U.S. Attorney's Office announces additional charges in college hoops investigation

[SoBristol]

Ha I hear you but doesn't change the fact that the harmed parties - at least according to the charges - are the schools. If that is the harmed party ...I got nothing.

The actual harmed parties are the schools that abide by the amateur rules, and in general, the integrity of the sport. The Adidas programs that land the players whose families took the $$ -- not harmed, unless and until they get sanctions.

 

[Waltdods]

The actual harmed parties are the schools that abide by the amateur rules, and in general, the integrity of the sport. The Adidas programs that land the players whose families took the $$ -- not harmed, unless and until they get sanctions.

Right, but the criminal charges are based on the theory that the schools that accepted the players were harmed. As you note, that's more than a little silly. And given that the criminal charges require that assumption (which we all appear to agree is a stretch), we should question whether the criminal charges are themselves a stretch.

The NCAA is a private organization that has established stupid and impossible to enforce rules. It isn't obvious that the government should be using criminal law to, effectively, backstop the rules of that private organization.

 

[shandeezy7]

Right, but the criminal charges are based on the theory that the schools that accepted the players were harmed. As you note, that's more than a little silly. And given that the criminal charges require that assumption (which we all appear to agree is a stretch), we should question whether the criminal charges are themselves a stretch.

The NCAA is a private organization that has established stupid and impossible to enforce rules. It isn't obvious that the government should be using criminal law to, effectively, backstop the rules of that private organization.

Soliciting/accepting bribes for services, favors, etc. is a federal crime. Doesn't matter if it's a shoe company bribing athletes for their services or if it's a construction company bribing a city councilman for his vote. Yes, the main reason bribes are occurring is to skirt around NCAA rules, but the only reason any bribe happens is to skirt around established rules/laws. Add on top of this that the tax man always wants his cut and this is what you end up with.

 

[shantydaze]

I don’t really see the point in leaking this information unless you somehow have proof the head coaches are involved somehow and can prove it. It’s obviously working for Sean Miller to deny as well as various coaches act as if they didn’t know anything

While the Sean Miller accusation was based on a leak, the new Kansas and NC State allegations are not leaks. They are taken from the publicly available indictments filed with the court.

 

[shantydaze]

Here is my thought on the NCAA's inaction. The allegations in the criminal complaints are just that, allegations. Before the schools can be disciplined, the NCAA needs evidence that the allegations are true. The FBI and the U.S. Attorney's office are not going to just turn over their evidence to a private organization before trial/resolution is reached and, if the cases resolve through a plea bargain, they may never turn over the information.

If I were in the NCAA's enforcement department, I would simply wait until the trials started to collect evidence against the players and schools. Due to the NCAA's inability to compel disclosure of information, letting attorneys with subpoena power (whether criminal or civil) do the work for it is the better course of action. If after evidence is presented proving the allegations, the NCAA still does nothing, then it would be the appropriate time for hand-wringing and recriminations.

 

[maxxyz]

Ha I hear you but doesn't change the fact that the harmed parties - at least according to the charges - are the schools. If that is the harmed party ...I got nothing.

You're right - the schools are complicit thru inaction, taking their TV checks and remaining silent. Still a felony crime though.

 

[Newhouser]

Am I correct that so far these pressers have resulted in charges being dropped as the accused kept the money rather than passing it on? I'm wondering if the first presser was a little over the top and the cases are falling apart and this second presser could be an attempt to scare/intimidate new players to try to get something to stick.

 

[Deano]

 

[IthacaMatt]

The actual harmed parties are the schools that abide by the amateur rules, and in general, the integrity of the sport. The Adidas programs that land the players whose families took the $$ -- not harmed, unless and until they get sanctions.

I think people are maybe forgetting that there are many "victimless" crimes that are still crimes, whether or not a third party was injured. Bribery is a crime; there doesn't have to be a victim.

