|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 17, 2019 10:22:02 GMT -5
They were already offered a plea deal. When they turned it down, they got slapped with additional money laundering charges. Pleading not guilty was realistically their only option. In the meantime, they can try to negotiate a new plea deal, but the prosecutors seem intent on having the possibility of some jail time in any plea deals. Yeah, the prosecutors know that if they get fined but no prison time, that sends the message that rich people can buy themselves out of the consequences. They want some prison time. Adding new charges after they turned down the plea deal seems like they are playing hardball with the negotiations. Without a deal in place, pleading "not guilty" was their only real option. However, they still could negotiate a deal. If the prosecutors think they have the trial in hand, however, I expect they won't give terms as good as the original deal offer. They want to signal to everybody else that they should just give in and take a deal. In some ways I think this is the worst aspect of our "justice" system. Even though we supposedly consider people innocent until proven guilty, we absolutely hammer them if they try to plead innocent. And if the defendant doesn't have enough resources to fight, it can actually be a reasonable choice for an innocent person to plead guilty.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Apr 17, 2019 12:34:29 GMT -5
Proceeds to the feds. "Secluded patio" - too bad Wolfgang let this one get away. Yes, where will I find a place to do burpees and stuff?
|
|
|
Post by azvb on Apr 17, 2019 12:43:58 GMT -5
Based on my reading of the indictments, I think the non-guilty plea is trying to get a better plea deal. Of course we will find out whether the assertions in the indictments can be proven in court, but there is no wiggle room in the indictments for being duped by Singer or USC. The prosecution alleges to have emails that indicate Giannuli and Loughlin knew they were faking a crew background and also knew the HS guidance counselor caught that lie. ” I agree with everything that you said. And, as I mentioned, I'm not defending them. But, I think the interesting thing about the USC cases that could complicate a conviction is that such a high-level USC official was being "duped." If a key university official is aware of what is going on -- including the fake crew background, I think there is an argument to be made that you thought everything was OK. Perhaps an example of my thinking. I'm making this up off the top of my head and haven't thought it all the way through and it might not hold up to scrutiny. If I went to the back door of a restaurant and a dishwasher was giving me free meals out the back door, I'd have pretty good reason to think that he did not have the authority to give me the food and that we were stealing from the restaurant. But, if I'm in the restaurant and a manager comes to the table and comps my meal, I might think that she has the authority to do that (even if she's not the owner) and while I might be surprised, I might not think I'm stealing anything. In my mind, that's why the USC cases are much more interesting from a legal standpoint than, say, the Georgetown cases. At Georgetown, when they were paying the bribes to the tennis coach they were getting food out the back door from the dishwasher and probably should have known that the restaurant owner wouldn't approve. But at USC, when they're writing a check for $50k to the athletics department and a senior official in that department and representative of USC approves the situation, they might think that even though it's a little odd, she probably has the authority to do that. I guess a key question -- and I don't remember seeing it in the affidavit -- is whether they knew that the USC official was lining her own pocked (as opposed to soliciting donations to the athletics department). That would be like if the restaurant manager came to me and said, "hey...slip me a $20, and I'll comp your meal." I think pretty much anyone would know that is not appropriate. But, I agree with you that pleading not guilty is probably a tactic to try to get a better deal. You neglected the part where the high-level USC official said, “Oh, and we need a picture of your daughters on a rowing machine”. 😂😂😂😂😂 The fact Aunt Becky was getting her daughters in through athletic channels is kind of a deal breaker, isn’t it? Maybe if it was through the film production department they “might”have a leg to stand on. I can’t remember-were changing ACT scores part of this particular case?
|
|
|
Post by volleylearner on Apr 17, 2019 13:29:37 GMT -5
If a key university official is aware of what is going on -- including the fake crew background, I think there is an argument to be made that you thought everything was OK. This doesn't pass the smell test for me. If all the Gianullis had done was give money to get their daughters admitted and Singer just asked for photos then I can see them thinking everything is ok. But the indictment says that they participated in creating the fake crew background and that they knew the HS counselor caught it. The money laundering charge is a little different because presumably USC sent them a letter saying thank you for your donation and you can deduct it because we are a 501(c)(3) organization. I can believe the Gianullis assumed USC condoned what Singer was doing. However, I think the Gianullis' communications with Singer--as described in the indictment--indicate they knew enough to know that they were benefitting from the donation regardless of what USC said.
