in other words, prosecutorial discretion is an accepted and even necessary element of our justice system. Many illegalities are going to go unpunished because of lack of resources and also lack of evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if caught, many tax cheats from tax audits may be punished only with fines and penalties instead of a felony and prison time - but some do get felony convictions and prison.
Don’t know nearly enough about the H case. From the evidence of the indictments in the admissions case, it seems to me reasonable to charge honest services fraud (while the RICO charge rests more on proof of conspiracy except for the few central figures in the case, and the legal question will be interesting if we see some appeals). There is a good likelihood of getting a guilty verdict. Juries are not likely to be sympathetic to a $500,000 bribe to get into places like USC and Georgetown. Hence, very surprising Defendants are not accepting a plea deal.
I feel compelled to write something because some people might be reading these pages for advice, and these discussions are perhaps not just academic debates in nature.
I would not be giving this as legal advice to anyone thinking of college admissions for many reasons, amongst which:
until the statute of limitations has run, we don’t know if there will be charges.
even if never charged, it doesn’t mean no charge could have been brought (e.g., not enough evidence or resources).
until we get a judicial precedent dismissing a similar case, we have no certainty (i.e., no case now doesn’t mean no case possible under any legal theory).
a reasonable belief that something is not illegal is no defense.
if in doubt, get a reputable law firm to advice on how to donate and do it for you (in the hope that they protect you and will not be abetting you in anything illegal).
Most importantly, if you need a “side door” or a “back door” you are not finding a fit for yourself as an applicant (or for your kid as a parent). Give to your favorite school for development purposes if you want to give, but the student will probably flourish better at the right school that wants you for the real you. It’s a very happy coincidence if the two schools are the same.
As for the Yale student now identified as Sherry Guo claiming she and her family didn’t know how the college process worked, despite having been through high school in the US, they should go on a polygraph test! If she truly didn’t know how the college process worked, there should be no place in any US college for her.
About Sherry Guo, the Chinese student whose parents paid $1.2 million to get her into Yale:
Art, soccer, they are just the same.
Guo’s family, and the other Chinese family who paid $6.5 million, are probably used to the notorious and rampant corruption in China. They probably thought it worked the same here and everyone does it.
"Asked why Ms. Guo and her parents — as well as the still unidentified family that was said to have paid Mr. Singer $6.5 million — have not been charged in the case, she said, “I cannot comment other than to say it is an ongoing investigation.”
@bronze2 “I feel compelled to write something because some people might be reading these pages for advice, and these discussions are perhaps not just academic debates in nature.”
I was simply making an observation and I will state for the record that no one should consider anything I write as legal advice coming from anyone with legal expertise.
But if the feds do not charge the Harvard fencing parent, the UCLA parents who donated to the athletic department, and the Yale parent who spent 6.5 million, then it does seem very odd about what they feel is different about Loughlin that makes the feds decide the book should be thrown at them while not at all those other cases and it will be interesting to learn that at trial.
Also, in the Yale instance, the NY Times article says “Her parents did not speak English and were not in direct contact with Mr. Singer…”
If the parents weren’t in contact with Singer, who was in contact with him?
I can see how the fencing coach could be charged with honest services fraud: he had a duty to Harvard to recommend only students who were elite fencers, and instead, for a large sum of money, he recommended someone who was not an elite fencer. But what would you charge the bribing family with?
This sting and the fallout are a problem on every level. Some will be easy to correct, others not so much.
Athletics - The problem is is that scholarships can be mistakingly viewed as owned by the specific sports. Coaches have been masters at using them to maximize their opportunity to win, partial scholarships, balancing holding off one class and loading up on another. A coach might give a scholarship to a second string player to secure their all-american best friend team mate. A lot of faith is given to a coach to select who he/she needs for the team. Coaches also are fully engaged in fundraising for their sport. Getting to know donors to the sport and being used to recruit new donors that have an interest in the sport is part of their job. A donor doesn't want to meet a schools fundraiser, they want to hang out with the schools coaches and start players. Coaches, especially in olympic sports are often removed from the academic community. They are tasked with winning which not only means on the field of play, but in being supported with dollars that can build teams, facilities, and ultimately to put the school on the map. I can totally see how this was vulnerable for corruption. My sense is this will be shut down. Coaches will no longer have as much freedom and their choices will be scrutinized inside the athletic department and in admissions. The biggest offender here was the senior administrator at USC. That one really surprises me, and is either part of a systematic problem in the department or greater university.
Singer - Where there is an opportunity there is a way. I am actually surprised there are not more singers. He obviously had a very lucrative practice and he was able to find the cracks in the programs, exploit the coaches situation by dangling money, access to private high schools, support for their sport to insure winning. He is obviously shut down, but others could take his place without securing #1 an #3. There will always be opportunists, so if you don't correct the school process there will be more Singers.
Parents - Also, easy to see how this happens, money talks and admit rates are declining. I do believe every single parent and student clearly knew what they were "buying". A friend of mine told me that they called Edge Counseling a year earlier and after a few minutes they knew the guy was shady. Clearly was selling admissions slots for a price.
