Before at least certain parts of these federal charges run their course, it's certainly possible that good defense attorneys will successfully challenge that the FBI / DOJ are trying to criminally prosecute what is plainly no more than an NCAA violation.
And I'm by NO means excusing Person's contemptible actions. I AM, however, not a damn bit happy that our tax dollars - and it'll be in the millions you'd guess - are going to bring cases like this.
E5
-----
From The Wall Street Journal last night ...
Probe Into NCAA Basketball Relies on Unusual Legal Theories
3hr
The government’s sprawling investigation into bribery in top-tier college basketball programs has prompted some in the sports and legal communities to question whether the alleged activity violates federal law.
By Nicole Hong
The government’s sprawling investigation into bribery in top-tier college basketball programs has prompted some in the sports and legal communities to question whether the alleged activity violates federal law.
Federal prosecutors on Tuesday unsealed charges against 10 defendants, including four assistant college-basketball coaches.
In one alleged scheme, prosecutors argue, the coaches took cash bribes from financial advisers, business managers and others, and facilitated bribes directly to student-athletes. In exchange, the coaches agreed to pressure student-athletes under their control to retain the services of these advisers once the athletes entered the National Basketball Association.
In a second and related scheme, a top Adidas AG executive allegedly worked in connection with the advisers in the first scheme to funnel bribes to high-school players and their families to induce them to attend universities sponsored by Adidas, and to choose Adidas as their sponsor when they turned pro.
The investigation is unusual because while the alleged misconduct violates National Collegiate Athletic Association rules, some legal experts say it may not have necessarily broken federal law.
NCAA bylaws state that any financial assistance to student-athletes, other than from their legal guardians or from the university, is prohibited without express authorization from the NCAA. Student athletes are also prohibited from accepting benefits, including money, from outside sources like financial advisers. A student-athlete is ineligible to participate in Division I sports if he or she violates these rules.
Gabe Feldman, a sports law professor at Tulane University Law School, said it was fair to question whether prosecutors were overreaching in trying “to turn what might be an NCAA violation into a criminal violation.”
“The conduct itself doesn’t necessarily appear to violate any laws, standing on their own,” he said. “But it’s the combination of factors that appear to have convinced the government to bring this case.”
Prosecutors in the criminal complaints are primarily alleging violations of federal bribery and fraud laws. The charges are likely to face challenges in court, legal experts say.
All four coaches were charged with honest-services fraud conspiracy. The government accuses the coaches of depriving the universities of their “honest services” as university employees by soliciting and receiving bribes.
Honest-services fraud is a crime under the federal wire-fraud statute, a broad law that is widely used by prosecutors to charge virtually any type of fraud that involves an email or phone call. Every defendant in this case was also charged with wire-fraud conspiracy.
The law governing honest-services fraud is both controversial and in flux, lawyers said. The definition of what it means to deprive an employer of honest services is vague, and a 2010 Supreme Court ruling narrowed the definition of honest-services fraud to cover only certain types of bribery and kickback schemes. The statute has often been used to charge corrupt politicians.
“I’m not aware of any case where federal prosecutors have used honest-services fraud to say the programs that were allegedly defrauded were college sports organizations,” said Daniel Silver, a former federal prosecutor in Brooklyn who is now a partner at Clifford Chance LLP.
The government says the universities were the victims of the alleged schemes. Because the universities were unaware of the alleged bribes, they gave financial aid to student athletes who were actually in violation of NCAA rules and therefore ineligible for scholarships. This, in turn, defrauded the universities because it hurt their “decision-making about the distribution of its limited athletic scholarships,” the criminal complaint said.
But the government may have a hard time showing how schools like Auburn University or University of Louisville suffered losses as a result of the scheme, some lawyers said.
“If Louisville’s a victim, what did they lose out on?” asked Bradley Henry, a criminal defense attorney in New York.
Lawyers said the defense may also bring challenges to the bribery charges. Federal law bans the bribery of organizations that receive money from the federal government. In their criminal complaints, prosecutors said the public universities receive federal funding, which means bribery of the coaches, who are employees of the university, is also prohibited. The defense, however, could argue that coaches shouldn’t be treated like federal government employees, according to one defense lawyer.
As well, legal experts say that the government, to prove bribery, may have to show a quid pro quo occurred between the payers of the bribe and the coaches. In the wake of recent shifts in bribery and public-corruption law, defense lawyers could argue that coaches steering players toward certain money managers may not be enough of an official action on the coaches’ part to warrant federal bribery charges.
