If this is a US operation, don't the US law prohibits entrapment?
Also, doesn't it seem more likely a surge in public interest is what originated the operation, instead of the other way around?
What's against the rules is to make someone commit a crime who is unwilling. But you, the defendant, pretty much have to admit you decided to commit the crime in order to convincingly offer an entrapment defense in the first place. ("I wasn't going to do it, but then the government did A, B, and C ...") So how do you also convince the jury that you did it unwillingly? Basically, A, B, and C have to be so compelling that the jury is convinced they themselves would have done the same thing in those circumstances. Short of "the undercover cop pointed a gun at me and ordered me to do it," it's a tough sell.
In this case, as long as the cops don't actively advertise people probably can't use the entrapment defense. But, if they setup a large ad-words account then in theory that's a problem.
However, If the jury finds that the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime that he committed, the defendant will not be allowed to use the entrapment defense, no matter how extensive police participation was in inducing the defendant to commit the crime on this particular occasion. So, if the prosecution demonstrates someone is a habitual drug user then the cops can advertise freely. But, if they cops advertise and someone that's been clean for a few months/years calls them up that's a gray area that depends on the jury's interpretation.
An undercover cop can ask you to commit a crime without entrapping you. It's only entrapment if the police induce you to commit a crime that you wouldn't commit otherwise. Hence, them offering you the opportunity to commit a crime is permitted by law.
See this illustrated guide to understand better:
http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post/19810672629/12-i-wa...
Imagine "rewarding" the new member of your drug ring by giving them a hired escort who has been paid to resist all acts upon them, and then locking the new member and the escort in a room together with some extremely brutal S&M "toys." You'll get lots of false positives--people who don't actually get their jollies from harming others--but it's the false negatives that are important here, so maybe populating your organization with sociopaths is a low price to pay.
On the other hand: is the boss committing a crime just by setting up this "reward?" They wouldn't mention anything about having to harm the escort, it'd just be implicit in the setup that if you're that type of person, the situation is easy to take advantage of.
A large organization would presumably benefit from having hidden away proof of each of its members breaking the law, such that if time comes and that member gets out of line, that can be used against them.
So perhaps an undercover cop would be asked to assassinate someone, or take use illegal drugs and get recorded in the process.
Prosecutors usually break this blackmail ring by offering immunity to one person if they present evidence against others.
http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post/19810672629/12-i-wa...
In the same way that it prohibits all other kind of behavior that is regularly acted by law enforcement. From planting evidence to "cruel and unusual punishment" (e.g whatever sadistic game a cop or prison director wants to play on an inmate).