From what has been posted on another thread it sounds like the defense strategy is actually slightly different than ignorance of the law. Apparently the defense team will try to make the case that the defendants were ignorant about how the money they paid the "consultant" was being used. Their defense is: "We paid this guy several hundred thousand dollars to get our daughter into USC because he had a legitimate business, he seemed reputable, and he had done it many times for others. We had no idea he was using our money to bribe admissions staff at the school."
The problem I see with that defense is he had the kids get their pictures taken rowing to get in on the rowing team. Any normal thinking person would have bat signals being sent up all over the place. How are they going to explain that one? I’ll bet they also have incriminating e-mails to shoot down this defense. If the only evidence they had was them giving this guy the money, I don’t think charges would have been brought. These two should be worried about their kids. The kids obviously participated in this fraud (the pictures of them on the rowing team) and perhaps that will be the next thing the prosecutors do is try to get indictments on their kids.
Ahhhh....