« Author and veteran (and bank robber) gets out of federal prison a few months earlier thanks to FIRST STEP Act and sound view of "extraordinary and compelling reasons" | Main | "Beyond Compare? A Codefendant's Prison Sentence As a Mitigating Factor in Death Penalty Cases" »

October 22, 2019

The trial penalty on fine display as parents in college admissions scandal get hit with new federal bribery charges

As reported in this new Los Angeles Times article, headlined "New bribery charge leveled against Lori Loughlin and other parents in college admissions scandal," federal prosecutors are ramping up the potential consequences of refusing to plead guilty for some parents in the college admission scandal. Here are the details:

Already charged with fraud and money laundering, 11 of the 15 parents who have maintained their innocence in a federal investigation of college admissions fraud were indicted Tuesday on new bribery charges, the U.S. attorney’s office in Boston said.

The newly indicted parents — a group that includes actress Lori Loughlin and her husband, Mossimo Giannulli, a fashion designer — were charged in an indictment returned by a grand jury in Boston, alleging they conspired to commit federal program bribery to secure their children’s fraudulent admissions to USC.

Prosecutors had warned parents last week they could face a bribery charge if they didn’t plead guilty by Monday to the fraud and money laundering conspiracy charges they already faced. Four parents — Douglas Hodge, the former chief executive of bond giant Pimco; Michelle Janavs, a Newport Coast philanthropist whose family invented the Hot Pocket; and Manuel Henriquez, a San Francisco Bay Area venture capitalist, and his wife, Elizabeth Henriquez — pleaded guilty Monday to conspiracy to commit fraud and money laundering, avoiding indictment on the bribery count.

The federal program bribery charge can be lodged against anyone accused of bribing an employee or agent of an organization that receives $10,000 or more in funding from the federal government, and who obtains something valued at $5,000 or more in exchange.

For parents charged with using an athletic recruitment scam offered by Newport Beach college consultant William “Rick” Singer, prosecutors have argued they conspired with Singer to bribe coaches into giving up admissions slots, which are property of the universities that employed them. Singer has admitted misrepresenting the children of his clients to elite universities as promising athletic recruits for sports they didn’t play competitively or at all.

Virtually every university, public or private, receives more than the $10,000 in federal funding needed to trigger the bribery statute in research grants or financial aid. Prosecutors will likely say that admission to the elite schools to which Singer peddled access — Stanford, Georgetown, USC and UCLA, among others — exceeded $5,000 in value.

The coaches or athletic officials charged in the scheme were also indicted Tuesday on new fraud conspiracy charges, the U.S. attorney’s office in Boston said. Three of them — Jorge Salcedo, the former UCLA men’s soccer coach, Donna Heinel, a former athletics administrator at USC and Gordon Ernst, the former tennis coach at Georgetown — were also charged with committing federal program bribery.

Also worth mentioning is the possibility of a higher (advisory) sentencing range under the federal sentencing guidelines if and when these parents are found guilty and subject to the bribery guideline.

October 22, 2019 at 03:31 PM | Permalink

Comments

And the United States Supreme Court has given its blessing to the practice. See Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (1978) (https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep434/usrep434357/usrep434357.pdf).

Posted by: MBC | Oct 23, 2019 11:18:41 AM

And the question is do you charge all of the offenses supported by the evidence up front and negotiate down to get a plea (leading to some activists complaining about overcharging and misrepresenting that the willingness to dismiss charges means that there was no evidentiary support for the charges in the first place) or do you undercharge up front with the threat of additional charges later. Of course, both approaches lead to the same arguments about trial penalty/plea bonuses.

And in both cases, there is the further question of whether the prosecution should insist on charges and sentencing based on the actual factual guilt of the defendant or should the prosecution be willing to allow a plea to something less than the actual offense that the prosecutor believes that she can prove at trial.

Posted by: tmm | Oct 24, 2019 11:22:30 AM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB