Supreme Court rejects damage claim in HIV privacy case

AppId is over the quota
De grenzen van de Supreme Court "werkelijke schade" onder de Privacy ActA Californi? man opgeroepen wanneer de regering publiekelijk onthuld dat zijn HIV statusThe 5-3 uitspraak van het Hof conservatieve meerderheid tegen de liberale minorityJustice Elena Kagan, de voormalige vice-minister, ontpit nam niet deel

Washington ((CNN)) - A verdeeld Supreme Court oordeelde woensdag tegen een Californi? piloot die vervolgd nadat de federale regering publiekelijk onthuld zijn MIV-status.

In een 5-3 uitspraak besloten de high court Stanmore Cooper's claims van mentale en emotionele nood vallen niet onder de Privacy Act.

"De Privacy Act doet niet ondubbelzinnig schade voor mentale of emotionele nood toestaan en daarom doet geen afstand doen van de regering soevereine immuniteit voor dergelijke harms," schreef Justitie Samuel Alito voor de conservatieve meerderheid.

Drie liberale justices zich afgescheiden, terwijl een vierde, voormalig vice-minister Elena Kagan, nam niet deel.

In een verklaring woensdag zei Cooper dat het "ontmoedigend dat een meerderheid van de rechter van de regering zijde."

Cooper werd een gelicentieerde recreatieve piloot in 1964, maar twee decennia later, de San Francisco man werd gediagnosticeerd met HIV. Zijn toestand verergerd, wil hij zijn vervallen medisch attest vliegenier en van zijn privé piloot certificaat.

In 1996, Cooper toegepast voor lange termijn handicap met de Social Security Administration.

"Ik was in slechte vorm, ik heb niet lang te leven," zei hij vorig jaar. Maar zijn gezondheid verbeterd dankzij een cocktail van anti-retrovirale therapie. Hij ging terug aan het werk en wilde weer vliegen.

"Ik ontdekte ze waren medisch onderzoek (uitzonderingen) afgifte en ik opnieuw toegepast" aan de Federal Aviation Administration "zonder onthullen mijn MIV-status", zei hij. "Grote fout."

Hij ontving zijn nieuwe piloot certificaat, maar onbekend aan hem, een gezamenlijk initiatief van de lokale-federale genaamd operatie veilige Pilot werd gelanceerd in 2002. Met behulp van een werkblad, de agentschappen gedeeld en de namen en persoonlijke gegevens van ongeveer 45.000 piloten in Noord-Californi?, op zoek naar potentieel medisch ongeschikt individuen die ook federale voordelen ontvangen waren vergeleken.

Cooper was een van vier dozijn of zo piloten gelabeld als een "persoon die van belang." Wanneer geconfronteerd door de overheid ressorterende beambten, hij toegelaten tot een misdrijf last van een valse melding.

Hij werd veroordeeld tot een proeftijd en een boete, en zijn piloot certificaat is ingetrokken. Naam van het directielid voormalig business is aangeboden in een federale persbericht en later, door zijn vervolging, Cooper's medische geschiedenis plotseling was een kwestie van openbare record.

"Ik had geweest kundig voor zeggenschap die (met) wie ik mijn informatie gedeeld over mijn MIV-status, beperkt tot bepaalde collega's, familie en vrienden," zei hij "en plotseling dat was uit mijn controle."

Cooper, die uiteindelijk werd toegestaan om te vliegen weer, opgeroepen.

"Ik koos niet te onthullen mijn HIV-infectie en dat was een zeer slechte zaak," zei hij. "Ik nam de verantwoordelijkheid voor het en ik betaalde de prijs. Ik werd gestraft. En ik denk dat nu is het beurt van de regering om eigen tot het breken van de wet en neem verantwoordelijkheid voor wat zij deden. "

Een federale rechter vond zowel de FAA en de Social Security Administration geschonden de Privacy Act met het onderzoek van informatie-uitwisseling, maar zei onder de wet, alleen "werkelijke schade" kunnen worden ingezameld door eisers eisende.

Omdat Cooper geen vorderingen voor economische schade, zoals verlies van de lonen of medische kosten maakte, was hij van geluk. De rechter vond "emotionele schade" alleen niet gekwalificeerd en verwierp het proces.

Een federaal Hof van beroep teruggedraaid die beslissing, uitspraak voor Cooper. Toen vroeg de FAA het high court om in te grijpen.

