Sean “Diddy” Combs refused to take “no” for an answer, prosecutors argued in closing arguments, tying up the sex trafficking case against the music mogul.

For five hours on Thursday, Assistant U.S. Attorney Christy Slavik delivered closing arguments to the jury. Only referring to Diddy as “the defendant,” the prosecutor called him the “leader of a criminal enterprise” who used “power violence and fear to get what he wanted.”

She repeated one phrase throughout her remarks: “He doesn’t take ‘no’ for an answer.” She applied the sentence to each of the five federal charges he faces: sex trafficking, and transportation to engage in prostitution and racketeering conspiracy. He’s pleaded not guilty.

Diddy’s mother and children sat in the courtroom as Slavik walked through the five federal charges and explained how the bombshell evidence and testimony heard over the past seven weeks apply to those charges.

The prosecutor laid out the racketeering conspiracy, telling the jury that he ran a criminal enterprise “with total control” and relied on a “small army” of personal staff to help commit and cover up crimes. This group, which includes his chief of staff, security, and assistants, all served a common purpose: to protect the defendant. “It’s his kingdom. Everyone is there to serve him,” Slavik told the court.

Slavik also patched up holes the defense has poked into the government’s case throughout the trial. For example, Scott Mescudi, better known as Kid Cudi, testified about how he believed Diddy firebombed his Porsche. The defense pointed out that a partial DNA profile revealed the fingerprints found on the bottle of the Molotov cocktail belonged to a woman. No one was ever arrested or charged in connection with the incident.

“Someone cut a hole in Kid Cudi’s car and dropped a Molotov cocktail into it,” Slavik said, while displaying a photo of the damaged sports car on a Powerpoint. “Of course the defendant was behind it,” she said. Slavik clarified the prosecution wasn’t suggesting the mogul was the one who cut the hole or dropped the explosive, but there were too many coincidences for him not to have been involved.

“He literally said he was going to have his car blown up,” she said, pointing to an email Cassie Ventura, who was dating both men, sent to her mom regarding that threat by Diddy. The arson incident occurred just two weeks after Ventura sent the email and weeks after Diddy and his employee spotted Mescudi in the same Porsche when the defendant allegedly broke into Mescudi’s home. “That is quite a collection of coincidences,” Slavik said. “He’s the only man powerful enough and viscous enough to light another man’s car on fire.”

Arson is an example of racketeering activity. The jury only needs to find Diddy guilty of at least two racketeering acts to convict him on the racketeering conspiracy charge.

Slavik also delved into the sex trafficking charges, which tie to the “freak offs” — days-long, drug-fueled sex marathons. The prosecutor clarified that the jury only needs to find that he committed one occasion of sex trafficking per charge. Her emphasis on this was likely to counteract the defense’s strategy throughout the trial to point out texts from both Ventura and Jane, his girlfriend from 2021 through 2024, that suggested they were excited about “freak offs.” She similarly pointed out videos of the “freak offs,” which the jury watched, that seemed to show Jane having a good time. They actually show she was “super super high.”

In opening statements, the defense argued that Ventura and Jane were adult women who made “free choices,” including participating in sex marathons. Neither woman had this freedom, Slavik said Thursday. For Ventura, for example, he controlled her career choices, blackmailed her with sex tapes, and abused her.

The jury once again watched the now-infamous 2016 security video from the InterContinental Hotel, capturing Diddy attacking Ventura in the hotel hallway. Slavik said: “If the defendant wanted a “freak off,” it was going to happen. You know why now: He didn’t take ‘no’ for an answer.”

At the end of her closing arguments, she told the jury the government had proven its burden. “The defendant committed crime after crime for two decades,” she said, and was able to get away with them because of his “wealth, power and influence.” Slavik pleaded to the jurors: “It’s time to hold him accountable. It’s time for justice. It’s time to find the defendant guilty.”