Maine police announced 21 men face charges in the Zumba prostitution scandal in Kennebunk, New England. The 21 names are just a part of 150 men suspected of paying a Zumba instructor for sex.

Zumba instructor Alexis Wright was charged with 106 counts, most of them of prostitution and invasion of privacy. The 29-year-old is accused of videotaping her clients while having sex in her dance studio in Kennebunk, New England. Police released 21 names, the first out of a total of 150 men that are said to have been the instructor’s clients.

Both 29-year-old Zumba instructor and her 57-year-old business partner have pleaded not guilty. However authorities have the records Alexis Wright kept over 18 months, during which she made $150,000 out of performing sex acts.

“I think it’s fair to say that she wished the names didn’t come out” said Sarah Churchill, Alexis Wright’s attorney. “It’s been tough. There’s been a lot of scrutiny on her. Getting through the day in any sort of normal way has been sort of difficult” she added.

However, the instructor’s business partner’s lawyer welcomes the release. “I think the courts in Maine have been quite transparent in these kinds of cases, and it’s usually disclosed to the public. I don’t think it should be held back in this case” said Dan Lilley.

Friday, a lawyer representing two of the names on the list released today, argued that the disclosure will ruin lives. Stephen Schwartz said the list of names would be a “harm to their personal reputations as private citizens, their professional reputations, and their professional relationships”.

Superior Court Justice Thomas Warren denied Stephen Schwartz’s request. The released list of the 21 men charged in the Zumba prostitution scandal does not contain the addresses for those with their very own sex tapes.

“The principle that court proceedings are public is essential to public conference” said Thomas D. Warren. “If persons charged with crimes could withhold their identities, the public would not be able to monitor proceedings to observe whether justice has been done and to observe whether certain defendants may have received favored treatment” the Superior Court Justice added.