NYTimes article, summarises Federal reasoning, and historical approaches to
protitution rings, and why they followed Sptizer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/nyregion/21justice.html?bl&ex=1206244800&en=614ffbdad4adc4cb&ei...
"An affidavit filed in the prostitution case did not identify Mr. Spitzer by
name, only as Client 9, but it provided far more detail, some of it
unusually explicit, about Client 9's encounter with the prostitute than
about any of the nine other clients identified by number in the document.
Government officials, including several who have been briefed on details of
the case but declined to speak on the record because they were not
authorized to discuss a continuing inquiry, said there was no alternative
but to look into Mr. Spitzer's activities once investigators began examining
reports of suspicious transactions that banks filed with the Treasury
Department. Those reports suggested to investigators that Mr. Spitzer might
have been trying to keep anyone from noticing transfers of his own funds.
That is the kind of activity that can bring an investigation of the
possibility of corruption."
