Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 11:01:06 GMT -5
It's not small amounts of money either. If you just write it as-- --Someone cheated the government out of 250,000 dollars, you'd take that as a serious crime. If it was Jack Smith instead of Lori Loughlin, people would demand maximum penalties but because she's pretty and a TV star, things will get rationalized. I am also not dumb. There are smart rich people out there also. They donate buildings or endow departments to get the kids in rather than using middle men Tax Evasion (the bribes were passed through a charity so these people could deduct off their taxes), Fraud, Wire Fraud usually are not moot to the people in prison for them. On the tax evasion/fraud alone, over 80% of the cases I read through took the tax deduction. Those parents HAVE to serve time in prison or the public loses faith in the system. Or they use connections to help their kids, also not illegal. For the people arguing the morality of this all the line is very gray. If Donna had put someone on the list as a walkon because they were her friend's kid or a donor to the school or a celebrity and did not take money for it, there is no crime (the kid still would have committed a crime on the SAT/ACT cheating part but not Donna). One part of this that is weird, is none of the kids are being charged in the ACT/SAT fraud because the FBI says none of them knew and the parents hid it from the kids.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 11:03:51 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 11:16:01 GMT -5
Is no one talking about Bill Ferguson and Wake Forest? $10K to the school booster club $40K to the volleyball program $50K to the Bill Ferguson volleyball camps. I read this and actually felt bad for the coach. Background, Girl was already on the "wait list" at WF and likely would have received admission. There was not a ton of information but from what I could glean it seems that the coach likely knew this was not kosher but I doubt he understood it was a crime. I read it like he thought it was how things worked. $50k went to the school (donations happen all the time to help kids get in) and the $50k that went to his camps would have been reported as income with his camp. While it is not right, his punishment will outweigh his "crime" (if it is only one instance). He will likely have to plead, might get some time and has killed his career. He would have paid income tax on the camp money but since the govt will want big punishment for coaches, they will likely pile on charges like mail fraud/wire fraud and money laundering to make the sentence larger. This case I felt the worst about and Donna's sins were so glaring I kind of ignored it. The worst part is the Yale coach who received a direct $400,000 bribe and did not pay taxes on it, is a cooperating witness (CW3) so he will get less punishment than Ferguson.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 11:46:48 GMT -5
This case I felt the worst about and Donna's sins were so glaring I kind of ignored it. What is next for her? Trial? She pleads out? Jail time? After reading the indictment and then the complaint (only 40 of the 750 cases that the FBI has info on), there is no doubt in my mind that Donna will be looking at 10-20 years in federal prison minimum. I highly doubt she will get away with only 10 years, there is way too much evidence against here and the crimes she has committed would demand more than that. The worst thing for Donna is that the FBI does not need her cooperation. Her information is useless to them because they made their case against her over the last 8 months on wiretaps. Let's remember, CW1 (is Singer) the mastermind of the whole scheme is Cooperating Witness 1. CW2 is Riddell and CW3 is the Yale Coach. From the footnotes it appears the Yale Soccer coach was pushed to approach a female Harvard coach and that is where things started unwinding. So, to summarize, you have the two people that know everything (CW1 and CW2) about participants and payments cooperating with the government for over 8 months already. That is why they have all the fake calls about an IRS audit recorded because Singer was already CW1. They have Donna on tape admitting her crimes, they have emails from USC (Swann to Donna and back) where Donna is covering up her crimes. She will not get sympathy nor leniency because of her brazen disrespect for the law (and common decency). If I have to put an over/under on Donna's sentence it would be 15 years.
|
|
|
Post by azvb on Mar 13, 2019 11:50:35 GMT -5
Yes I agree, but you are not contradicting my point. This case is illegal because scoundrels pocket the money instead of the school. But let's not kid ourselves that college admissions is based solely on merits of the applicant. The overwhelming majority of the time it is. Unless you’re a white, upper middle class male trying to get in to Dental School. #iambitter
|
|
|
Post by Hawk Attack on Mar 13, 2019 11:50:53 GMT -5
What is next for her? Trial? She pleads out? Jail time? After reading the indictment and then the complaint (only 40 of the 750 cases that the FBI has info on), there is no doubt in my mind that Donna will be looking at 10-20 years in federal prison minimum. I highly doubt she will get away with only 10 years, there is way too much evidence against here and the crimes she has committed would demand more than that. The worst thing for Donna is that the FBI does not need her cooperation. Her information is useless to them because they made their case against her over the last 8 months on wiretaps. Let's remember, CW1 (is Singer) the mastermind of the whole scheme is Cooperating Witness 1. CW2 is Riddell and CW3 is the Yale Coach. From the footnotes it appears the Yale Soccer coach was pushed to approach a female Harvard coach and that is where things started unwinding. So, to summarize, you have the two people that know everything (CW1 and CW2) about participants and payments cooperating with the government for over 8 months already. That is why they have all the fake calls about an IRS audit recorded because Singer was already CW1. They have Donna on tape admitting her crimes, they have emails from USC (Swann to Donna and back) where Donna is covering up her crimes. She will not get sympathy nor leniency because of her brazen disrespect for the law (and common decency). If I have to put an over/under on Donna's sentence it would be 15 years. I predict 43 or 47 months.
