New Sex Scam Comes To Light

GotZoom

Senior Member
Apr 20, 2005
5,719
368
48
Cordova, TN
(Note added by moderator Merlin1047): PLEASE provide attribution for any article posted in order to avoid copyright infringements. Either attribute the author, or provide a link to the site where the original article is posted. GotZoom, unless you authored this article, please try to find the site again and provide a link. Thanks.

Simply amazing.

AKRON, OH—Area resident Helen Crandall, 44, was arrested by Akron police Sunday, charged with conducting an elaborate "sex for security" scam in which she allegedly defrauded husband Russell Crandall out of nearly $230,000 in cash, food, clothing and housing over the past 19 years using periodic offers of sexual intercourse.

"It's the biggest scam of its kind I've ever seen," Akron police chief Thomas Agee said. "We're talking coats, dishwashers, jewelry, sewing machines, bathroom cleansers—you name it."

According to Agee, undercover agents spotted Crandall's husband handing her $50 in cash at approximately 4 p.m., just 30 minutes after the two had sex. Crandall then drove off in her car, returning home two hours later with five bags of groceries.

"That's when we made the arrest," Agee said. "After tracking her for years, we finally had proof that she was buying all those goods with dirty money."

During the arrest, Akron police officials entered the Crandall household and seized more than 150 items Mrs. Crandall had received from her husband over the last 19 years, including a four-speed adjustable food processor, 12 pairs of earrings, a matching sofa and loveseat, a box of two-ply kitchen garbage bags, and a portable radio.

In exchange for these items, Agee said, Crandall's husband received sex an estimated 950 times—most frequently in the master bedroom, but also in the downstairs den three times, and once on the floor of the sewing room.

In addition to physical evidence, Akron police have collected considerable eyewitness testimony. More than 250 Akron residents have come forward to report seeing Helen and Russell Crandall together, and several said they witnessed Mr. Crandall flagrantly purchasing items for his wife.

"Sure, they'd come in here," said Ray Greene of Greene's House and Home. "I think the last time they got one of those box fans with the three settings."

Perhaps the most damaging testimony has come from Mr. Crandall himself, who on Tuesday told police that while the couple was dating in 1977, Mrs. Crandall—then known as Helen Steuben—demanded that he buy her a ring worth over $1,000 before he could have sex with her. The first sexual liaison took place some six months later at Bob's Honeymooner Hotel during an all-expenses-paid trip to Niagara Falls.

It was also in 1977, Mr. Crandall said, that his wife quit her job at Shippee Shoes in downtown Akron.

"Clearly," Summit County prosecutor Andrew Dravecky said, "after quitting her job, the accused began receiving money under the table from some other source: How else could she have afforded to not work? It's now pretty apparent that at that point she began supporting herself by providing a certain service to Mr. Crandall."

Crandall's mother, Bernice Steuben, a resident of the Valley View Senior Home in Yuma, AZ, is being sought for questioning in connection to the case: Police suspect that Steuben may have introduced her daughter to the sex-for-security scam after having used it herself from 1932 to 1971.

But for all the evidence collected against Crandall, Dravecky said the case will likely be difficult to prosecute. "Helen was very careful to cover her tracks," he said. "She even got her husband to put her name on the bank accounts and credit cards."

The Crandall case is not an isolated incident, said criminologist John Ohlmeyer, who said there are "literally millions" of such cases across the U.S. each year that never come to court.

"This kind of thing isn't as uncommon as we'd all like to think," Ohlmeyer said. "A woman finds herself in a situation where she isn't employable. Or maybe she has interests like child-rearing, cooking and home-maintenance that keep her from getting a job. So what does she do? She cooks up a scheme to entrap a man using her body as the bait. It's frightening, but it happens every day in this country."
 
:finger: :finger: :finger:
And I mean that in the friendliest possible way.
 
So what exactly is the scam, here? Is Mr Crandall unhappy? Did he NOT KNOW how Helen was???? Russell used the ring to obtain sex from Helen. Surely you can see she had to get something out of the deal???
 
Joz said:
So what exactly is the scam, here? Is Mr Crandall unhappy? Did he NOT KNOW how Helen was???? Russell used the ring to obtain sex from Helen. Surely you can see she had to get something out of the deal???

This will come out in the trial I am sure. Was it consensual? As in she promises sex in exchange for material and the ring? Or was this based on a monetary value system. The things she would do for/to him are equated to a dollar value. Then he purchases items based on what he wants that night.

