Feds uncover admissions test cheating plot

[calmom]

The charge is a racketeering conspiracy – I don’t think it’s dependent on the college’s being victims of a fraud.

The indictment is here: https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/656-college-admissions-and-testing/a01f87291e255a5f7c80/optimized/full.pdf

From paragraph 38:

38. The principal purposes of the racketeering conspiracy included the following:
    a. to facilitate cheating on college entrance exams;
    b. to facilitate the admission of students to elite universities as recruited athletes, regardless of their athletic abilities; and
    c. to enrich the defendants and Singer personally.

I think that if there were admission staff members who knew about the racket – then those individuals are co-conspirators. The colleges are separate entities, incorporated as either nonprofit educational institutions operating under a board of directors (for the private colleges), or else as public entities for any public colleges involved. If a staff member at the college – even at the level of a Dean of Admissions or University President – is involved, then that doesn’t change the basic underlying facts.-- then those staff members are committing crimes against the entities that employ them – especially if any of them took bribes. It wouldn’t vitiate the criminal charge if it turned out that the Dean of Admissions at one school or another was involved – it would just add another layer to the depth of the conspiracy.

[jonri]

I think that ultimately this is going to end up being a “Capone case.” IOW, it’s the tax fraud that’s going to be the tail that wags the dog. Many of the defendants took tax deductions for contributions to the “charity” and specifically stated they received nothing of value in return for their contributions.

I can conceive of one or two people on a criminal jury saying they don’t think this was fraud on the colleges or at least that it’s not beyond a reasonable doubt. I can’t imagine anyone on a jury who’ll think if you paid a coach money to get your kid in or paid someone to arrange to take your kid’s SAT or ACT for him you can deduct the cost from your taxes as a contribution to charity.

[maya54]

Racketeering absolutely requires fraud. A racketeering conspiracy is a conspiracy to commit fraud It’s fundamental to such a claim. See Paragraphs 129-130 where the government alleges the fraud. As someone who has drafted a plethora of motion to dismiss racketeering claims I can tell you that without fraud the entire case is over. Period. End of story.

And for fraud the person on whom the fraud is alleged to have been committed can’t know. If there is a rogue actor who acting for personal benefit, like the bribed coaches, than the university is still defrauded but if the admissions people were not so benefiting and they knew this case goes away. As @Katliamom says that why they made a big deal at the press conference of the universities being victims.

[calmom]

I can conceive of one or two people on a criminal jury saying they don’t think this was fraud on the colleges

Again, that’s not the charge. The core legal charge is at pages 19-20.

[mdphd92]

I did some searching on the Web to see where the parents themselves went to school. The list appears to be heavily represented by parents from highly selective schools, perhaps indicating that some parents may have thought (rightly or wrongly) that certain schools helped them and would therefore help their children.

Gregory Abbott, Princeton ‘72
Marcia Abbott (nee Meighan), Hotchkiss School, Duke
Gamal Abdelaziz, University of Cairo, Egypt
Todd Blake, Vanderbilt ’88, University of Michigan MBA ‘93
Diane Blake, Providence College ‘86
Jane Buckingham, Horace Mann HS ’86, Duke ‘90
Gordon Caplan, Cornell ’88, Fordham University JD ‘91
I-Hsin Joey Chen
Gregory Colburn, UCLA Medical School ‘84
Amy Colburn
Robert Flaxman, University of Southern California
Manuel Henriquez, Northeastern ‘87
Elizabeth Henriquez
Douglas Hodge, Dartmouth ’79, Harvard Business School MBA ‘84
Felicia Huffman, New York University
Augustin Huneeus, UC Berkeley, Northwestern/Kellogg Business School
Bruce Isackson, UCLA ‘80
Davina Isackson, University of Miami BA ’84, MS ’86, PhD ‘91
Michelle Janavs
Elisabeth Kimmel, Stanford ’86, Harvard Law School JD ‘90
Marjorie Klapper, UCLA ‘90
Lori Loughlin, no college
Mossimo Giannulli, University of Southern California (reportedly dropped out)?
Toby MacFarlane
William McGlashan, Yale, Stanford Business School
Marci Palatella
Peter Sartorio, Arizona State Univ ‘89
Stephen Semprevivo, Harvard ’88, Harvard Business School MBA ‘94
David Sidoo, University of British Columbia ‘82
Devin Sloane
John B. Wilson, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute ’81, Harvard Business School MBA ‘83
Homayoun Zadeh, USC School of Dentistry DDS ’87, Univ of Connecticut PhD
Robert Zangrillo, University of Vermont, Stanford Business School

[Cardinal_Fang]

If there is a rogue actor who acting for personal benefit, like the bribed coaches, than the university is still defrauded but if the admissions people were not so benefiting and they knew this case goes away.

