This time, Rachel is slamming Netflix for allegedly allowing Anna Sorokin to profit from her cons.
It was previously reported that Netflix paid $320,000 to Anna for the rights to her story, though she only was able to keep a portion of the money.
Click inside to find out why, plus Rachel’s new comments…
New York has a “Son of Sam” law to prohibit criminals from profiting from their crimes, which began after serial killer David Berkowitz was offered publishing deals to write a memoir about his crimes. Anna‘s funds were frozen in May 2019 and money from the Netflix deal was used to pay back her victims.
Insider reports that $199,000 went to pay restitution to the banks and $24,000 went to settle state fines. She also paid $75,000 in attorney fees and reportedly still owes more in legal fees, so there’s not much left from the deal. $22,000 remains after subtracting those large amounts. A judge ordered that Anna‘s bank can be unfrozen now that she has paid back her victims.
In a new article for Air Mail, Rachel wrote, “People have never loved grift stories as much as they do today, and media companies are competing to give viewers what they want. In the case of Anna Sorokin, Netflix moved so quickly that their involvement influenced the nature of the very story they intended to dramatize.”
She continued, “Sorokin’s lawyer, Todd Spodek, who represented his client in both her criminal and entertainment proceedings, was financed by Netflix money—the company paid Anna $30,000 pre-trial, which went toward Spodek’s fees, plus an additional sum after her conviction that the state required her to use, in part, to cover the balance. (Spodek will also be featured as a character in the TV series.) In addition to funding her criminal defense, Netflix provided Anna with so much cash that, even after some victims recouped their losses (thanks to a judge’s invocation of the ‘Son of Sam’ law), she finished her prison sentence with capital leftover—seemingly enough to burn on Balenciaga and then some. (In 2019, a judge found Anna not guilty for failing to pay me back for the Morocco trip.)”
“Because of Netflix, Anna emerged from behind bars financially net positive, with legions of followers and a level of notoriety from which she’ll presumably continue to profit. (Full disclosure: I wrote a book about my experiences with Anna in 2019. My goal in sharing the story was to give a firsthand account of the truth—and a good thing, too, considering the way the actual events have been warped into a sensationalized narrative that’s holding on to reality by a thread, at best. Also, I was $60,000 in debt.),” Rachel said.
She added, “Relishing her post-prison fame, in conversation with 60 Minutes Australia, she took a moment to reflect on her past. ‘It turned out pretty well…. I feel like I just did all—like, I just had all these amazing experiences and I’m going to write a book about it, so I don’t regret it personally.’ The con-as-content model seems well on its way to becoming an aspirational career path.”
Read the previous comments that Rachel made about the show being “dangerous.”