And I'm by NO means excusing Person's contemptible actions. I AM, however, not a damn bit happy that our tax dollars - and it'll be in the millions you'd guess - are going to bring cases like this.
E5
-----
From The Wall Street Journal last night ...
Probe Into NCAA Basketball Relies on Unusual Legal Theories
3hr
The government’s sprawling investigation into bribery in top-tier college basketball programs has prompted some in the sports and legal communities to question whether the alleged activity violates federal law.
By Nicole Hong
The government’s sprawling investigation into bribery in top-tier college basketball programs has prompted some in the sports and legal communities to question whether the alleged activity violates federal law.
Federal prosecutors on Tuesday unsealed charges against 10 defendants, including four assistant college-basketball coaches.
In one alleged scheme, prosecutors argue, the coaches took cash bribes from financial advisers, business managers and others, and facilitated bribes directly to student-athletes. In exchange, the coaches agreed to pressure student-athletes under their control to retain the services of these advisers once the athletes entered the National Basketball Association.
In a second and related scheme, a top Adidas AG executive allegedly worked in connection with the advisers in the first scheme to funnel bribes to high-school players and their families to induce them to attend universities sponsored by Adidas, and to choose Adidas as their sponsor when they turned pro.
The investigation is unusual because while the alleged misconduct violates National Collegiate Athletic Association rules, some legal experts say it may not have necessarily broken federal law.
NCAA bylaws state that any financial assistance to student-athletes, other than from their legal guardians or from the university, is prohibited without express authorization from the NCAA. Student athletes are also prohibited from accepting benefits, including money, from outside sources like financial advisers. A student-athlete is ineligible to participate in Division I sports if he or she violates these rules.
Gabe Feldman, a sports law professor at Tulane University Law School, said it was fair to question whether prosecutors were overreaching in trying “to turn what might be an NCAA violation into a criminal violation.”
“The conduct itself doesn’t necessarily appear to violate any laws, standing on their own,” he said. “But it’s the combination of factors that appear to have convinced the government to bring this case.”
Prosecutors in the criminal complaints are primarily alleging violations of federal bribery and fraud laws. The charges are likely to face challenges in court, legal experts say.
All four coaches were charged with honest-services fraud conspiracy. The government accuses the coaches of depriving the universities of their “honest services” as university employees by soliciting and receiving bribes.
Honest-services fraud is a crime under the federal wire-fraud statute, a broad law that is widely used by prosecutors to charge virtually any type of fraud that involves an email or phone call. Every defendant in this case was also charged with wire-fraud conspiracy.
The law governing honest-services fraud is both controversial and in flux, lawyers said. The definition of what it means to deprive an employer of honest services is vague, and a 2010 Supreme Court ruling narrowed the definition of honest-services fraud to cover only certain types of bribery and kickback schemes. The statute has often been used to charge corrupt politicians.
“I’m not aware of any case where federal prosecutors have used honest-services fraud to say the programs that were allegedly defrauded were college sports organizations,” said Daniel Silver, a former federal prosecutor in Brooklyn who is now a partner at Clifford Chance LLP.
The government says the universities were the victims of the alleged schemes. Because the universities were unaware of the alleged bribes, they gave financial aid to student athletes who were actually in violation of NCAA rules and therefore ineligible for scholarships. This, in turn, defrauded the universities because it hurt their “decision-making about the distribution of its limited athletic scholarships,” the criminal complaint said.
But the government may have a hard time showing how schools like Auburn University or University of Louisville suffered losses as a result of the scheme, some lawyers said.
“If Louisville’s a victim, what did they lose out on?” asked Bradley Henry, a criminal defense attorney in New York.
Lawyers said the defense may also bring challenges to the bribery charges. Federal law bans the bribery of organizations that receive money from the federal government. In their criminal complaints, prosecutors said the public universities receive federal funding, which means bribery of the coaches, who are employees of the university, is also prohibited. The defense, however, could argue that coaches shouldn’t be treated like federal government employees, according to one defense lawyer.
As well, legal experts say that the government, to prove bribery, may have to show a quid pro quo occurred between the payers of the bribe and the coaches. In the wake of recent shifts in bribery and public-corruption law, defense lawyers could argue that coaches steering players toward certain money managers may not be enough of an official action on the coaches’ part to warrant federal bribery charges.