Tijdens een uur van mondelinge argumenten vorig jaar bleef de justices weg van de specifieke claims van emotionele schade gemaakt door Cooper, zich in plaats daarvan te concentreren op wat de wet zegt over kwalificatie voor schade.

"Het argument dat u hebt gemaakt-- en ik begrijp het, dat dit de Privacy Act en dus het is precies deze soorten schade die u zou betrokken over--echt beide manieren bezuinigingen," zei Chief Justice John Roberts aan Cooper's advocaat.

"Wat u zegt is dat deze (wet) heeft betrekking op een echt grote brok van schade, omdat dit wat de hele wet is over was," zei Roberts. "En het lijkt mij dat argument suggereert dat er wat gewicht aan de regering punt: dat als je gaat om dat te krijgen, je echt nodig duidelijker" taal in de wet dat de regering tot op zekere hoogte van een overstroming van hard-aan-weerleggen rechtszaken immuniseren zou.

De dubbelzinnigheid lagere rechtbanken jarenlang heeft verdeeld, en privacy deskundigen zei het gemak waarmee de regering kan verzamelen en informatie uit te wisselen in het digitale tijdperk maakt de kwestie van de aansprakelijkheid van de persoonlijke levenssfeer rijp voor herziening.

Justitie Ruth Bader Ginsburg gehamerd herhaaldelijk weg bij de regering advocaat pleit voor de FAA. Ze zei dat de betrokken bepaling van de federale schade is vergelijkbaar met staat onrechtmatige daad claims die zowel emotionele en financi?le schade omvatten.

"De persoon die is onderworpen aan dit, tot deze verlegenheid, deze vernedering, voorschotten niet hebben, maar is vreselijk verdrietig, angstig en nerveus, en al de rest," zei Ginsburg. "De wet dat is het bereiken van het Congres, de impact is van die aard. Ik bedoel, geldelijke schade (monetaire) wonen normaal gedrag dat gênant, vernedert u, oorzaken van geestelijke nood."

Eric Feigin van het ministerie van Justitie zei de Privacy Act de taal kan worden ge?nterpreteerd als schadevergoeding voor zulke dingen als "vernedering, verlegenheid en geestelijke angst" waardoor, maar omdat de uitdrukking "werkelijke" blijft vaag schade, dat de regering moet krijgen het voordeel van de twijfel, zei het geval kantelen in eigen voordeel.

"Gewoon omdat een eiser een negatief effect kan hebben geleden" van de privacy schending, Feigin, betoogde "betekent niet dat de eiser werkelijke schade geleden."

Raymond Cardozo, Cooper's advocaat, tijdens de hoorzitting dat zijn cli?nt informatie openbaar werd gemaakt en zijn naam en MIV-status nog op een federale regering database Gepost zijn gewezen. Hij maakte ook een grotere argument, dat zijn cli?nt dilemma is één die gevolgen voor alle Amerikanen hebben kan.

"Congres deze daad de burger vertrouwen in hun regering, en het maakte een plechtige belofte voor de Amerikaanse burgers dat in geval van opzettelijke en opzettelijke schending, de Verenigde Staten is aansprakelijk voor werkelijke schade te herstellen," zei Cardozo. "Vandaag, de regering stelt dat"werkelijke schade"worden gelezen op een manier die maakt deze wet vrijwel niet relevant. Dat is een aanfluiting van die plechtige belofte."

Cooper studeerde aan de openbare zitting bij de rechtbank en drukte optimisme daarna die hij zou zegevieren.

"Ze heb verraden mijn vertrouwen en ik kan niet krijgen dat terug," zei Cooper op het moment. "Er was niets te verliezen hier. Ik had om het te doen. Het was het juiste ding om te doen."

Het geval is Cooper v. FAA (10-1024).

CNN's Tom Cohen en Kate Bolduan bijdragen aan dit verslag.

View the original article here

Supreme Court rejects damage claim in HIV privacy case

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
The Supreme Court limits "actual damages" under the Privacy ActA California man sued when the government publicly revealed his HIV statusThe 5-3 ruling pitted the court's conservative majority against the liberal minorityJustice Elena Kagan, the former solicitor general, did not participate

Washington (CNN) -- A divided Supreme Court ruled Wednesday against a California pilot who sued after the federal government publicly revealed his HIV status.

In a 5-3 ruling, the high court decided Stanmore Cooper's claims of mental and emotional distress are not covered under the Privacy Act.

