucky, the chair of the House Oversight Committee, said the Justice Department would begin sharing its Epstein records with his panel by Friday. He also suggested the release of the documents would take some time, all but ensuring that questions about the Epstein affair will drag on for weeks. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up At the same time, Democrats, in some cases with the help of Republicans, have laid a series of procedural traps that will make it all but impossible for the GOP to avoid confronting the issue again when Congress reconvenes in September. 'We're going to keep the pressure up — 100 percent,' Senator Ruben Gallego, Democrat from Arizona, said at an event in Iowa this month. 'As often as we can, until we know exactly what happened, why it happened.' Advertisement Even with Congress in recess, the Epstein case continues to generate attention in Washington. On Monday, William Barr, who was President Trump's attorney general when Epstein died, testified in a closed-door deposition for the Oversight Committee. Lawmakers of both parties concede the Trump administration could quiet the furor over the Epstein files on Capitol Hill and nationwide by simply releasing them to the public. Comer's statement on Monday was the only public indication to date that it might do so. All the while, several efforts connected to Epstein, a disgraced financier who was found dead in his prison cell in 2019, have been percolating and threaten to disrupt a busy month in which Congress also faces a Sept. 30 deadline to fund the government and avert a shutdown. Chief among them may be a maneuver led by Representive Thomas Massie, Republican fron Kentucky, who is a frequent Trump critic, to try to force a floor vote on the release of the files. Such a vote would thrust Republicans into a politically thorny position between Trump and constituents who are unhappy with the administration's handling of the case. Before leaving Washington, Massie and Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, filed what is known as a discharge petition, which allows any member of the House to force legislation to the floor if a majority of members — 218 — sign on. Because of arcane procedural rules, the pair cannot start collecting signatures until they return in September, but they appear to have more than enough support to succeed. The timing all but guaranteed that the issue would hang over lawmakers throughout the August recess and that Republican leaders would be forced to address it when they returned. While they could try to table the effort, several rank-and-file Republicans earlier this year blocked a similar attempt to circumvent a measure that had majority support. Advertisement So far, 43 other lawmakers, 11 of them Republicans, have signed on to Massie and Khanna's initiative. Last week, the pair announced plans for a news conference with victims of Epstein and his longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell, to be held outside the Capitol on lawmakers' second day back from their break. Democrats on the powerful House Rules Committee, a panel controlled by the speaker that determines which legislation reaches the floor, also plan to continue pressuring Republicans over the issue. Republican leaders never found a solution to the committee's impasse, which led them to send the House home a day ahead of schedule. But they seemed to take solace in the Trump administration's request that federal judges release transcripts of grand jury testimony in three cases related to Epstein and Maxwell. Both House Speaker Mike Johnson and Representative Steve Scalise, the number two Republican, suggested such a move might help alleviate concerns, adding that the House could not address the Epstein files while the courts were weighing in. 'That process is underway right now,' Johnson said last month. 'Now, we've got to zealously guard that and protect it and make sure it's happening. And if it doesn't, then we'll take appropriate action when everybody returns here.' Yet so far, federal judges in two of those three cases have denied the government's requests. A judge overseeing Maxwell's case said that the Justice Department's suggestion that grand jury testimony 'would bring to light meaningful new information' was 'demonstrably false.' A third judge, who oversaw Epstein's 2019 case, is still considering whether to unseal grand jury materials connected to that prosecution. Advertisement And Republicans and Democrats alike have argued that the grand jury testimony falls far short of the promise that Attorney General Pam Bondi and other top officials had made. Instead, they have turned to legal maneuvers meant to force the Justice Department to provide the Epstein files to Congress. This month, the Oversight Committee issued a subpoena to Bondi asking the Justice Department to give the committee its files related to Epstein and Maxwell by Tuesday. Comer, a staunch Trump ally, was forced to send the subpoena after a small group of Republicans joined Democrats in voting to approve it at a subcommittee meeting last month. On Monday, he told reporters he was confident that 'we're going to get the documents,' citing 'productive' conversations with the Justice Department. Senate Democrats have already started to pressure Republicans over the matter using a little-known and infrequently tested maneuver to try to force Bondi to turn over the Epstein files. Under a provision of federal law, government agencies are required to hand over relevant information if any five members of the Senate's chief oversight committee requests it. Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat from New York, the minority leader, and seven other Democrats had asked the Justice Department to give them Epstein-related materials by Aug. 15. They also asked that a briefing be held for the committee's staff before the end of the month. So far, the committee has not received any material, and the briefing has not been scheduled, according to two people familiar with the matter who said they were not authorized to discuss it publicly. Advertisement Schumer has said Democrats are prepared to seek legal recourse if the Trump administration does not meet the letter's deadlines. On Friday, he began publicly pressuring Senator John Thune, Republican from South Dakota, the majority leader, to appoint a lawyer who would defend the Senate's legal authority for congressional oversight. 'If he chooses complicity — we'll take them to court ourselves,' Schumer wrote in a social media post. This article originally appeared in .


