[BigJohn043]

Philosophically, they were correct that other parents are buying their children's way into college. But representing the children as athletes when they are not seems fraudulent to me. They should have started donating large sums every year several years prior to their children's application process. That's how it's done at Stanford. Stanford doesn't really deny it either.

I agree with you that it is different.  But who perpetuated the fraud?  The coaches for certain.  Maybe the kids lied about their athletic background on the application.  Not certain how the parents committed a fraud.

In any case this is almost a crime of paperwork.  What they did was totally legal they just did it the wrong way.  Is it really a good use of legal resources to prosecute that kind of crime?  Or is it simply the fact that this was a big splashy case that makes the prosecutor get in the media and maybe launch a political career.

Some of the same thing happened with PPP.  A really poor law and program.  Most of the people who got the money didn't really need it and what exactly need meant was totally undefined.  Prosecutors then go after people that simply got the book keeping wrong and paid the wrong types of expenses out of the wrong accounts.  But it makes for a great story...

[BigJohn043]

Philosophically, they were correct that other parents are buying their children's way into college. But representing the children as athletes when they are not seems fraudulent to me. They should have started donating large sums every year several years prior to their children's application process. That's how it's done at Stanford. Stanford doesn't really deny it either.

I agree with you that it is different.  But who perpetuated the fraud?  The coaches for certain.  Maybe the kids lied about their athletic background on the application.  Not certain how the parents committed a fraud.

In any case this is almost a crime of paperwork.  What they did was totally legal they just did it the wrong way.  Is it really a good use of legal resources to prosecute that kind of crime?  Or is it simply the fact that this was a big splashy case that makes the prosecutor get in the media and maybe launch a political career.

Some of the same thing happened with PPP.  A really poor law and program.  Most of the people who got the money didn't really need it and what exactly need meant was totally undefined.  Prosecutors then go after people that simply got the book keeping wrong and paid the wrong types of expenses out of the wrong accounts.  But it makes for a great story...