"The Privacy Act does not unequivocally authorize damages for mental or emotional distress and therefore does not waive the government's sovereign immunity for such harms," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the conservative majority.

Three liberal justices dissented, while a fourth, former Solicitor General Elena Kagan, did not participate.

In a statement Wednesday, Cooper said it was "discouraging that a majority of the court sided with the government."

Cooper became a licensed recreational pilot in 1964, but two decades later, the San Francisco man was diagnosed with HIV. As his condition worsened, he let his private pilot's certificate and his airman medical certificate lapse.

In 1996, Cooper applied for long-term disability with the Social Security Administration.

"I was in bad shape, I didn't have long to live," he said last year. But his health improved thanks to a cocktail of anti-retroviral therapy. He went back to work and wanted to fly again.

"I found out they were issuing medicals (exemptions) and I reapplied" to the Federal Aviation Administration "without revealing my HIV status," he said. "Big mistake."

He received his new pilot's certificate but, unknown to him, a joint local-federal initiative called Operation Safe Pilot was launched in 2002. Using a spreadsheet, the agencies shared and compared the names and personal data of about 45,000 pilots in Northern California, looking for potentially medically unfit individuals who were also receiving federal benefits.

Cooper was among four dozen or so pilots tagged as a "person of interest." When confronted by government agents, he admitted to a misdemeanor charge of filing a false report.

He was sentenced to probation and fined, and his pilot's certificate was revoked. The retired business executive's name was listed in a federal press release and later, through his prosecution, Cooper's medical history suddenly was a matter of public record.

"I had been able to control those (with) whom I shared my information about my HIV status, limited to some co-workers, family, and close friends," he said "And suddenly that was out of my control."

Cooper, who was eventually allowed to fly again, sued.

"I chose not to reveal my HIV infection and that was a very bad thing," he said. "I took responsibility for it and I paid the price. I was punished. And I think now it's the government's turn to own up to breaking the law and take responsibility for what they did."

A federal judge found both the FAA and the Social Security Administration violated the Privacy Act with the information-sharing investigation, but said under the law, only "actual damages" could be collected by plaintiffs seeking redress.

Since Cooper made no claims for economic harm, such as lost wages or medical expenses, he was out of luck. The judge found "emotional injury" alone did not qualify and dismissed the lawsuit.

A federal appeals court reversed that decision, ruling for Cooper. The FAA then asked the high court to intervene.

During an hour of oral arguments last year, the justices stayed away from the specific claims of emotional harm made by Cooper, focusing instead on what the law says about qualifying for damages.

"The argument you have made -- and I certainly understand it, that this is the Privacy Act and so it's precisely these types of damages that you would be concerned about -- really cuts both ways," Chief Justice John Roberts said to Cooper's lawyer.

"What you are saying is this (law) covers a really big chunk of damages, because this is what the whole act was about," Roberts said. "And it seems to me that argument suggests that there is some weight to the government's point: That if you are going to get that, you really do need clearer" language in the law that would immunize the government to some extent, from a flood of hard-to-disprove lawsuits.

The ambiguity has divided lower courts for years, and privacy experts said the ease with which the government can collect and share information in the digital age makes the issue of personal privacy liability ripe for review.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg repeatedly hammered away at the government lawyer arguing for the FAA. She said the federal damages provision in question is similar to state tort claims that include both emotional and financial harm.

"The person who is subject to this, to this embarrassment, this humiliation, doesn't have out-of-pocket costs, but is terribly distressed, nervous, anxious, and all the rest," Ginsburg said. "The act that the Congress is reaching, the impact is of that nature. I mean, pecuniary (monetary) damages ordinarily attend conduct that embarrasses, humiliates you, causes mental distress."

Eric Feigin of the Justice Department said the Privacy Act's language may be interpreted as allowing damages for such things as "humiliation, embarrassment and mental anguish," but said because the phrase "actual" damages remains vague, the government should get the benefit of the doubt, tipping the case in its favor.

"Simply because a plaintiff may have suffered an adverse effect" from the privacy violation, argued Feigin, "doesn't mean that the plaintiff suffered actual damages."

Raymond Cardozo, Cooper's lawyer, pointed out during the hearing that his client's information was made public and his name and HIV status are still posted on a federal government database. He also made a larger argument, that his client's dilemma is one that may affect all Americans.