So it would be a defense if an adcom knew about this scheme but was not himself or herself on the take, not taking the bribes (and I assume not being threatened or something of that nature?). But why would an adcom go along with this?

[calmom]

Here are the statutes involved:

Racketeering: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1962
Mail Fraud: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1341
Wire Fraud: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1343
Definition of scheme or artifice to defraud: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1346
Money Laundering: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1956

A conspiracy case rests on the intent and the agreement of the conspirators. It doesn’t require completion of the crime – (“A conspiracy occurs when two or more people agree to commit an illegal act and take some step toward its completion. Conspiracy is an inchoate crime because it does not require that the illegal act actually have been completed. For instance, a group of individuals can be convicted of conspiracy to commit burglary even if the actual burglary never happens.” – quoting from Justia at https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/inchoate-crimes/conspiracy/ )

So it doesn’t matter whether an actual fraud was completed – it matters whether the intent of the conspirators was to defraud.

Keep in mind that the College Board and ACT are also victims of the fraud – unless you also believe that they knowingly allowed their proctors to facilitate the cheating.

And in any case, it wouldn’t make sense to be cheating on the SAT/ACT & bribing coaches if the ad coms were in on the affair – in that case it would make more sense to simply bribe the admissions staff directly.

[calmom]

So it would be a defense if an adcom knew about this scheme but was not himself or herself on the take, not taking the bribes (and I assume not being threatened or something of that nature?)

No, it wouldn’t.

The complaint in this case doesn’t designate any specific person or entity as being a “victim” of fraud.

Put it this way – for the past few days I’ve been receiving emails that say my email account has been hacked, that spyware has been installed on my computer, that all my passwords have been revealed, and that in order to regain control of my computer I need to transmit $XXXX in bitcoin according to the instructions in the email. However, I recognized these as fake and deleted them all So I have not been victimized. But a friend of mine also reported receiving the same emails – so I think its safe to assume that thousands and thousands of these emails have gone out. If no one responds and no one sends any bitcoin – then there will be no crime committed. But the person who set up these emails nonetheless would be guilty of an attempt to defraud (assuming the person could be caught and charged). And if turned out that two people had gotten together to orchestrate these emails, then they could be charged and convicted of conspiracy. Because for a conspiracy conviction the crime doesn’t have to be completed – there just needs to be an “overt act” taken in furtherance of the conspiracy. One overt act is enough.

[momo2x2018]

One of the kids, Jack Buckingham, has spoken

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/la-marketing-execs-influencer-daughter-breaks-silence-college-cheating-scam-1194678

‘ I am upset that I was unknowingly involved in a large scheme that helps give kids who may not work as hard as others an advantage over those who truly deserve those spots."

I believe him, that he was unknowingly involved.

[Cardinal_Fang]

Sounds like Jack Buckingham is a high school senior now. I too believe him. His mother bought him a 35 on the ACT. He could have been headed for a decent score without the $50,000 help, and probably felt he was lucky and had a good day taking the test.

[calmom]

Just an added legal note on the charge of conspiracy to commit racketeering:

The RICO statute expressly states that it is unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the subsections of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1962. The government need not prove that the defendant agreed with every other conspirator, knew all of the other conspirators, or had full knowledge of all the details of the conspiracy. Delano, 825 F. Supp. at 542. All that must be shown is: (1) that the defendant agreed to commit the substantive racketeering offense through agreeing to participate in two racketeering acts; (2) that he knew the general status of the conspiracy; and (3) that he knew the conspiracy extended beyond his individual role. United States v. Rastelli, 870 F. 2d 822, 828 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 982, 110 S. Ct. 515, 107 L. Ed. 2d 516 (1989)

As to the underlying charge of racketeering:

A more expansive view holds that in order to be found guilty of violating the RICO statute, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that an enterprise existed; (2) that the enterprise affected interstate commerce; (3) that the defendant was associated with or employed by the enterprise; (4) that the defendant engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity; and (5) that the defendant conducted or participated in the conduct of the enterprise through that pattern of racketeering activity through the commission of at least two acts of racketeering activity as set forth in the indictment. United States v. Phillips, 664 F. 2d 971, 1011 (5th Cir. Unit B Dec. 1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1136, 102 S. Ct. 1265, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1354 (1982)

“Pattern of racketeering activity” requires at least two acts of racketeering activity committed within ten years of each other. 18 U.S.C.A. § 1961(5) (West 1984). Congress intended a fairly flexible concept of a pattern in mind. H.J., Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229, 239, 109 S. Ct. 2893, 2900, 106 L. Ed. 2d 195 (1989). The government must show that the racketeering predicates are related, and that they amount to or pose a threat of continued criminal activity. Id. Racketeering predicates are related if they have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events. Id. at 240, 109 S. Ct. at 2901; Ticor Title Ins. Co. v. Florida, 937 F. 2d 447, 450 (9th Cir. 1991).

