This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/21/us/college-admissions-scandal.html

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
Former Head of Pimco Pleads Guilty in College Admissions Case More Parents Plead Guilty in College Admissions Scandal
(about 1 hour later)
BOSTON — Douglas Hodge, a retired chief executive of Pimco, one of the world’s biggest asset managers, pleaded guilty on Monday in the nation’s largest college admissions prosecution. Mr. Hodge, one of the most prominent business executives caught up in the scandal, acknowledged that he conspired to pay more than $500,000 in bribes to get two of his children admitted to the University of Southern California as athletic recruits. BOSTON — One father conspired to pay bribes to get two children admitted to the University of Southern California — one as a recruit in soccer, the other in football. Another parent plotted to cheat on college entrance exams for his two daughters. A mother worried that her daughter might figure out that she was trying to get the daughter a fake ACT score, saying, on a call that turned out to be recorded by the authorities, “She already thinks I’m up to, like, no good.”
Three parents — the former head of one of the world’s biggest asset managers, the founder of a Silicon Valley finance firm, and an heir to a fortune created by microwaveable snacks — all pleaded guilty on Monday in the nation’s largest college admissions prosecution. With trials drawing closer and prosecutors warning of new charges, the three were part of a new wave of parents pleading guilty to using lies and bribery to secure their children’s admission to elite colleges.
Among them was Douglas Hodge, a former chief executive of Pimco and one of the most prominent business executives caught up in the scandal. He admitted that he conspired to pay more than $500,000 in bribes to get two of his children admitted to U.S.C. as athletic recruits.
“I accept full and complete responsibility for my conduct,” Mr. Hodge said in a statement. “I have always prided myself on leading by example, and I am ashamed of the decisions I made. I acted out of love for my children, but I know that this explanation for my actions is not an excuse.”“I accept full and complete responsibility for my conduct,” Mr. Hodge said in a statement. “I have always prided myself on leading by example, and I am ashamed of the decisions I made. I acted out of love for my children, but I know that this explanation for my actions is not an excuse.”
With trials drawing closer and prosecutors warning of new charges, Mr. Hodge was among several parents expected to newly plead guilty to using lies and bribery to secure their children’s admission to elite colleges. The other parents who pleaded guilty on Monday were Manuel Henriquez, the founder and former chief executive of Hercules Capital, a financial firm in Palo Alto, Calif., and Michelle Janavs, of Newport Coast, Calif., whose father and uncle invented the Hot Pocket. Mr. Henriquez’s wife, Elizabeth, was expected to plead guilty later in the day.
Three other parents were expected to plead guilty later in the day. More than a dozen parents caught up in the scandal, including the actress Felicity Huffman, pleaded guilty months ago in connection with the far-reaching cheating scheme that prosecutors revealed in March. But others among nearly three dozen parents charged, including Mr. Hodge, had entered not guilty pleas and, until now, appeared headed for trial.
More than a dozen parents caught up in the scandal, including the actress Felicity Huffman, swiftly pleaded guilty months ago in connection with the scheme that prosecutors revealed in March, which involved cheating on college entrance exams and bribing coaches to designate students as recruits in sports they didn’t play competitively. But others among the nearly three dozen parents charged, including Mr. Hodge, had entered not guilty pleas and appeared headed for trial. The new group of guilty pleas reflected what lawyers involved in the case said was an intense campaign by the United States attorney’s office to press the remaining parents to reverse course.
The new wave of guilty pleas reflected what lawyers involved in the case said was an intense campaign by the United States attorney’s office to press the remaining parents to reverse course.
According to several of the lawyers involved in the case, prosecutors gave some parents deadlines of Monday or a few days before to agree to plead guilty, or risk facing a new charge that had the potential to bring a longer sentence. These lawyers said that they now expected prosecutors to bring that new charge — known as federal programs bribery — against most, if not all, of the parents who stick to their not-guilty pleas. Two of the lawyers said that it was possible that additional parents would also be charged in the scandal.According to several of the lawyers involved in the case, prosecutors gave some parents deadlines of Monday or a few days before to agree to plead guilty, or risk facing a new charge that had the potential to bring a longer sentence. These lawyers said that they now expected prosecutors to bring that new charge — known as federal programs bribery — against most, if not all, of the parents who stick to their not-guilty pleas. Two of the lawyers said that it was possible that additional parents would also be charged in the scandal.
Among the parents who have pleaded not guilty in the far-reaching case is another actress, Lori Loughlin. While Hollywood gossip magazines have reported that Ms. Loughlin was anxious about the case and regretted her not-guilty plea, there has been no indication that she intends to change her plea, making it appear likely that she could be among those facing the new criminal charge. An attorney for Ms. Loughlin did not respond to a question about her plans.
A representative for the United States attorney’s office declined to comment.A representative for the United States attorney’s office declined to comment.
The parents who pleaded guilty in the early days of the case have begun to receive their punishments, with sentences ranging from probation to five months in prison. Ms. Huffman, who acknowledged paying a college consultant $15,000 to cheat on her daughter’s SAT exam, was sentenced to two weeks in prison, which she is currently serving at a minimum-security federal prison camp outside San Francisco. Prosecutors accused Mr. and Mrs. Henriquez of conspiring to cheat on college entrance exams for their two daughters, as well as paying $400,000 to bribe the tennis coach at Georgetown to designate their older daughter as a recruit to the team based on false credentials.