"Congress passed this act to restore the citizens' faith in their government, and it made a solemn promise to the American citizens that in cases of intentional and willful violation, the United States shall be liable for actual damages," Cardozo said. "Today, the government is proposing that "actual damages" be read in a way that renders this act virtually irrelevant. That makes a mockery of that solemn promise."

Cooper attended the public session at the court and expressed optimism afterward he would prevail.

"They've betrayed my trust and I can't get that back," Cooper said at the time. "There was nothing to lose here. I had to do it. It was the right thing to do."

The case is Cooper v. FAA (10-1024).

CNN's Tom Cohen and Kate Bolduan contribute to this report.

View the original article here

Supreme Court rejects damage claim in HIV privacy case

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
The Supreme Court limits "actual damages" under the Privacy ActA California man sued when the government publicly revealed his HIV statusThe 5-3 ruling pitted the court's conservative majority against the liberal minorityJustice Elena Kagan, the former solicitor general, did not participate

Washington (CNN) -- A divided Supreme Court ruled Wednesday against a California pilot who sued after the federal government publicly revealed his HIV status.

In a 5-3 ruling, the high court decided Stanmore Cooper's claims of mental and emotional distress are not covered under the Privacy Act.

"The Privacy Act does not unequivocally authorize damages for mental or emotional distress and therefore does not waive the government's sovereign immunity for such harms," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the conservative majority.

Three liberal justices dissented, while a fourth, former Solicitor General Elena Kagan, did not participate.

In a statement Wednesday, Cooper said it was "discouraging that a majority of the court sided with the government."

Cooper became a licensed recreational pilot in 1964, but two decades later, the San Francisco man was diagnosed with HIV. As his condition worsened, he let his private pilot's certificate and his airman medical certificate lapse.

In 1996, Cooper applied for long-term disability with the Social Security Administration.

"I was in bad shape, I didn't have long to live," he said last year. But his health improved thanks to a cocktail of anti-retroviral therapy. He went back to work and wanted to fly again.

"I found out they were issuing medicals (exemptions) and I reapplied" to the Federal Aviation Administration "without revealing my HIV status," he said. "Big mistake."

He received his new pilot's certificate but, unknown to him, a joint local-federal initiative called Operation Safe Pilot was launched in 2002. Using a spreadsheet, the agencies shared and compared the names and personal data of about 45,000 pilots in Northern California, looking for potentially medically unfit individuals who were also receiving federal benefits.

Cooper was among four dozen or so pilots tagged as a "person of interest." When confronted by government agents, he admitted to a misdemeanor charge of filing a false report.

He was sentenced to probation and fined, and his pilot's certificate was revoked. The retired business executive's name was listed in a federal press release and later, through his prosecution, Cooper's medical history suddenly was a matter of public record.

"I had been able to control those (with) whom I shared my information about my HIV status, limited to some co-workers, family, and close friends," he said "And suddenly that was out of my control."

Cooper, who was eventually allowed to fly again, sued.

"I chose not to reveal my HIV infection and that was a very bad thing," he said. "I took responsibility for it and I paid the price. I was punished. And I think now it's the government's turn to own up to breaking the law and take responsibility for what they did."

A federal judge found both the FAA and the Social Security Administration violated the Privacy Act with the information-sharing investigation, but said under the law, only "actual damages" could be collected by plaintiffs seeking redress.

Since Cooper made no claims for economic harm, such as lost wages or medical expenses, he was out of luck. The judge found "emotional injury" alone did not qualify and dismissed the lawsuit.

A federal appeals court reversed that decision, ruling for Cooper. The FAA then asked the high court to intervene.

During an hour of oral arguments last year, the justices stayed away from the specific claims of emotional harm made by Cooper, focusing instead on what the law says about qualifying for damages.

"The argument you have made -- and I certainly understand it, that this is the Privacy Act and so it's precisely these types of damages that you would be concerned about -- really cuts both ways," Chief Justice John Roberts said to Cooper's lawyer.

"What you are saying is this (law) covers a really big chunk of damages, because this is what the whole act was about," Roberts said. "And it seems to me that argument suggests that there is some weight to the government's point: That if you are going to get that, you really do need clearer" language in the law that would immunize the government to some extent, from a flood of hard-to-disprove lawsuits.