|
|
|
Post by Mocha on Mar 13, 2019 11:56:25 GMT -5
Here are some of the doctored photos used in the scheme. tomclen, entertain us with some of your own. 😉
|
|
|
Post by sizzlincatfish on Mar 13, 2019 11:59:19 GMT -5
Is no one talking about Bill Ferguson and Wake Forest? $10K to the school booster club $40K to the volleyball program $50K to the Bill Ferguson volleyball camps. I read this and actually felt bad for the coach. Background, Girl was already on the "wait list" at WF and likely would have received admission. There was not a ton of information but from what I could glean it seems that the coach likely knew this was not kosher but I doubt he understood it was a crime. I read it like he thought it was how things worked. $50k went to the school (donations happen all the time to help kids get in) and the $50k that went to his camps would have been reported as income with his camp. While it is not right, his punishment will outweigh his "crime" (if it is only one instance). He will likely have to plead, might get some time and has killed his career. He would have paid income tax on the camp money but since the govt will want big punishment for coaches, they will likely pile on charges like mail fraud/wire fraud and money laundering to make the sentence larger. This case I felt the worst about and Donna's sins were so glaring I kind of ignored it. The worst part is the Yale coach who received a direct $400,000 bribe and did not pay taxes on it, is a cooperating witness (CW3) so he will get less punishment than Ferguson. How could he possibly think this "was how things worked"? C'mon. I'd like to think the best of people, but I don't buy that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 12:02:15 GMT -5
Is no one talking about Bill Ferguson and Wake Forest? $10K to the school booster club $40K to the volleyball program $50K to the Bill Ferguson volleyball camps. I read this and actually felt bad for the coach. Background, Girl was already on the "wait list" at WF and likely would have received admission. There was not a ton of information but from what I could glean it seems that the coach likely knew this was not kosher but I doubt he understood it was a crime. I read it like he thought it was how things worked. $50k went to the school (donations happen all the time to help kids get in) and the $50k that went to his camps would have been reported as income with his camp. While it is not right, his punishment will outweigh his "crime" (if it is only one instance). He will likely have to plead, might get some time and has killed his career. He would have paid income tax on the camp money but since the govt will want big punishment for coaches, they will likely pile on charges like mail fraud/wire fraud and money laundering to make the sentence larger. This case I felt the worst about and Donna's sins were so glaring I kind of ignored it. The worst part is the Yale coach who received a direct $400,000 bribe and did not pay taxes on it, is a cooperating witness (CW3) so he will get less punishment than Ferguson. Didn't ge also get 100K for himself? He had to know that was a crime.
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Mar 13, 2019 12:06:17 GMT -5
I would have thought most of these "players" were "recruited walk-ons", not scholarship athletes.... I don't believe any scholarships were involved with any of the schools. It was all walk-on spots where the "athlete" never showed up. In the write-ups on the Texas tennis coach, he submitted to the admissions department that the kid involved had been offered a partial scholarship. Makes sense as the admissions criteria for scholarship athletes is lower than for walk-ons at UT. Walk-ons get little preferential treatment in admissions so a walk-on with a mediocre academic record wouldn't have been admitted.
Articles also mentioned that the scholarship "offer" disappeared after the kid was admitted.
|
|
|
Post by trainermch on Mar 13, 2019 12:07:49 GMT -5
Here are some of the doctored photos used in the scheme. tomclen , entertain us with some of your own. 😉 Could these real-life students recognize themselves and possibly have a case for the the fraudulent use of their photos?
|
|
|
Post by azvb on Mar 13, 2019 12:08:27 GMT -5
What is honest services mail fraud?
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Mar 13, 2019 12:10:46 GMT -5
Wow, Donna Heinel is one busy lady. I don't think I ever worked that hard in any of my jobs doing legitimate things. This reminds me of what liars and con artists have said countless times: fraud is exhausting.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Mar 13, 2019 12:12:43 GMT -5
Are there really people who don't know that getting kickbacks is a crime?
Just ask yourself, would I want it to be publicly known what I am doing right now? If the answer is "no", then you are probably doing something you shouldn't be doing.
Anyway, a lot of college coaches should be waking up now to the fact that transferring money for illegal purposes or just conspiring to hide money transfers for any purpose is a federal crime. Taking or giving bribes is a crime. Not reporting the money transfers to the IRS is a crime.
Paying the money to "Bill Ferguson volleyball camp" as a way of hiding that they are paying him a bribe is basically the very definition of what "money laundering" is all about. It's about taking dirty money and filtering it through a legit income stream so that it ends up looking legit by the time it gets to the bank account.
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Mar 13, 2019 12:13:57 GMT -5
Here are some of the doctored photos used in the scheme. Could these real-life students recognize themselves and possibly have a case for the the fraudulent use of their photos? Typically the person who took the picture owns the rights to it and not the subject in the picture.
|
|