Some lawyers involved in the case said they believed that prosecutors were disappointed with the sentences given out so far, which were all lighter than they had requested. These lawyers said they thought prosecutors also wanted to reduce the number of parents who ultimately go to trial. Mr. Henriquez said that, while he believed he was guilty of the criminal charges, he disputed the claim that he had plotted to bribe the tennis coach. Rather, he said he had believed he was making a donation to the Georgetown tennis program.
Mr. Henriquez said that William Singer, a college consultant whom prosecutors have described as the mastermind of the scheme, told him that part of the $400,000 that he was paying to a foundation led by Mr. Singer would go to the tennis program and “would hopefully assure my daughter’s admission.”
He added: “I provided a donation to the foundation rather than to the university directly, because Mr. Singer insisted that that was the way it had to be done.”
Mr. Singer has pleaded guilty to racketeering and other charges and is cooperating with the government.
According to prosecutors, Ms. Janavs agreed to pay $200,000 to get her older daughter admitted to U.S.C. as a volleyball recruit, despite her not being qualified for that status. Prosecutors said that Ms. Janavs also agreed to pay $100,000 to cheat on both of her daughters’ ACT exams.
Among the parents who have pleaded not guilty is another actress, Lori Loughlin. While Hollywood gossip magazines have reported that Ms. Loughlin was anxious about the case and regretted her not-guilty plea, there has been no indication that she intends to change her plea. A lawyer for Ms. Loughlin did not respond to a question about her plans.
Parents who pleaded guilty in the early days of the case have begun to receive punishments, with sentences ranging from probation to five months in prison. Ms. Huffman, who acknowledged paying a college consultant $15,000 to cheat on her daughter’s SAT exam, was sentenced to two weeks in prison, which she is currently serving at a minimum-security federal prison camp outside San Francisco.
Some lawyers involved in the case said they believed that prosecutors were disappointed with the sentences given out so far, which were all lighter than they had requested.
Prosecutors have argued that the advisory sentencing guidelines range in each parent’s case should increase with the amount of money each parent paid, either to cheat on a test or buy a recruitment slot. With some parents paying hundreds of thousands of dollars, that approach could have brought significantly more severe guidelines ranges. But the judge who has sentenced these parents, Indira Talwani, has said that the amount of money should not affect the guidelines range.Prosecutors have argued that the advisory sentencing guidelines range in each parent’s case should increase with the amount of money each parent paid, either to cheat on a test or buy a recruitment slot. With some parents paying hundreds of thousands of dollars, that approach could have brought significantly more severe guidelines ranges. But the judge who has sentenced these parents, Indira Talwani, has said that the amount of money should not affect the guidelines range.
The three other parents expected to plead guilty on Monday are Michelle Janavs and a couple, Manuel and Elizabeth Henriquez. They were all accused of participating in both the recruitment and the test-cheating parts of the scheme.
According to prosecutors, Ms. Janavs, who is from Newport Coast, Calif., and is a former executive of a food manufacturer started by her father and uncle, paid a total of $600,000 to get a son admitted to Georgetown as a tennis recruit and a daughter admitted to U.S.C. as a volleyball recruit, despite their not being qualified for that status. She also paid $100,000 to cheat on two daughters’ ACT exams, prosecutors have said.
Prosecutors accused Mr. Henriquez, the founder of Hercules Capital, a financial firm in Palo Alto, and his wife, Elizabeth, of conspiring to cheat on college entrance exams for two daughters, as well as paying $400,000 to bribe the tennis coach at Georgetown to designate their older daughter as a recruit to the team based on false credentials. Prosecutors announced on Monday morning that Mrs. Henriquez had agreed to plead guilty, suggesting that negotiations in the case had continued right up until the deadline.
The charge of federal programs bribery, which prosecutors were said to be considering adding against some defendants, involves theft from or bribery of an agent of an organization that receives more than $10,000 in federal funds. For the parents accused of conspiring to bribe coaches to designate their students as athletic recruits, that charge could apply, experts said, because the colleges involved accept federal funds. How the charge might apply to parents who conspired to bribe standardized-test administrators is less clear.
The parents who have pleaded not guilty in the case are already charged with money laundering conspiracy and conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and honest services mail and wire fraud.The parents who have pleaded not guilty in the case are already charged with money laundering conspiracy and conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and honest services mail and wire fraud.
Adding a federal programs bribery charge would probably lead to more severe sentencing guideline ranges, potentially determined by how much each parent paid, according to Daniel Richman, a former federal prosecutor and now the Paul J. Kellner Professor of Law at Columbia Law School. But Mr. Richman said he wasn’t sure that a new criminal count would make any difference in the sentences that parents ultimately receive. The charge of federal programs bribery, which prosecutors were said to be considering adding against some defendants, involves theft from or bribery of an agent of an organization that receives more than $10,000 in federal funds. For the parents accused of conspiring to bribe coaches to designate their students as athletic recruits, that charge could apply, experts said, because the colleges involved accept federal funds. .
Prosecutors signaled their interest in using the federal programs bribery charge when they brought it against a new parent charged in the scheme in September. They accused the woman, Xiaoning Sui, 48, a Chinese citizen residing in Canada, of paying a consultant $400,000 to get her son admitted to the University of California, Los Angeles, as a recruit for the soccer team.