The ambiguity has divided lower courts for years, and privacy experts said the ease with which the government can collect and share information in the digital age makes the issue of personal privacy liability ripe for review.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg repeatedly hammered away at the government lawyer arguing for the FAA. She said the federal damages provision in question is similar to state tort claims that include both emotional and financial harm.

"The person who is subject to this, to this embarrassment, this humiliation, doesn't have out-of-pocket costs, but is terribly distressed, nervous, anxious, and all the rest," Ginsburg said. "The act that the Congress is reaching, the impact is of that nature. I mean, pecuniary (monetary) damages ordinarily attend conduct that embarrasses, humiliates you, causes mental distress."

Eric Feigin of the Justice Department said the Privacy Act's language may be interpreted as allowing damages for such things as "humiliation, embarrassment and mental anguish," but said because the phrase "actual" damages remains vague, the government should get the benefit of the doubt, tipping the case in its favor.

"Simply because a plaintiff may have suffered an adverse effect" from the privacy violation, argued Feigin, "doesn't mean that the plaintiff suffered actual damages."

Raymond Cardozo, Cooper's lawyer, pointed out during the hearing that his client's information was made public and his name and HIV status are still posted on a federal government database. He also made a larger argument, that his client's dilemma is one that may affect all Americans.

"Congress passed this act to restore the citizens' faith in their government, and it made a solemn promise to the American citizens that in cases of intentional and willful violation, the United States shall be liable for actual damages," Cardozo said. "Today, the government is proposing that "actual damages" be read in a way that renders this act virtually irrelevant. That makes a mockery of that solemn promise."

Cooper attended the public session at the court and expressed optimism afterward he would prevail.

"They've betrayed my trust and I can't get that back," Cooper said at the time. "There was nothing to lose here. I had to do it. It was the right thing to do."

The case is Cooper v. FAA (10-1024).

CNN's Tom Cohen and Kate Bolduan contribute to this report.

View the original article here

Supreme Court rejects damage claim in HIV privacy case

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
The Supreme Court limits "actual damages" under the Privacy ActA California man sued when the government publicly revealed his HIV statusThe 5-3 ruling pitted the court's conservative majority against the liberal minorityJustice Elena Kagan, the former solicitor general, did not participate

Washington (CNN) -- A divided Supreme Court ruled Wednesday against a California pilot who sued after the federal government publicly revealed his HIV status.

In a 5-3 ruling, the high court decided Stanmore Cooper's claims of mental and emotional distress are not covered under the Privacy Act.

"The Privacy Act does not unequivocally authorize damages for mental or emotional distress and therefore does not waive the government's sovereign immunity for such harms," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the conservative majority.

Three liberal justices dissented, while a fourth, former Solicitor General Elena Kagan, did not participate.

In a statement Wednesday, Cooper said it was "discouraging that a majority of the court sided with the government."

Cooper became a licensed recreational pilot in 1964, but two decades later, the San Francisco man was diagnosed with HIV. As his condition worsened, he let his private pilot's certificate and his airman medical certificate lapse.

In 1996, Cooper applied for long-term disability with the Social Security Administration.

"I was in bad shape, I didn't have long to live," he said last year. But his health improved thanks to a cocktail of anti-retroviral therapy. He went back to work and wanted to fly again.

"I found out they were issuing medicals (exemptions) and I reapplied" to the Federal Aviation Administration "without revealing my HIV status," he said. "Big mistake."

He received his new pilot's certificate but, unknown to him, a joint local-federal initiative called Operation Safe Pilot was launched in 2002. Using a spreadsheet, the agencies shared and compared the names and personal data of about 45,000 pilots in Northern California, looking for potentially medically unfit individuals who were also receiving federal benefits.

Cooper was among four dozen or so pilots tagged as a "person of interest." When confronted by government agents, he admitted to a misdemeanor charge of filing a false report.

He was sentenced to probation and fined, and his pilot's certificate was revoked. The retired business executive's name was listed in a federal press release and later, through his prosecution, Cooper's medical history suddenly was a matter of public record.

"I had been able to control those (with) whom I shared my information about my HIV status, limited to some co-workers, family, and close friends," he said "And suddenly that was out of my control."

Cooper, who was eventually allowed to fly again, sued.

"I chose not to reveal my HIV infection and that was a very bad thing," he said. "I took responsibility for it and I paid the price. I was punished. And I think now it's the government's turn to own up to breaking the law and take responsibility for what they did."