These quotes come from the US DOJ manual posted here https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-109-rico-charges

[ReelLife]

Maybe. Maybe not. Your kid goes to a doctor and talks to her for 30 minutes. A week later your mom says the doctor says the way you process information means you need a little more time to do your work than other people. Kid says “OK.” Depends on the kid.

[itsv]

I am sorry, but I don’t believe Jack Buckingham. As post #1232, he knows that this diagnoses cannot be legitimate for accommodations. I can’t remember all the details since the FBI affidavit was so long, but I think he got to take the test in his home or as a practice so he knows his testing circumstances were not standard. I am a lawyer, was a lobbyist and worked in the college admission process helping middle class and underserved students for almost 10 years. (created low cost workshops and worked pro bono). As a lobbyist, I would have advised Jack to do what he is doing-get in front of the story and say how sorry you are and that you “didn’t know anything” because you have to remember these kids are all trying to avoid criminal prosecution. I would want Jack to get “credit” for being the first child out of the box speaking on this issue and I would have him say what he said which frankly is to show sympathy for the non-cheating applicants at those colleges. Trust me, the Buckingham family has hired a media specialist as well as a lot of lawyers to navigate themselves out of this mess that they created.

[roycroftmom]

No reason to believe the applicants. By 18, they have taken dozens of standardized tests. If they regularly score in the 50th percentile but suddenly get a score in the 98th percentile, they know something is wrong.

[Knowsstuff]

These kids need to speak out right or wrong. Whether you believe them or not doesn’t matter. Sometimes you just have to do the right thing for once. I give him credit. Maybe there really are honest victims in these cases and maybe not.

Can you imagine like waking up one day and seeing this happened and you thought you were just getting help for an essay or whatever?

More kids need to speak out.

[ShanFerg3]

This thread has turned into a lot of sour grapes and Ivy bashing. Kind of comical. I see post saying only 10% of people admitted to Harvard are admitted on merit, we need to verify how admits got into top schools before we deem it impressive lol, etc. The irony is some of you are coming off as wanting and actually displaying the same sentiment as these parents that covet these schools with the obvious hate. Stop it. For the most part brilliant accomplished students attend these schools, and brilliant accomplished students don’t attend these schools for various reasons. Some of these reasons are fit, financial, numbers game, etc. Keep it real people.

[deb922]

I don’t see this as ivy bashing at all. The “Ivy’s” are hardly being mentioned. USC, well maybe…

[Lindagaf]

I am not sure I believe Jack Buckingham. He’s the one who sent the writing sample because someone took his test for him. Did he think he was applying test-optional?

My HS son says all the kids are talking about this news, and he told me a story about the day he took his test:
He has accommodations for time and a half. There were six or seven kids in his room. He said there were two students of a certain race who appeared to forget their names when they were called. He said he thought both the students seemed sketchy at the time, but didn’t think about it again until this story broke.

Purely anecdotal, and quite possibly nothing at all, but there’s nothing to stop a bogus test taker from using his/her own photo for the testing centers. College applications don’t require photos, afaik. Perhaps maybe they should, and College Board and ACT can submit the student photos along with the app.

[hebegebe]

This thread has turned into a lot of sour grapes and Ivy bashing… I see post saying only 10% of people admitted to Harvard are admitted on merit, we need to verify how admits got into top schools before we deem it impressive lol, etc.

This isn’t a sour grapes issue. There is a long-term poster on here associated with Ivy admissions and (paraphrasing here) s/he reports that roughly 200 spots each year are reserved for the “brightest minds”, the ones that are the very best at what they do. Perhaps another 200 are recruited athletes, for which admission standards can be relaxed depending upon how much they help the team. Most of the rest are a well-rounded package of being bright, showing leadership and social qualities, and/or some level of athletic talent. Add to that other institutional goals such as a target URM and legacy percentage, and a few spots reserved for big donors, and it becomes clear that it is about assembling what they consider an optimal class, not a class of the brightest students.

[Leigh22]

“Of a certain race?” Relevance to the story?