Oral sex - $10.00. He buys an electric tooth brush.
Shower together - $25.00. He buys a Swiffer.

etc..etc..etc...
 
GotZoom said:
This will come out in the trial I am sure. Was it consensual? As in she promises sex in exchange for material and the ring? Or was this based on a monetary value system. The things she would do for/to him are equated to a dollar value. Then he purchases items based on what he wants that night.

Oral sex - $10.00. He buys an electric tooth brush.
Shower together - $25.00. He buys a Swiffer.

etc..etc..etc...
So, what's your point. Of course with your job......everything must come down to dollars & cents.

So, now they court must decide whether the sex she gave was equal to the amount spent? Russell better be careful. He may STILL OWE her money.
 
This IS out of The Onion, yes?

...Cause if it's not, I don't see a problem. Welcome to married life. :D:D
 
It only comes down to money if that is the basis of the agreement. It's like a contract. You provide certain services in exchange for something in return - in this case, cash.

As far as Russell....it's not necessarily all on him. As any business plan would dictate, the ultimate goal is to make a profit. Her end of the agreement was to receive payment for her services. But a good business will provide the product at the most profit - yes, while providing a good service.

Kind of like the line from Space Cowboy with Clint Eastwood about sitting in the rocket that was built by the lowest bidder.

She will provide the least quality product as long as she keeps the customer happy and make the most profit.

Using this business plan, I would think she, espeically later in the years, provided a less quality product as long as he had a smile on his face when they were done.

I would bet that, over time, he came out on the short end of the deal (no pun intended).
 
GotZoom said:
.........
Using this business plan, I would think she, espeically later in the years, provided a less quality product as long as he had a smile on his face when they were done.

I would bet that, over time, he came out on the short end of the deal (no pun intended).
And MAYBE Helen is a conscientious worker. MAYBE the quality of work improved as she got to know her job better & became more comfortable in it.
And MAYBE Russelll became greedy & stingy with his money like so many employers do, not wanting to pay a fair price for a job well done. Hence...unions.
 
Joz said:
And MAYBE Helen is a conscientious worker. MAYBE the quality of work improved as she got to know her job better & became more comfortable in it.
Yeah, yeah..problem is the equipment gets old and broken and must be replaced.:gross2:
 
Joz said:
And MAYBE Helen is a conscientious worker. MAYBE the quality of work improved as she got to know her job better & became more comfortable in it.
And MAYBE Russelll became greedy & stingy with his money like so many employers do, not wanting to pay a fair price for a job well done. Hence...unions.

Unions wouldn't be applicable. She is self-employed; a subcontractor.
 
GotZoom said:
Unions wouldn't be applicable. She is self-employed; a subcontractor.
Unions are not the issue. I was just stating that because of unfair employers, unions were introduced.
 
Joz said:
Unions are not the issue. I was just stating that because of unfair employers, unions were introduced.

I don't think he is assuming the role of an employer in this arrangement. The sense of the article is that of HER demanding payment for her services as opposed to HIM expecting asking for services in exchange for cash.

Had he been calling the shots, I think he would have been arrested instead of her. She would be the "victim" - having to perform sexual favors in exchange for material things.

The article doesn't give me the feeling of him saying to her, "If you want a Swiffer, you'll _____ me."

Plus..you know as well as I do, women control men when it comes to that subject.
 
Joz said:
I don't see Russell getting an unfair shake.

We can't make that assumption. Just as we can't assume that she was getting an unfair shake.

It was an agreed-upon arrangement. The both knew what they were getting.

All I am saying is that big business has a history of "lowering" the quality and/or amount of their goods, while keeping the customer somewhat happy. Examples:

Sizes of cereal boxes have grown smaller while the price remains the same.

Sure..you can say that the price of ingredients have changed. Agreed. However, in their case - through the years - where maybe a 20 minute "session" was once the standard, it could have dropped to 15 minutes because she was "older and gets tired faster" (her words, in order to lessen the service). As long as he has a smile on his face after 15 minutes, he is probably ok with it.

Still doesn't make it right.
 
Mr. P said:
Yeah, yeah..problem is the equipment gets old and broken and must be replaced.:gross2:

OMG!!! <i>*dies laughing*</i>
 
Joz said:
But with care and proper maintenance, equipment can last for many, many years. Thus saving the employer the expensive cost of replacement.
True, but there comes hehe a time parts MUST be replaced, maintenance cost just gets to high. :teeth:
 

Forum List

Back
Top