I don't think there is as of yet any way to quantifiably judge if a person is hypnotized or otherwise. Certainly not from a recording. Hypnosis falls well into the area of pseudoscience, and it's often argued whether or not it even exists as a phenomena.

I'm certainly no expert, and I don't think any expert exists, though many people more skilled in the art of hypnosis certainly do exist. But in my research and experience, I've found (not including a few very specific focus-based hypnotic phenomena) what you can make someone do under hypnosis is defined by a simple thought experiment.

Pretend for a moment that hypnosis is fake, but the hypnotist is convinced otherwise, and the subject is playing along. Now, that person will do what they would normally, plus what they would like to do and now can without guilt, safe in the knowledge that they are not supposed to be in control of their actions. They will also do what a hypnotist asks them to do if they are indifferent about it, and might be talked into doing small things in the moment that they might not have otherwise (to a degree dependent on their rapport with and trust for the hypnotist). But to an incredibly severely limited degree.

Hypnosis, despite being a real phenomena, operates in virtually exactly the same way. Sure, you can talk someone into doing something they don't want to do after 16 consecutive sessions, but I'd put it to you that the exact same reaction is possible with 16 meetings without hypnosis. People are naturally a bit malleable. But hypnosis does not increase this malleability by any notable degree.

I can't change your opinion, which maintains this fantastical magical view of a hypnotist's powers. But I think anyone who looks logically upon their own experiences and their own studies into hypnosis will find that the idea of using the practice for mind-controlled rape is simply ridiculous.