New York Times
5 minutes ago
- New York Times
Top Republican Says Justice Dept. Will Begin Sharing Epstein Files
The chairman of the House's chief investigative committee said on Monday that the Justice Department would miss his panel's Tuesday subpoena deadline for providing files related to the accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein but would begin sharing some records starting Friday. Representative James R. Comer, the Kentucky Republican who leads the Oversight Committee, issued the subpoena to Attorney General Pam Bondi this month after a few G.O.P. lawmakers on the panel teamed with Democrats to force his hand. It set an Aug. 19 deadline for the Justice Department to give the committee all of its files related to Mr. Epstein, the disgraced financier who died in federal prison while awaiting trial in 2019. But ahead of his announcement on Monday, Mr. Comer signaled to reporters at the Capitol that he did not expect the Justice Department to meet the deadline, chalking it up to the sheer volume of records it had on Mr. Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, a longtime associate who is serving a 20-year sentence on sex trafficking charges. 'There are many records in D.O.J.'s custody, and it will take the Department time to produce all the records and ensure the identification of victims and any child sexual abuse material are redacted,' Mr. Comer said in a statement. Mr. Comer did not provide any details about the timeline for the full release of the files requested by the subpoena, which included material related to the criminal cases against Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell and the investigation into Mr. Epstein's death. The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment. But it is expected to provide documents on a rolling basis, which will likely force Republican lawmakers to confront continued questions about the Epstein files that have already plagued them for months. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.


CBS News
5 minutes ago
- CBS News
20 states and D.C. sue Trump administration for tying billions in crime victim grants to immigration enforcement
Twenty states and the District of Columbia sued the Justice Department on Monday for adding a new immigration enforcement rule to federal grants that assist victims of crime — arguing it's part of the Trump administration's crackdown against "sanctuary states." The lawsuit focuses on the Office for Victims of Crime, a 42-year-old division of the Justice Department that hands out more than $1 billion per year to all 50 states to compensate crime victims and fund programs like local crisis counseling centers, emergency shelters, domestic abuse hotlines and victim advocacy services. The Trump-era Justice Department added a new condition to those grants that denies funding to any program that "violates (or promotes or facilitates the violation of) federal immigration law." That includes failing to "give access to [Department of Homeland Security] agents, or honor DHS requests." But the states that joined Monday's lawsuit argue that the rule is illegal, since the Reagan-era law that set up the federal government's crime victim grant programs doesn't say anything about immigration enforcement. "The challenged conditions would force these States into an untenable position: either forfeit access to critical resources for vulnerable crime victims and their families, or accept unlawful conditions, allowing the federal government to conscript state and local officials to enforce federal immigration law," the states and D.C. argue in the lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in Rhode Island. Mostly Democratic states joined the suit, including California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota and Colorado. Collectively, they've received more than $500 million a year in crime victim grants since 2021, according to the lawsuit. The states asked a federal judge to block the new rules and declare them illegal. They said they need "urgent relief" since applications for most of the grants are due Wednesday. The Justice Department declined to comment on the lawsuit. As President Trump seeks to dramatically ramp up arrests of suspected undocumented immigrants, his administration has taken aim at so-called sanctuary cities and states, which generally limit local police from cooperating with federal immigration agents. Within hours of his swearing-in on Jan. 20, the president signed an executive order directing officials to ensure that sanctuary jurisdictions "do not receive access to Federal funds." Weeks later, Attorney General Pam Bondi ordered the Justice Department to identify and pause grants to groups that "support or provide services to removable or illegal aliens." The administration argues that sanctuary cities and states make it harder to enforce immigration laws, especially against criminals who end up in state or local custody. Supporters of sanctuary laws, however, argue that forcing local law enforcement officers to work with immigration agents makes migrants less likely to cooperate with the police. Monday's lawsuit said the conditions on crime victim grants risk "destroying trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities that is critical to preventing and responding to crime." "The federal government is attempting to use crime victim funds as a bargaining chip to force states into doing its bidding on immigration enforcement," New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement. Earlier this year, the Justice Department cut off hundreds of federal grant programs, including money for nonprofits that help victims of hate crimes, sex trafficking and violence against children, according to a list obtained by CBS News. The heads of some nonprofits warned they would need to lay off staff or shutter crime victim hotlines. At the time, a Justice Department spokesperson told CBS News: "We are confident that these cuts are consistent with the administration's priorities while at the same time protecting services that tangibly impact victims." A group of anti-domestic-violence nonprofits also sued the Justice Department earlier this year for banning grant funding under the Violence Against Women Act to groups that promote "gender ideology" or diversity, equity and inclusion programs. A judge paused that rule.