Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FBI accuses wealthy parents in college-entrance bribery scheme

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 321 posts

Re: FBI accuses wealthy parents in college-entrance bribery scheme

#101

Post by thefounder »

XCabbage wrote: post #44
NowThenGoodBad wrote: post #7

This might be more overt than the usual form, but how does this differ from donating a new building, department, or scholarship fund and subsequently getting your kid in? My mother did well in the Masters program at Stanford and I would have likely gotten in if she donated a couple million dollars but she didn’t and I didn’t (despite getting an invitation a year after accepting enrollment at another university). It’s…

Donating a building is a payment to the university . The university then gets to decide to admit your child in return. It may not be meritocratic, but it's not corrupt (except perhaps insofar as by pretending the exchange is a donation, the university and donor manage to cheat the taxman). The donor is simply paying the university to provide a service that they have every right to offer for money. It also benefits ot…

If the donor pays for a service why does it "donates" instead to pay? This smells very much like donating to a political party just to get government contracts which I believe is bribery.

Re: FBI accuses wealthy parents in college-entrance bribery scheme

#102

Post by nkrisc »

gumby wrote: post #95

Why is this illegal while underfunding the schools and paying $35K to a "college counselor" not equally corrupt? Because the results of the latter are less certain?

Because one is outright fraud while the other is just better training, tutoring, and guidance? If the college counselor was doing the same thing as alleged here than that would also be illegal.

Re: FBI accuses wealthy parents in college-entrance bribery scheme

#103

Post by smt88 »

gumby wrote: post #95

Why is this illegal while underfunding the schools and paying $35K to a "college counselor" not equally corrupt? Because the results of the latter are less certain?

How do you suppose Yale and USC are underfunded? Who should be giving these private universities more money, exactly?

For context: Yale's endowment is ~$40B and USC's is $5.5B.

Re: FBI accuses wealthy parents in college-entrance bribery scheme

#104

Post by peteradio »

onetimemanytime wrote: post #68
umvi wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Universities can admit who they want to admit based on any criteria they want, including large donations. This news story is about rich people going behind the university's back to get people admitted via exam cheating and employee bribery.

Technically, the same thing, but one side goes to jail because they can't donate millions. One is legal because of wink and a nod, the other is illegal (as it should be) but both sides tried to do their best for their children. Jared Kushner, the brilliant philosopher went to Harvard at the same his father donated $2 Million to the university. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/21/what-w... I understa…

Not at all technically the same. This case involves paying off people to commit fraud. How hard is that to understand the difference.

Re: FBI accuses wealthy parents in college-entrance bribery scheme

#105

Post by lotsofpulp »

thefounder wrote: post #101
XCabbage wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Donating a building is a payment to the university . The university then gets to decide to admit your child in return. It may not be meritocratic, but it's not corrupt (except perhaps insofar as by pretending the exchange is a donation, the university and donor manage to cheat the taxman). The donor is simply paying the university to provide a service that they have every right to offer for money. It also benefits ot…

If the donor pays for a service why does it "donates" instead to pay? This smells very much like donating to a political party just to get government contracts which I believe is bribery.

It is exactly that, and they get reduced taxes for it.

Re: FBI accuses wealthy parents in college-entrance bribery scheme

#106

Post by thaumasiotes »

XCabbage wrote: post #44
NowThenGoodBad wrote: post #7

This might be more overt than the usual form, but how does this differ from donating a new building, department, or scholarship fund and subsequently getting your kid in? My mother did well in the Masters program at Stanford and I would have likely gotten in if she donated a couple million dollars but she didn’t and I didn’t (despite getting an invitation a year after accepting enrollment at another university). It’s…

Donating a building is a payment to the university . The university then gets to decide to admit your child in return. It may not be meritocratic, but it's not corrupt (except perhaps insofar as by pretending the exchange is a donation, the university and donor manage to cheat the taxman). The donor is simply paying the university to provide a service that they have every right to offer for money. It also benefits ot…

> It also benefits other students, which is why the universities take the deals in the first place.

This is a little overgenerous.

> In this case, we're talking about bribery of specific employees to act against the interests of their employer. That's simply corruption.

Perhaps. What crime is it?

I went and looked at the charges that were filed, here: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/investigations-college-admis...

(Kudos to patch.com for actually including a link to the charges in their coverage. Middle finger to the Washington Post.)

Charges are divided into three groups, which appear to correspond to different roles in the bribery. At the top are four people "charged by information". William Singer and Mark Riddell are charged with conspiracy to commit money laundering. (And some other charges.) Based on the media coverage, this is because some payments in the bribery system took the form of donations to a nonprofit operated by Riddell, and this is tax fraud. (One of those other charges is "conspiracy to defraud the United States".) Rudy Meredith is charged with wire fraud, the catchall crime that everyone in the country is guilty of. John Vandemoer is charged with racketeering.

The second group, "charged by indictment", are all charged with racketeering, except for David Sidoo who is charged with mail and wire fraud. I don't know what these people are supposed to have done. I'd like to think that a racketeering charge requires the organization you're involved with to have committed a crime; that would imply that what they're really charged with is helping the sham charity commit tax fraud.

The third group, "charged by complaint", are the parents. One and all they are charged with conspiracy to commit mail fraud.

It doesn't look to me like paying an admissions officer to admit your child is a crime at all. Similarly, bribing a maitre'd to seat you more quickly is bribing a specific employee to act against the interests of his employer, but it's not a crime. Taking the bribe might or might not be a crime. All of the charges here that involve a crime relate to using a sham nonprofit for tax benefits.

Re: FBI accuses wealthy parents in college-entrance bribery scheme

#107

Post by nkrisc »

mark212 wrote: post #63

Apparently there are no more drug cartels to go after? We’re now worried about a has-been actress who paid $15,000 so her kid could cheat on the SAT? I’m skeptical of the FBI’s investigative priorities. Wall Street is suddenly squeaky-clean? No more insider trading? Ponzi schemes have all gone away? Municipal governments across the land are staffed by honest and dedicated civil servants? All defense contractors are s…

Are you suggesting law enforcement for anything less than the most serious crimes should cease for as long as the more serious crimes continue?

Re: FBI accuses wealthy parents in college-entrance bribery scheme

#108

Post by lotsofpulp »

kbenson wrote: post #71
lph wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, to recap, bribing individuals is bad, but bribing the school is fine. Got it.

Yes? Paying someone to go against the best interests of their employer is different than paying the employer directly. Paying a grocery store cashier separately to put aside the best fruits for you is not the same as paying the store extra for a higher grade of fruit.

Paying the store an unknown extra amount, calling it a donation, getting your name on a building (i.e. advertising your brand) and getting a tax deduction for it isn't the same as paying the store extra in the amount of a publicly listed price available to all for a higher grade fruit.

Re: FBI accuses wealthy parents in college-entrance bribery scheme

#109

Post by stvswn »

fmajid wrote: post #58
XCabbage wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Donating a building is a payment to the university . The university then gets to decide to admit your child in return. It may not be meritocratic, but it's not corrupt (except perhaps insofar as by pretending the exchange is a donation, the university and donor manage to cheat the taxman). The donor is simply paying the university to provide a service that they have every right to offer for money. It also benefits ot…

Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s not corrupt.

Legality aside, "corruption" implies fraud. Fraud implies personal gain by dishonest means. The allocation of spots at a private university to the children of wealthy donors would only be corruption if it were dishonest, but it's not.
Post reply on HN