Sean 'Diddy' Combs Denied Bail for Third Time by New York City Judge in Racketeering Case

Sean “Diddy” Combs has been denied bail for the third time by a judge in New York City.

Two judges previously denied Mr Combs’s release from custody, primarily due to concerns about potential witness tampering, deeming it a significant risk if he was freed before trial, which is scheduled for May 2025.

Mr Combs is being held at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York, charged with racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking, and transportation for prostitution.

He has entered a plea of not guilty and has also denied more than two dozen sexual assault accusations lodged in a flurry of civil lawsuits.

The judge cited evidence in the case showing Mr Combs’s alleged attempts at witness tampering, his violation of prison regulations while behind bars and claims he ran a “criminal enterprise” including forced labour and kidnapping.

US District Judge Arun Subramanian concluded the court could not trust Mr Combs if released on bail.

“The Court finds that the government has shown by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of the community,” the judge wrote in Wednesday’s ruling.

Prosecutors had opposed granting Mr Combs bail, citing his misconduct while in custody.

In a recent court filing, prosecutors accused the rap mogul of misusing jail communications to influence witnesses in his case and coercing others in his orbit to post online in order to sway public opinion and benefit his defence.

But defence attorneys for Mr Combs said he should be released so he has adequate time to prepare for his trial next year.

Earlier this month, Judge Subramanian ordered prosecutors in the case to destroy all copies of nearly 20 pages seized during a recent search of the former hip-hop star’s jail cell.

Some of the documents included handwritten notes to his attorneys and thoughts on his legal strategy, court filings show.

Mr Combs’s legal team said the search was unlawful and that the material was subject to attorney-client privilege, a legal doctrine that safeguards confidential communications between lawyers and those they represent.

But prosecutors said the information wasn’t protected due to Mr Combs’s alleged actions, which could be considered obstruction of justice and witness tampering.

They claimed Mr Combs had encouraged his children to post a video on social media featuring their birthday celebration with the aim of swaying prospective jurors.