A federal judge found both the FAA and the Social Security Administration violated the Privacy Act with the information-sharing investigation, but said under the law, only "actual damages" could be collected by plaintiffs seeking redress.

Since Cooper made no claims for economic harm, such as lost wages or medical expenses, he was out of luck. The judge found "emotional injury" alone did not qualify and dismissed the lawsuit.

A federal appeals court reversed that decision, ruling for Cooper. The FAA then asked the high court to intervene.

During an hour of oral arguments last year, the justices stayed away from the specific claims of emotional harm made by Cooper, focusing instead on what the law says about qualifying for damages.

"The argument you have made -- and I certainly understand it, that this is the Privacy Act and so it's precisely these types of damages that you would be concerned about -- really cuts both ways," Chief Justice John Roberts said to Cooper's lawyer.

"What you are saying is this (law) covers a really big chunk of damages, because this is what the whole act was about," Roberts said. "And it seems to me that argument suggests that there is some weight to the government's point: That if you are going to get that, you really do need clearer" language in the law that would immunize the government to some extent, from a flood of hard-to-disprove lawsuits.

The ambiguity has divided lower courts for years, and privacy experts said the ease with which the government can collect and share information in the digital age makes the issue of personal privacy liability ripe for review.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg repeatedly hammered away at the government lawyer arguing for the FAA. She said the federal damages provision in question is similar to state tort claims that include both emotional and financial harm.

"The person who is subject to this, to this embarrassment, this humiliation, doesn't have out-of-pocket costs, but is terribly distressed, nervous, anxious, and all the rest," Ginsburg said. "The act that the Congress is reaching, the impact is of that nature. I mean, pecuniary (monetary) damages ordinarily attend conduct that embarrasses, humiliates you, causes mental distress."

Eric Feigin of the Justice Department said the Privacy Act's language may be interpreted as allowing damages for such things as "humiliation, embarrassment and mental anguish," but said because the phrase "actual" damages remains vague, the government should get the benefit of the doubt, tipping the case in its favor.

"Simply because a plaintiff may have suffered an adverse effect" from the privacy violation, argued Feigin, "doesn't mean that the plaintiff suffered actual damages."

Raymond Cardozo, Cooper's lawyer, pointed out during the hearing that his client's information was made public and his name and HIV status are still posted on a federal government database. He also made a larger argument, that his client's dilemma is one that may affect all Americans.

"Congress passed this act to restore the citizens' faith in their government, and it made a solemn promise to the American citizens that in cases of intentional and willful violation, the United States shall be liable for actual damages," Cardozo said. "Today, the government is proposing that "actual damages" be read in a way that renders this act virtually irrelevant. That makes a mockery of that solemn promise."

Cooper attended the public session at the court and expressed optimism afterward he would prevail.

"They've betrayed my trust and I can't get that back," Cooper said at the time. "There was nothing to lose here. I had to do it. It was the right thing to do."

The case is Cooper v. FAA (10-1024).

CNN's Tom Cohen and Kate Bolduan contribute to this report.

View the original article here

Strauss-Kahn lawyers fight against prostitutes claim - CNN

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
Ex-International Monetary Fund chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn is not allowed to have contact with others involved in the probe.Attorney: There is no evidence Strauss-Kahn knew women at sex parties were paidOther suspects say the former IMF chief did not know, Henri Leclerc saysStrauss-Kahn is warned he is being investigated for "aggravated pimping"French police are investigating a high-profile prostitution ring in Lille

Paris (CNN) -- Lawyers for Dominique Strauss-Kahn pushed back Tuesday against allegations that he facilitated prostitution in France, saying there was "no significant evidence" the former International Monetary Fund chief knew young women at parties he attended were being paid for sex.

Other suspects held over an investigation into prostitution centered around the city of Lille "said that Dominique Strauss-Kahn did not know that these women were being paid," Strauss-Kahn's lawyer Henri Leclerc said in a news conference.

"We hear that these women say otherwise. Well, no! I can tell you these women do not say otherwise," he said.

Strauss-Kahn was formally warned Monday that he is under investigation for "aggravated pimping" for accusations that he participated in a prostitution ring, prosecutors said.

He is not allowed to have contact with other people involved in the investigation, nor is he permitted to talk to the media about the case. Strauss-Kahn was released under a €100,000 ($133,000) bail, according to prosecutors.

Strauss-Kahn is now at a point in the French legal system that comes after an arrest and before formal charges are filed.