 

[Waltdods]

I think people are maybe forgetting that there are many "victimless" crimes that are still crimes, whether or not a third party was injured. Bribery is a crime; there doesn't have to be a victim.

The charges aren't "bribery"; they're fraud - two counts of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Those crimes require a victim (or at least someone to be defrauded).

More generally, I think the bribery-is-illegal argument is somewhat overstated. First, I don't think there's a federal crime of bribery. (Indeed, the DOJ has had huge problems recently prosecuting even pretty clear cut political bribery cases precisely because the law around this is so unhelpful.) Second, even to the extent bribery is a crime, you have some more definitional work to do. Just giving someone money to do something is not bribery. When I was in law school, law firms bought me dinner and (a lot) of booze to encourage me to join them. Those weren't illegal bribes, but they were certainly giving me stuff to do something. Similarly, if I offered a neighbor $1,000 to attend my alma matar, that wouldn't be an illegal bribe (and certainly not a federal crime) but it isn't obviously different than what these agents were doing.

 

[Newhouser]

The charges aren't "bribery"; they're fraud - two counts of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Those crimes require a victim (or at least someone to be defrauded).

More generally, I think the bribery-is-illegal argument is somewhat overstated. First, I don't think there's a federal crime of bribery. (Indeed, the DOJ has had huge problems recently prosecuting even pretty clear cut political bribery cases precisely because the law around this is so unhelpful.) Second, even to the extent bribery is a crime, you have some more definitional work to do. Just giving someone money to do something is not bribery. When I was in law school, law firms bought me dinner and (a lot) of booze to encourage me to join them. Those weren't illegal bribes, but they were certainly giving me stuff to do something. Similarly, if I offered a neighbor $1,000 to attend my alma matar, that wouldn't be an illegal bribe (and certainly not a federal crime) but it isn't obviously different than what these agents were doing.

Good insight - so my question is how do they prove their are victims? Some totally innocent school - of which I think there are very few - is going to have to say "i've been victimized" and as soon as they say that, they had better be a cross between St Paul and Mother Teresa because they are going to be on an island.

 

[reedny]

or he just doesn't show

Or its in the mess hall at Ray Brook.

 

[Waltdods]

Good insight - so my question is how do they prove their are victims? Some totally innocent school - of which I think there are very few - is going to have to say "i've been victimized" and as soon as they say that, they had better be a cross between St Paul and Mother Teresa because they are going to be on an island.

I do think this is going to put schools in a somewhat awkward position. This flows directly from the fact that the prosecutors are using a fairly creative legal theory that is not particularly consistent with the reality of college sports.

Just to spell it out - the alleged victims are the schools who admitted the players. Some people on this thread have suggested that the victims are those schools that are playing by the rules, which may be true in a factual sense, but is not the legal theory the United States is pursuing. The theory (seriously!) is that Louisville et al. were defrauded because they unwittingly accepted players who were ineligible to play NCAA basketball. Even if all the facts are true, that strikes me as a pretty unconvincing hook for federal criminal charges. In addition, it does depend on some level of lack-of-awareness on the schools, which ain't terribly convincing. If Rick Pitino (to take a name at random) is making scholarship decisions on behalf of the University, and Rick Pitino well knows that Addidas is paying guys, can the school really claim to have been defrauded? (Maybe, is the answer, but the fact that we need to do these contortions is at least suggestive.)

 

[Cheriehoop]

How are these payments represented in the company's financials? Are they disclosed to shareholders , approved by the Board of Directors? What does the SEC say about these payments?

 

[Waltdods]

How are these payments represented in the company's financials? Are they disclosed to shareholders , approved by the Board of Directors? What does the SEC say about these payments?

I think it's unlikely there's a securities crime here for the payments per se. (There will probably be a securities lawsuit or ten, and maybe an SEC investigation.) But Addidas had revenue of more than $20 billion last year. Their securities filings list almost $9 billion in "other operating expenses" which probably includes these payments, which even generously might have been a few million dollars.