|
|
|
Post by volleylearner on Apr 17, 2019 13:33:40 GMT -5
If I'm super wealthy and go to the Chair of USC Board of Trustees and he/she says, "If you donate $50 million for a new library, I think that your son's application likely will get approved." As far as I know, nobody thinks that is illegal. It is illegal to consider (all of) the $50M tax-deductible. Donors cannot receive benefits above a nominal level (e.g., tote bag).
|
|
|
Post by MsRSV on Apr 17, 2019 13:50:14 GMT -5
When students apply, they affirm that the information provided to the office of admissions is accurate and true -- and said university official knows this, as did the kids,and likely the parents (I would not be surprised if Aunt Becky filled out her kids' applications for them). Bottom line, they all effing knew what they were doing was wrong, as in they were defrauding the office of admissions by mail or internet by conspiring with others, whether or not they were led astray by a university official. And they weren't smart enough to find out how wrong it was. It's GD felony, whether you're a Becky or a Bozo.
Reference, from the Common Application, affirmation 1: "I certify that all information submitted in the admission process -- including this application and any other supporting materials -- is my own work, factually true, and honestly presented, and that these documents will become the property of the institution to which I am applying and will not be returned to me. I understand that I may be subject to a range of possible disciplinary actions, including admission revocation, expulsion, or revocation of course credit, grades, and degree should the information I have certified be false."
Any kid who did this can have all of their academic work revoked, and they should know it.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 17, 2019 13:56:39 GMT -5
This doesn't pass the smell test for me. If all the Gianullis had done was give money to get their daughters admitted and Singer just asked for photos then I can see them thinking everything is ok. But the indictment says that they participated in creating the fake crew background and that they knew the HS counselor caught it. The money laundering charge is a little different because presumably USC sent them a letter saying thank you for your donation and you can deduct it because we are a 501(c)(3) organization. I can believe the Gianullis assumed USC condoned what Singer was doing. However, I think the Gianullis' communications with Singer--as described in the indictment--indicate they knew enough to know that they were benefitting from the donation regardless of what USC said. Again, I agree. But...honest question: does the person who donates $50 million for a building get to deduct it? I assume so, but don't know. Does that change if they have a kid who gets admitted? There are a myriad of ways to make a $50 million donation beneficial tax-wise. Some donations can be used (deducted) to lower the tax liability directly--but that benefit is limited by the extent of one's tax liability. In other instances, the donation can be structured over a few years or on a schedule to maximize the tax deduction. There are also a variety of ways to establish a trust--in particular, a charitable remainder trust--as a useful mechanism to convey large donations. Most Schools aggressively seek out donations, of course, and are very familiar with the tax implications associated with donations (which is why you will never see admissions decisions coupled with donations at an official level).
|
|
|
Post by volleylearner on Apr 17, 2019 15:03:50 GMT -5
Again, I agree. But...honest question: does the person who donates $50 million for a building get to deduct it? I assume so, but don't know. Does that change if they have a kid who gets admitted? There are a myriad of ways to make a $50 million donation beneficial tax-wise. Some donations can be used (deducted) to lower the tax liability directly--but that benefit is limited by the extent of one's tax liability. In other instances, the donation can be structured over a few years or on a schedule to maximize the tax deduction. There are also a variety of ways to establish a trust--in particular, a charitable remainder trust--as a useful mechanism to convey large donations. Most Schools aggressively seek out donations, of course, and are very familiar with the tax implications associated with donations (which is why you will never see admissions decisions coupled with donations at an official level). Yes, though a charitable remainder trust delays the donation until the donor's death, which might be unsatisfying for some donors (would be for me, though I'm several orders of magitude smaller than we are discussing). In any case, the answer to dgo's second question is no because the donation is not tied to getting admitted in that case. If the school were to promise acceptance in exchange for the donation then the value of getting accepted (hard to estimate, I know) would be subtracted from the donation amount. A common example is if you attend a charity event that requires a $250 donation and includes dinner then the thank-you letter they send would show your donation as $250 minus the cost of the meal. Of course in the admissions case a big donor might make an implicit assumption that future applicants who are descendants will be accepted and it is generally difficult to prove such cases one way or the other. In my experience, all 501(c)(3) organizations are pretty careful about this stuff.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 17, 2019 15:21:32 GMT -5
There are a myriad of ways to make a $50 million donation beneficial tax-wise. Some donations can be used (deducted) to lower the tax liability directly--but that benefit is limited by the extent of one's tax liability. In other instances, the donation can be structured over a few years or on a schedule to maximize the tax deduction. There are also a variety of ways to establish a trust--in particular, a charitable remainder trust--as a useful mechanism to convey large donations. Most Schools aggressively seek out donations, of course, and are very familiar with the tax implications associated with donations (which is why you will never see admissions decisions coupled with donations at an official level). Yes, though a charitable remainder trust delays the donation until the donor's death, which might be unsatisfying for some donors (would be for me, though I'm several orders of magitude smaller than we are discussing). In any case, the answer to dgo's second question is no because the donation is not tied to getting admitted in that case. If the school were to promise acceptance in exchange for the donation then the value of getting accepted (hard to estimate, I know) would be subtracted from the donation amount. A common example is if you attend a charity event that requires a $250 donation and includes dinner then the thank-you letter they send would show your donation as $250 minus the cost of the meal. Of course in the admissions case a big donor might make an implicit assumption that future applicants who are descendants will be accepted and it is generally difficult to prove such cases one way or the other. In my experience, all 501(c)(3) organizations are pretty careful about this stuff. A charitable remainder trust only delays the transfer of ownership of the underlying asset(s) for a specified time period (and not necessarily due to death). Interest or residual income is given to the beneficiary of the trust until actual transfer (and is tax-exempt or tax deductible, depending on selection). If the asset is real estate, the donor can further reduce tax liability by fully deducting depreciation in the meantime. The "catch" is that a charitable remainder trust is irrevocable.