He faces allegations of habitual involvement in a prostitution racket.

The description of the alleged crime as "aggravated" means it took place on a regular and involved basis, and "pimping" means facilitating a prostitution operation, not just being a customer.

Leclerc said it was possible to question his client's morals, but that he had not broken the law.

"We can criticize in terms of virtue, in terms of how a man should conduct himself," the lawyer said. "But in reality, this is just unruly conduct. You can hate it, you may not find it virtuous -- everyone is entitled to their own opinion -- but it is not a crime."

Frederique Beaulieu, another lawyer for Strauss-Kahn, said Tuesday: "You have to remember that in our country having relations with a prostitute is not a crime."

While prostitution is not illegal in France, profiting from the prostitution of another person is against the law, according to the French Penal Code. Authorities are also investigating whether corporate funds were used to pay for the prostitutes.

Leclerc said in December that there was no evidence that such funds were misappropriated.

Last month, Strauss-Kahn was held for more than 24 hours by police in Lille and questioned about alleged involvement in the prostitution ring.

His attorneys released a statement in November calling the allegations against their client "unhealthy, sensationalist and not without a political agenda."

The prostitution probe, nicknamed the "Carlton Affair" by the French press, kicked off in October.

It centers around the city of Lille, w3here investigators began looking into claims that luxury hotels, including the Carlton, served as a base for a high-profile prostitution network.

In December, Strauss-Kahn's attorney Leclerc acknowledged in an interview with radio station Europe1 that his client attended sex parties, but said Strauss-Kahn was unaware the women in attendance were prostitutes.

A hotel manager and four other men were arrested late last year in connection with the investigation.

The Carlton Affair continues a string of sexual allegations against Strauss-Kahn. He has not been convicted of any crime.

One of the sex scandals torpedoed his expected run for the French presidency this year. He stepped down from the top job at the IMF after that incident, in which a New York hotel maid accused him of sexual assault and attempted rape in May. He denied the accusation.

The case ultimately fell apart after prosecutors decided they could not be sure about the credibility of the alleged victim, despite forensic evidence that showed a sexual encounter had occurred.

Strauss-Kahn also faced allegations of attempted rape from a young French writer. Tristane Banon filed a complaint, alleging a 2003 attack, though it could not be pursued because of a statute of limitations.

Strauss-Kahn denied the allegations and has since filed a countersuit in France, alleging slander.

CNN's Brian Walker contributed to this report.

updated 6:37 PM EDT, Tue March 27, 2012 Britain's Prince Harry has moved into the same London residence where his brother William lives with his new wife Kate, CNN can reveal.updated 8:17 PM EDT, Tue March 27, 2012 A British businessman who was found dead in his Chinese hotel room emerges as a key link in a story of intrigue, mystery and betrayal.updated 10:58 AM EDT, Mon March 26, 2012 Analyst Richard Chasdi says that nations that empower proxy groups are risking total disaster in a nuclear age. In a conversation about a European missile system caught on an open mic, President Barack Obama asks Russia's Dmitry Medvedev for space.updated 5:47 AM EDT, Tue March 27, 2012 Pope Benedict XVI was coming to Mexico for the very first time and the sense of anticipation was great. It was to be the pope's first trip to Spanish-speaking Latin America too. updated 8:24 PM EDT, Sun March 25, 2012 Oscar-winning director James Cameron plunges to the deepest point in the oceans, tweeting from his submersible during the process.updated 11:11 AM EDT, Mon March 26, 2012 Song Ee Han agonized over a decision: Would she leave her youngest child behind while she and her daughters escaped North Korea?updated 9:50 PM EDT, Sun March 25, 2012 Song Byeok had every reason to be pleased with his success. A gift for drawing led to a prestigious career as a propaganda artist.updated 9:12 AM EDT, Fri March 23, 2012 Did French intelligence services miss vital clues as Mohammed Merah showed signs of growing radicalization? updated 12:08 PM EDT, Thu March 22, 2012 One analysts says Sarkozy may be keen to keep the focus on security and the Toulouse attacks -- issues on which he looks strong.updated 12:11 PM EDT, Thu March 22, 2012 The Toulouse shootings refocus fears on trained attackers who are determined, living legally in the West and operating alone.updated 9:40 AM EDT, Thu March 22, 2012 How an acclaimed creates masks, thrones and figures out of weapons used in conflict. Most popular stories right now

View the original article here