Each step of this process - from SAT tests to essays, to filling out extra curricular activities the parents and students have to verify. It is one thing to puff up - wrote few articles for the student paper, to Assistant Editor of the school paper, but participating in sports they have never played in or essays about experiences a student never had, and not taking SAT tests with other students, sorry, they all knew and were hiding behind the "everyone does it" argument. And if they didn't, well, if you have someone do your taxes and they cheat for you, you can't use the argument that you didn't know. As to going easy on the student, while I think this is mostly a parent issue, if your parent steals a car for you, you don't get to keep it! If you get in because of fraudulent reasons, the opportunity should be taken away and all degrees and awards rescinded. That will be the biggest deterrent. You don't get a pass because it happened 4 years ago. Fraud is fraud. I think this is the only way to prevent parents from trying this again,
Universities - I think one huge deterrent might be if the US News and other College ranking organizations would knock some of these schools down a few places. The strength of the student body should be one of the primary qualities of a top university. Any school where Lori Laughlin's daughter could pass a class, with her lack of academic credentials and missing so many classes, might not be one worthy of a top US News ranking. That might be the best way to start holding the schools to task.
@lookingforward “Maybe we don’t need to keep cycling back to other incidents, looking for a LL out.”
I’m not looking for a LL out. Let’s stop discussing her since she was already indicted. I am posting about the kind of special “donations” to athletic departments that the feds don’t seem to believe is criminal and that Harvard has not yet indicated publicly that they consider are “improper”.
A fencing recruit’s dad bought a home for the Harvard fencing coach at a hugely inflated price through an insider deal in which he paid hundreds of thousands of dollars more than the house was worth and a short while later sold it at a huge loss. And that fencing coach had earlier set up a separate non-profit whose only outside “donation” of $100,000 came from a foundation that had just been given an even larger donation from that very same fencing recruit’s dad. That non-profit disbanded 2 years later. And whether or not the feds don’t care, it does surprise me that the very first action by Harvard would not be to suspend the fencing coach. Instead the university’s response was to talk about training coaches better about “conflicts of interest”.
As in “oops! didn’t realize that having a recruit’s dad buy my house for hundreds of thousands of dollars more than the purchase price and setting up my own non-profit so that it got a very large single donation from a foundation that a recruit’s dad donated to would not be allowed”? Peter Brand is still listed as the head coach. Presumably if anyone even suspected that anything illegal had gone on, Brand would not remain as head coach.
I do think it will be odd if neither Harvard nor the feds take any action. If the only thing USC or Georgetown or Stanford or Yale or U Penn did was not fire the coaches but instead said they would give their coaches better “conflict of interest” training, it would seem very silly.
Cheating on the Gaokao, back doors for influential families, quotas for home province students, spots held for school principal recommendations, plus athletic, artistic and talent side doors, there are certainly ways it can be corrupted.
Not to mention differences in the quality of primary and secondary education, similar to what we have in the US.
“The $6.5m admission ticket was also paid by a Chinese student.”
I don’t understand why anyone would pay that much to cheat your way in through the side door. $6.5 million should be enough for you to buy your way in through the normal and legal developmental admit back door.
I’m not a lawyer but could it be that filing charges where money came from overseas is a completely different can of worms? I imagine that there will be a separate indictment with more than just two Chinese (or out of country) who used Singer’s services.
You have to wonder if Singer offered more services for these foreign families. For instance, did he make arrangements for the students to live on their own in the US and arrange for admissions and registration at the high school level as well?
“I do think it will be odd if neither Harvard nor the feds take any action.”
@observer12 – the Harvard fencing case all depends on what the prove-able facts and intent are. There’s some clear differences there as compared to the other situations.
It appears that both of the kids were actual fencers. So a completely different ballgame from the other situations where athlete slots were being sold to fraudulent or unqualified athletes. One kid (for sure) and quite possibly both kids were good enough to be legit team members.
So it is actually TBD if there was any admissions favoritism shown to the kids due to the financial contributions. It is a question of proof. Of course, there could be a big gray area where the fencing coach was picking among several legit fencers for the team, and the coach had his athletic decisions influenced by the financial gifts.
It also could be that the fencing dad was just one of those over-the-top sports dads, but he also happened to be filthy rich. Like many crazy sports parents, they will throw large dollars at cultivating and supporting their kids’ “passions.”
The dad did throw a lot of money at supporting fencing programs and also the other fencers on the team. If he’s rich enough, maybe he doesn’t really care if he maybe over-paid for the coach’s house. He might be doing all that stuff just to support the coach and the team (which he is nutso about) rather than buying his second kid into Harvard.
It is possible that he was to Harvard fencing like Phil Knight is to the Oregon Ducks or T. Boone Pickens is to the OSU Cowboys. Or he could have had an intent to get his kid admitted to Harvard. Or possibly both at the same time.
Clearly the coach was creating a conflict and an appearance of impropriety.