[CTcard]

The most compelling argument for the defense may be whether USC was victimized in the scheme or whether USC takes money for admissions slots as part of its usual practice.  

I wonder if someone could explain the legal theory of why this matters. 

If U$C were simply a business, then it would seem to me that it could sell it's product however it wishes, but it would still be illegal for an employee to take that product and sell it for personal gain without informing the business owner. 

I suppose this has something to do with the idea of admissions spots not being considered property (as mentioned in Mick's post).
Is it that if $C takes payment for its admission slots as a usual practice, then the parents can't know that these particular individuals are authorized to make that exchange?

[CTcard]

The most compelling argument for the defense may be whether USC was victimized in the scheme or whether USC takes money for admissions slots as part of its usual practice.  

I wonder if someone could explain the legal theory of why this matters. 

If U$C were simply a business, then it would seem to me that it could sell it's product however it wishes, but it would still be illegal for an employee to take that product and sell it for personal gain without informing the business owner. 

I suppose this has something to do with the idea of admissions spots not being considered property (as mentioned in Mick's post).
Is it that if $C takes payment for its admission slots as a usual practice, then the parents can't know that these particular individuals are authorized to make that exchange?