« Man convicted of murdering BLM marcher, whom Texas Gov has pledged to pardon, sentenced by judge to 25 years in prison | Main | "Enforcing Marijuana Prohibitions: Prosecutorial Policy in Four States" »

May 10, 2023

First Circuit panel reverses fraud convictions for two Varsity Blues defendants

As reported in this New York Times piece, "a federal appeals court overturned the fraud and conspiracy convictions on Wednesday of two parents found guilty of participating in a far-reaching bribery scheme, known as Operation Varsity Blues, which ensnared dozens of wealthy parents who falsified their children’s credentials to gain admission to prestigious universities across the country."  Here is more:

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Massachusetts found that the lower court had made crucial missteps in the trial of Gamal Abdelaziz, a former casino executive, and John Wilson, a private equity financier.  The court, however, upheld Mr. Wilson’s conviction on tax fraud.

The appeals court made its decision largely on two technical legal grounds.  First, it ruled that the lower court judge wrongly instructed the jury that admissions slots constituted property.  “We do not say the defendants’ conduct is at all desirable,” the decision said.  But the appellate judges faulted the government for being too broad in its argument, to the point where “embellishments in a kindergarten application could constitute property fraud proscribed by federal law.”

The court also found that the government had failed to prove that the two men agreed to engage in a conspiracy with other parents, who were, like them, the clients of William Singer, known as Rick, a college admissions consultant to the rich, the mastermind of the admissions scheme.  The conspiracy charges allowed the government to introduce evidence related to other parents’ wrongdoing, creating the risk of bias against the defendants, the judges said in a 156-page decision....

The victory in the appellate court was striking because Mr. Wilson and Mr. Abdelaziz were the first to take their chances in front of a jury.  Dozens of other wealthy parents, including some celebrities, pleaded guilty, making it seem as if the prosecutions were ironclad.  The investigation became a symbol of how wealthy, prestige-obsessed parents had turned elite universities into brand-name commodities.

“Almost everybody pleaded guilty, so the government’s legal theories weren’t really tested until this case was decided,” Joshua Sharp, the lawyer who argued the case for Mr. Abdelaziz, said on Wednesday.

While Mr. Abdelaziz and Mr. Wilson found the weak spots in the government’s case, parents who pleaded guilty are unlikely to be able to challenge their convictions on similar grounds, legal experts said.

Mr. Abdelaziz was accused of paying $300,000 in 2018 to have his daughter admitted to the University of Southern California as a top-ranked basketball recruit even though she did not make the varsity team in high school.  Mr. Wilson was accused of paying $220,000 in 2014 to have his son admitted as a water polo recruit at U.S.C., even though prosecutors said he was not good enough to compete at the university.

Mr. Wilson was also accused of agreeing to pay $1.5 million in 2018 to have his twin daughters, who were good students, admitted to Harvard and Stanford as recruited athletes.

They were tried together in the fall of 2021; Mr. Wilson was later sentenced to 15 months in prison, and Mr. Abdelaziz to a year and a day. Their lawyers argued that the men thought they were making legitimate donations to the university. They said they trusted Mr. Singer, as their college consultant, to guide them.

The investigation ensnared more than 50 people, including the actresses Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin; Ms. Loughlin’s husband, Mossimo Giannulli, a fashion designer; and coaches and exam administrators, among others. Mr. Singer agreed to cooperate with the government and pleaded guilty in 2019 to conspiracy charges. He was sentenced in January to three and a half years in prison.

The full 156-page opinion of the First Circuit panel is available at this link.

May 10, 2023 at 10:26 PM | Permalink


These two defendants were brave and had great legal representation at trial and on appeal. This reversal seems to mirror the two criminal cases (referred to in the Blog above) reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The common gist of the holdings is that no substantive property (money, real estate, vehicles, etc.) was involved, but only more abstract things, such as admissions slots at colleges and universities (which don't seem to qualify as "property"). The DOJ should be embarrassed. Perhaps this appellate reversal could be used by other Varsity Blues parents to seek Writs of Error Coram Nobis, that at the time they pleaded guilty, they misunderstood the reach of the applicable statutes, and what they pleaded guilty to does not amount to the crime, because it only involves intangible property. They have nothing to lose by filing the Writ papers, if they have already served the sentences.

Posted by: Jim Gormley | May 11, 2023 6:56:43 PM

Jim Gormley --

"The DOJ should be embarrassed."

Maybe the parents should be embarrassed for having so little faith in their children that they resorted to bribery to get them in. And maybe they should be embarrassed as well that they wanted to corrupt the admissions process by elbowing ahead of students who were more deserving on the merits but didn't have the money, or the venality, to do bribery. Dishonest people should win out, yes?

The cultural lessons of this case are more important and more depressing than the legal lessons.

Posted by: Bill Otis | May 12, 2023 9:19:08 AM

I always felt this was a questionable use of scarce federal resources. The CoA noted in its ruling that it was not commending the parents' behavior, only concluding that the government's theory was not a crime under the statute.

Posted by: Marc Shepherd | May 12, 2023 10:31:49 PM

Bill, feels like the people with the badges need to be held to a higher standard.

Posted by: federalist | May 15, 2023 2:43:10 PM

Under the "rule of federalist," would these individuals have had the right to attack any and every member of law enforcement? Just trying to figure this out for the benefit of others subject to questionable criminal prosecution.

Posted by: Doug B | May 15, 2023 3:23:45 PM

federalist --

I don't think we disagree. Those with governmental authority need to meet higher standards than those without. But that is not to say that the parents here can just brush by ANY standard. They were faithless to their own children, did what they could to hand out bribes, and undermined kids with less wealthy and more honest parents who sought admission based strictly on achievement. That's behavior that earns them shame.

Posted by: Bill Otis | May 15, 2023 9:32:02 PM

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