|
|
|
Post by ned3vball on Apr 17, 2019 17:54:46 GMT -5
Irrevocable trusts are also a good way to transfer assets between generations and not spend it all on nursing homes, consult a professional.
I was just reading another article on CNN that said these people should do serious jail time. Which goes along with the general tenor of these pages. I just don't see that. Hit them where it hurts with a fine, but months/years in jail? If I was going to make a list of crimes that deserve jail time the actions of these parents would be pretty far down the list.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 17, 2019 17:54:47 GMT -5
If I'm wealthy and go to the Associate Director of Athletics and she says, "If you donate $50,000 to the Athletics department, I think that your daughter's application likely will get approved. Oh, and by the way, let's pretend that she's an athlete." It's that second bit that makes it illegal. You have just now conspired to commit fraud. And once you send the money in, you have made an illegal wire transfer of money for fraudulent purposes. And if you conceal doing this or try to whitewash it by channeling it through a "charity", you have now committed money laundering. All because you originally conspired to commit fraud, not because you donated money to the college.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 17, 2019 17:57:11 GMT -5
I was just reading another article on CNN that said these people should do serious jail time. Which goes along with the general tenor of these pages. I just don't see that. Hit them where it hurts with a fine, but months/years in jail? If I was going to make a list of crimes that deserve jail time the actions of these parents would be pretty far down the list. Fines are meaningless, if you are rich enough. Prison time is prison time to everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Apr 17, 2019 18:27:05 GMT -5
If Mossimo gets sent to the California men’s colony in San Luis Obispo, I could visit him.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 17, 2019 19:07:48 GMT -5
It's that second bit that makes it illegal. You have just now conspired to commit fraud. And once you send the money in, you have made an illegal wire transfer of money for fraudulent purposes. And if you conceal doing this or try to whitewash it by channeling it through a "charity", you have now committed money laundering. All because you originally conspired to commit fraud, not because you donated money to the college. Generally, I agree with you. But...you knew that was coming, right ... I think the fact that she was a senior official at USC could complicate issues somewhat. The question that intrigues me is her level of authority. Once you reach a high enough level, the person and the institution are one in the same. The existence of fraud depends upon the AD and USC being separate. For example, if I am selling you a diamond and it’s fake, it would be fraud to hide that from you. If I’m selling you a diamond and we both know it’s fake, I have not defrauded you. I think that these people will argue that Heinel = USC. Therefore, if USC told them to say the kids were athletes, USC can’t be said to be a victim of fraud. Im not advocating this, or necessarily saying I think it’s a winning argument. But it won’t shock me if it is part of the defense. If USC was pursuing this in a civil matter, I’d think that their lawyers would be concerned that her position would make things very difficult for them. But I suspect things play out a little differently in the criminal arena. Heinel did not have authority to admit students. She had to present the cases to someone else who did. The argument that Heinel = USC doesn't hold up because it's clear that none of the parties believed that she did have that authority.
|
|
|
Post by XAsstCoach on Apr 17, 2019 21:17:42 GMT -5
Do you have to enter a plea before seeing the evidence? I am guessing that's why Loughlin didn't agree to the plea bargain because her lawyer did not see the evidence yet.
|
|