Some private plaintiffs and maybe the SEC have at times taken the position that the failure to disclose illegal behavior can itself be a securities violation. I don't know enough about the state of the law to know where this stands, though I'm skeptical DOJ (and particularly a Republican DOJ) would pursue this criminally.

 

[721Comstock]

How are these payments represented in the company's financials? Are they disclosed to shareholders , approved by the Board of Directors?
What does the SEC say about these payments?

The Ess Eee See says, "that there is just good bidness!"

Oh, your meant the Securities and Exchange Commission?
They're too busy with arranging their next tee time.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Is this a superceding indictment, it an additional indictment?

 

[orange79]

Is this a superceding indictment, it an additional indictment?

From the OP:

 

[MonsterGame]

Why does this whole thing seem so much like a rogue booster giving a few dollars to players for their services, with the following exceptions:

1) Much more money and many more players involved.

2) The schools didn't self-report when they found out. (Ignorance is a valid excuse right? If they were in fact ignorant.)

 

[SBU72]

Is it to far fetched to think that the shoe companies are paying off the NCAA to look the other way when the Blue Bloods cheat? That nothing will happen to these flagship schools so as to not tarnish their rep. Play a kid who has been paid $kkk to attend a flag ship, no penalty. Pay a kid $100 to ref a game, HOW DARE YOU, LACK OF INSTATIONAL CONTROL, HEAD COACH LACKS CONTROL, SLAP U DOWN!

 

[IthacaMatt]

The charges aren't "bribery"; they're fraud - two counts of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Those crimes require a victim (or at least someone to be defrauded).

More generally, I think the bribery-is-illegal argument is somewhat overstated. First, I don't think there's a federal crime of bribery. (Indeed, the DOJ has had huge problems recently prosecuting even pretty clear cut political bribery cases precisely because the law around this is so unhelpful.) Second, even to the extent bribery is a crime, you have some more definitional work to do. Just giving someone money to do something is not bribery. When I was in law school, law firms bought me dinner and (a lot) of booze to encourage me to join them. Those weren't illegal bribes, but they were certainly giving me stuff to do something. Similarly, if I offered a neighbor $1,000 to attend my alma matar, that wouldn't be an illegal bribe (and certainly not a federal crime) but it isn't obviously different than what these agents were doing.

18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of public officials

 

[ForCuseSake]

My prediction for how this shakes out (if I’ve understood correctly so far):

The NCAA will selectively apply victim status to hallowed brands (KU, Miami) to be their “not in our wheelhouse” excuse to justify no punishiment.

The lesser brands (NCST, Arizona) and repeat offenders (Louisville) will be sanctioned.

And Mark Emmert will look like an even bigger empty suit buffoon.

 

[ClamOtto]

As a non-lawyer, here are my questions: unless the NCAA punishes the schools that were supposedly defrauded, then how is there a fraud charge? Doesn't there have to be some damage to the "victim"? The victims here, so far, have not only not been damaged, they've likely benefited from increased ticket sales and NCAA post-season revenue. And if the NCAA is waiting for the case to play out before they do anything, then it seems to be stuck.

 

[Newhouser]

As a non-lawyer, here are my questions: unless the NCAA punishes the schools that were supposedly defrauded, then how is there a fraud charge? Doesn't there have to be some damage to the "victim"? The victims here, so far, have not only not been damaged, they've likely benefited from increased ticket sales and NCAA post-season revenue. And if the NCAA is waiting for the case to play out before they do anything, then it seems to be stuck.

Seems to me the only harm would be if the ncaa acted.

 

[IthacaMatt]

As a non-lawyer, here are my questions: unless the NCAA punishes the schools that were supposedly defrauded, then how is there a fraud charge? Doesn't there have to be some damage to the "victim"? The victims here, so far, have not only not been damaged, they've likely benefited from increased ticket sales and NCAA post-season revenue. And if the NCAA is waiting for the case to play out before they do anything, then it seems to be stuck.

There have to be damages for civil actions, not criminal actions.