wifeisafurd said:
hanky1 said:
Exactly what law did she break by bribing her kids way into USC? I don't get it.
1) she took a charitable deduction for a bribe. Apparently is she doesn't plea bargain the Fed will add this charge.
2). conspiring to commit federal program bribery by paying employees at the University of Southern California to admit her children as athletic recruits or other favored admissions categories.
3) conspiring to commit mail and wire fraud as well as honest services mail and wire fraud (the person they bribed, the Associate AD is charged with committing federal program bribery).
The conspiracy to commit federal bribery charges are based on a federal statue that's triggered whenever a bribe of at least $5,000 is given to an organization that receives more than $10,000 from the federal government. Every college in the country, both public and private, fits that category. So to answer your specific question that law that was (allegedly) broken is 18 U.S. Code 666.
The people paying the bribes get hit with conspiracy. The people who get get the bribes and take action are charged with bribery. Get it now?
I have no idea if the article you linked to is correct, but if so, it seems Loughlin has a decent case. According to the article, she: (i) paid money directly to USC's AD - check payable to USC; and (ii) paid money into Rick Singer's "charity." It is not clear if she paid money to Singer directly outside of his charity - I assume so and if she did that might actually be a good fact for her defense.
There is no allegation that Loughlin directly bribed the USC official (Pat Heinel).
Singer bribed Heinel and it seems plausible (if not likely) that Loughlin had no idea about the details of that bribe and/or exactly how Singer's scheme worked. If she didn't know about the bribe, than the conspiracy charges (2 and 3 above) seem tenuous. Not to mention that the bribes to Heinel didn't start until after the daughters were admitted, per the article.
If the government's position is that paying money to private university (check payable to USC) in exchange for admission preferences constitutes a bribe in violation of Section 666, then there are many, many, many parents who should be very worried right now. There is no way that theory will fly. It is not a bribe if the university (or its employees) know that the donation is taken into account for admissions purposes. If the government pursues such a broad and tenuous theory of Section 666, they likely will lose (similar to the Enron/Skilling case which involved a similar type of dragnet statute).
In terms of the tax fraud (1 above), why wasn't that charged up front? It could be that Loughlin paid Singer money directly AND made a "charitable" contribution to his foundation, which makes the facts a bit muddier. Even if the government can add and then prove this type of violation, the penalties are far less (potentially just civil) - people don't generally go to jail for tax fraud.
I'm not defending what Loughlin did. The scheme was disgusting and they deserve the public ridicule and other consequences. But not every bad/wrongful act is or should be a federal crime. I'm not a fan of federal prosecutors overreaching. It remains to be seen if that is the case here, but the article you provided seems to suggest that's a possibility.