Trying not to be blinded by the question's bias, it might be interesting to restate it:
Given that crime groups in [Country X] often engage in drug dealing,
prostitution, etc, it seems feasible that military or intelligence
personal in [Country X] may
or may not have been involved in
the human labor market. Is there any evidence, or court cases
I'm going to assume that the use of "may or may not" was an error, since leaving it in place makes the sentence pointless. (e.g. "I may or may not be naked right now." Other than the possible smirk it elicits, the sentence has no value.)
Let's simplify it even more so we can analyze it:
Given X is true, it seems feasible that Y would be true. Is there any
evidence that Y is true?
In order for the question to be interesting, the reader should agree with X, and also agree that the leap to Y is "feasible". I think that's where this question breaks down. The leap is too great to convince the reader that "Since crime groups in Iceland engage in drug dealing and prostitution, then it's likely that military or intelligence personal in Iceland are involved in the human labor market."
I selected Iceland only because it has one of the lowest crime rates in the world, highlighting the absurdity of the statement. Any country you substitute should have the same problem. Note the statement is flawed even if you substitute a country that does have military or intelligence personal involved in the human labor market!
Finally, the actual question by itself (as stated in the title) is valid, but unfortunately the question is spoiled by the explanation behind it. That being said, even the question by itself has very little value, making it a poor choice of question on this site. Kind of like:
Is there any evidence that President Obama was born on Mars, and if
yes, then how can he be an American Citizen?
As Bobson pointed out in his comment and nearly one word answer, you must be willing to accept the answer of "No", which is pretty darned boring.