Posted on 10/30/2019 10:17:53 PM PDT by ransomnote
BOSTON – A California businessman became the 12th parent to be sentenced in the college admissions case.
Jeffrey Bizzack, 59, of Solana Beach, Calif., was sentenced by U.S. Senior District Court Judge Douglas P. Woodlock to two months in prison, three years of supervised release, 300 hours per year of community service, and ordered to pay a fine of 250,000. In July 2019, Bizzack pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud.
The government recommended a sentence of nine months in prison, one year of supervised release and a fine of $75,000.
Beginning in 2017, Bizzack agreed with William “Rick” Singer and others to pay $250,000 to have his son admitted the University of Southern California (USC) as a volleyball recruit, even though his son did not play competitive volleyball. As part of the scheme, co-conspirator Laura Janke falsified an athletic profile for Bizzack’s son, which depicted him as a nationally ranked volleyball player, and included the photograph of another individual playing volleyball.
In October 2017, a USC athletics administrator, Donna Heinel, secured approval from the USC subcommittee for athletic admissions to admit Bizzack’s son. In December 2017, Bizzack issued a $50,000 check to USC’s “Galen Center” – a restricted account that operated under Heinel’s oversight.
USC mailed Bizzack’s son a formal acceptance letter in March 2018. Bizzack subsequently mailed a $100,000 check to Singer’s sham charity, Key Worldwide Foundation (KWF). In April 2018, he sent a second check to KWF in the amount of $50,000 and had his company wire another $50,000 to KWF.
Case information, including the status of each defendant, charging documents and plea agreements are available here: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/investigations-college-admissions-and-testing-bribery-scheme.
United States Attorney Andrew E. Lelling; Joseph R. Bonavolonta, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Boston Field Division; and Kristina O’Connell, Special Agent in Charge of the Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigations in Boston, made the announcement today. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Eric S. Rosen, Justin D. O’Connell, Leslie A. Wright and Kristen A. Kearney of Lelling’s Securities and Financial Fraud Unit are prosecuting the cases.
The details contained in the court documents are allegations and the remaining defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
Beginning in 2017, Bizzack agreed with William “Rick” Singer and others to pay $250,000 to have his son admitted the University of Southern California (USC) as a volleyball recruit, even though his son did not play competitive volleyball. As part of the scheme, co-conspirator Laura Janke falsified an athletic profile for Bizzack’s son, which depicted him as a nationally ranked volleyball player, and included the photograph of another individual playing volleyball.
In October 2017, a USC athletics administrator, Donna Heinel, secured approval from the USC subcommittee for athletic admissions to admit Bizzack’s son. In December 2017, Bizzack issued a $50,000 check to USC’s “Galen Center” – a restricted account that operated under Heinel’s oversight.
If he had a vagina and was an actress, he’d have gotten two weeks at basically a spa in the country.
Seems like a stupid plan as much as an immoral one.
Wouldn’t the father expect that at some point his son would be discovered to lack the requisite skills to play college volleyball?
Also, a quarter-of-a-million dollars would have paid for the entire room/board/tuition/books for a four-year degree at this school.
This is probably what Lori Loughlin will get.
“Honest services fraud” is a phony crime in a case like this. Nobody was defrauded by any objective definition of “fraud” in these cases.
As you correctly pointed out ... these people ended up paying MORE for a college education than a “legitimate” student would have paid.
That’s a good possibility bro.
“Honest services fraud” is a phony crime in a case like this. Nobody was defrauded by any objective definition of “fraud” in these cases.
The fraud in this case is a spot in the incoming class
If you worked your butt off to get into one of these schools only to be denied because a bunch of rich A Holes
bribed their way in I’d be pretty P’O
This schools are elite in that their names carry a lot of prestige
This is not Podunk Community College, but some of the top schools in the country
If I were the judge would throw the book at the Hollyweird b*tch
You can't be a victim of fraud unless you lose something that rightfully belongs to you.
In the case of a "spot in the incoming class," there isn't a single applicant who has any ownership claim to a spot in the incoming class. The applicants don't own those spots. And there are no guarantees about getting admitted to the school, either. I'm sure college applications have plenty of legal language in them that says, in effect: "This application does not represent any obligation to the applicant by the school."
Was it wrong for these people to do this? Sure it is. But that doesn't make it a crime.
If you worked your butt off to get into one of these schools only to be denied because a bunch of rich A Holes bribed their way in I’d be pretty P’O
Then why aren't "rich A-holes" prosecuted when they donate a million dollars to a school's endowment and get their kid admitted to the school in exchange?
You are clear eyed about this non crime and the drama the media is making about it.
there is no crime here.
Moral turpitude, perhaps.
But college admissions has never only been about merit.
Merit has never been the only basis of admissions to college. Ever.
No one lost anything.
This is a media hyped issue.
Drama to pit the classes against each other.
I wonder how many of our experts running our country who graduated from Harvard, Yale et al are really “experts”. ???
I wonder if Any of Warren’s salary at Harvard came from Federal Dollars?
She lied and got a job. It’s the same thing that these people are being prosecuted for isn’t it?
The Federal Court in Boston is just a $1.10 train ride from me...I should spend some time there watching the parade go by! :-)
I guess one can make the same case for counterfeiting. Who’s the victim if I print up several thousand dollars? Sounds, instead, like people benefit, should I spend that money.
Having said that, I’m sure Federal counterfeiting laws as they are written have nothing to do with fraud.
But that does raise an interesting point. Are you guilty of passing counterfeit bills if you use them in transactions where you have no obligation to pay — like handing them out to homeless people?
People only get ripped off if they’re caught with the fake money. If the money was allowed to freely circulate and treated as real money, then who’s the victim?
I was told by a Secret Service agent years ago that the creation of an image that could be construed to be legal tender was a violation of the law. At the time we had been asked to print an advertisement that looked like a dollar bill on one side but had an ad for a chiropractor on the other. The client, the chiropractor, wanted to leave these on the floor of various places and when people bent over to pick them up they would see that they were not real and had a “does your back hurt?” message on them. We were told we could be arrested for counterfeiting if we printed them.
For one thing, counterfeiting money diminishes the value of the currency for anybody else who uses it.
Thanks, that was the answer I was looking for.
That doesn’t surprise me. My understanding is that if you are going to use a likeness of U.S. currency in an advertisement, it has to be an obvious caricature that would never be mistaken for the real thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.