In December 2024 and January 2025, the Scranton City Police Department made a series of prostitution arrests at two spas in the area.
The first arrests occurred on December 12 following an undercover investigation into suspected prostitution at Harmony Spa in Scranton, Pennsylvania. As a result, two women, ages 67 and 69, were arrested for prostitution and related offenses.
The first woman is charged with two felony counts of promoting prostitution, one for owning/managing a house of prostitution for her role in allegedly managing the spa as a house of prostitution, and one for encouraging/inducing prostitution. She is also charged with one count of promoting prostitution for allegedly arranging for the sexual encounter between the other woman and the undercover officer, and criminal conspiracy to do the same. Lastly, she is charged with criminal conspiracy to possess an instrument of a crime. Her case is no longer active.
The second woman, who identified the first woman as her employer, is charged with promoting prostitution as an inmate in a house of prostitution, criminal conspiracy to promote prostitution as an inmate in a house of prostitution, and possessing an instrument of a crime. She was admitted intoLackawanna County’s Accerated Rehabilitative Program.
The Scranton Police Street Crimes Unit and Lackawanna County detectives reportedly began their investigation into Harmony Spa after receiving information about “suspicious operations.”
The investigators report they also found the business on a website advertising prostitution services, further provoking the investigation.
An undercover officer then purportedly posed as a sex buyer and contacted the spa through the advertising website. When the officer arrived, the second woman allegedly “agreed to provide both a massage and sexual services in exchange for $40.” When the woman allegedly accepted the money and began the massage, investigators emerged from another room, detaining both women.
According to reports, the second woman informed investigators that around three sex buyers per day would solicit services, and she would perform sex acts on one or two of them, noting she made about ten dollars each time.
The first woman, the spa’s alleged owner, first reported she just cleaned the spa and denied giving massages herself, but she eventually revealed that she manages the spa and provides massages, but only to female clients, according to the affidavit. However, the second woman suggested that her alleged employer knew about the sexual services provided to sex buyers, and police say she also admitted to answering the undercover phone call and arranging the “appointment.”
The second arrests occurred on January 3 at Queen Spa in Scranton, Pennsylvania. According to reports, the investigation began because law enforcement suspected prostitution activity at the spa. According to reports, two undercover officers went to the spa posing as sex buyers, where they report two women took the officers into separate rooms. Both women allegedly accepted the officers’ money, $70 and $80, provided them with massages, and agreed to perform sexual services. The police report that once the women attempted to perform sex acts, the officers prompted an arrest.
During the investigation, officers allegedly witnessed sex buyers attempt to purchase sexual services from Queen Spa. According to court documents, both women apparently acknowledged regularly performing sex acts in exchange for money.
Both women were charged with prostitution, and possessing an instrument of a crime. Both women pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of prostitution, and the other charges were withdrawn.
The CSE Institute is disappointed in the Scranton and South Abington Township Police Departments for their decisions to charge and prosecute these women for prostitution without considering the possibility that the women are being trafficked. In situations such as these, we encourage law enforcement to investigate the nuances of the situation to determine if the subjects are being exploited.
Here, evidence found in Harmony Spa allegedly includes a New York City bus schedule posted on the wall, a “significant quantity of food” stored in a closet, an iPhone, a security camera hard drive, and a total of $7,700 in cash. The investigators also found a wooden crate covered with pillows and blankets, an indicator that trafficking is afoot. These facts suggest that the women resided in the massage parlor, which is often a sign of human trafficking. Traffickers often force the women to live in the business to maintain their control over as much of their lives as possible. Similarly, at Queen Spa, investigators found two iPhones and over $1,100.
Even in situations where there is not an identifiable trafficker and the women admit to engaging in prostitution, it is important to look to other factors that may indicate that exploitation is taking place, such as evidence the women are living in the spa or that significant amounts of money are kept on site. Moreover, on-site managers at illicit massage parlors tend to be women of the same ethnicity, and may have been trafficked themselves before taking on the role of trafficking others.
Instead of targeting vulnerable people in prostitution, the CSE Institute encourages law enforcement to investigate the sex buyers who were soliciting sexual services from this spa. Charging people with prostitution does nothing to eradicate the sex trade. It is the traffickers and buyers who perpetuate sexual exploitation and keep the commercial sex trade alive.
The CSE Institute advocates for the Equality Model to combat commercial sexual exploitation, which seeks to reduce the demand for commercial sex by criminalizing sex buyers and traffickers and decriminalizing people in prostitution.
Combatting commercial sexual exploitation requires holding sex buyers accountable and identifying and supporting victims. We hope that law enforcement and prosecutors will use their power and discretion to do justice for victims, rather than perpetuate their criminalization. The CSE Institute will continue to provide updates as this matter unfolds.
All views expressed herein are personal to the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law or of Villanova University.