Started By
Message
re: The FBI investigation: where is a federal crime involved?
Posted on 9/29/17 at 9:50 am to krandor
Posted on 9/29/17 at 9:50 am to krandor
quote:
It is a crime because he is acting as an agent of auburn and usibg that position to influence the players.
As a private citizen he’s be fine. As an agent of the university he isn’t.
No, he's not acting as an agent of Auburn when he introduces a player to a financial advisor. That's not his job. He is taking advantage of his position of trust with the student athlete, but that alone is not a crime. And he didn't even commit fraud if the player was eventually given all of the pertinent information (which he probably wasn't given how shady these guys are, but still...)
1
Posted on 9/29/17 at 9:52 am to sugatowng
quote:
Do u even tax evasion baw?
quote:
I'm guessing very little of this money was declared income so you can add tax fraud to the charges.
quote:
I’m betting on literally none. It’s shocking so many people don’t realize you can’t move large sums of money without the IRS at least checking it out.
Except they were not charged with tax evasion. I'm not saying they won't be in the future but they haven't been as of now. Here is the link to the 59 page FBI complaint. Feel free to ctrl f search tax, taxes, tax evasion, IRS, etc. You wont get any returned results for any of them.
Posted on 9/29/17 at 9:53 am to artompkins
quote:
Anytime somone is given a large sum of money to steer another person to a scumbag for said scumbags personal gain it is a bribe. You would have to be the dumbest person around to not understand that.
That just isn't true If the person receiving the money has no fiduciary obligation to the person being steered, then it isn't a "bribe", its just a commision. And even if the person receiving the money has a fiduciary relationship with the person being steered, its not a bribe if the person receiving money discloses to the steeree that he is being paid by the scumbag of the first part.
Posted on 9/29/17 at 9:53 am to artompkins
double post because my computer is slow.
This post was edited on 9/29/17 at 9:55 am
Posted on 9/29/17 at 9:58 am to Dday63
quote:
That just isn't true If the person receiving the money has no fiduciary obligation to the person being steered, then it isn't a "bribe", its just a commision
Wrong, I even posted the statute a up the page a bit.
Put the shovel down and try google.
Posted on 9/29/17 at 9:59 am to VABuckeye
quote:
quote:
This is shoe company money going to a family to deliver the student
Which is a bribe. I know at Ole Miss you don't get that but in the real world it's how it works.
How is that a "bribe", or more importantly, how is that illegal? I mean, as already discussed the payments themselves result in tax evasion, and the Feds are now saying this results in fraud on the University, but I don't see how you can say the student athlete has been illegally bribed. He was offered a cash incentive to pick a certain school, but HE's the one who is effected by his choice, not some other person that he owes some financial duty to.
Posted on 9/29/17 at 10:08 am to cave canem
[QUOTE]It was a very poorly researched article [/quote]
Excuse me? Perhaps you are ill informed or haven't read the series WSJ has published.
LINK
"The absurd conflation of NCAA rules and federal law ... the FBI really shouldn't be doing the NCAAs dirty work.
"The Bureau on Tuesday made the exchange of money that took place between the coaches and others sound truly nefarious. But its incentive is to make those involved appear as guilty as possible.
As this case makes its way through the courts, keep in mind one question: Guilty of what?"
I suspect the research of the Wall Street Journal on this issue is more in depth than the opinions being expressed here... trying to make a federal crime over business dealings
Lots of jail-house lawyers in this line: Example of the hyperbole... the jay walker in New Orleans....
"violated 14 municipal laws, endangered multiple persons who were forced to take radical evasion actions, said persons taking actions were from out of state meaning he endangered across state lines, demonstrated willful disregard for society, committed racists and prejudicial acts because said laws violated were passed by bi-racial city commission, was motivated by Robert E. Lee statue to disregard the clear meaning of the Law.
I suspect the research of the Wall Street Journal on this issue is far more in depth than the opinions being expressed here. Trying to make a federal crime over business dealings? I doubt the schools that make a "deal" with Nike, AND ARE GIVEN A CASH INCENTIVE BY THAT COMPANY (bribe?), to wear their uniforms inform the players of the details of that deal.
And what about Morris Bart? He "bribes" TV stations to send him accident victims...
Excuse me? Perhaps you are ill informed or haven't read the series WSJ has published.
LINK
"The absurd conflation of NCAA rules and federal law ... the FBI really shouldn't be doing the NCAAs dirty work.
"The Bureau on Tuesday made the exchange of money that took place between the coaches and others sound truly nefarious. But its incentive is to make those involved appear as guilty as possible.
As this case makes its way through the courts, keep in mind one question: Guilty of what?"
I suspect the research of the Wall Street Journal on this issue is more in depth than the opinions being expressed here... trying to make a federal crime over business dealings
Lots of jail-house lawyers in this line: Example of the hyperbole... the jay walker in New Orleans....
"violated 14 municipal laws, endangered multiple persons who were forced to take radical evasion actions, said persons taking actions were from out of state meaning he endangered across state lines, demonstrated willful disregard for society, committed racists and prejudicial acts because said laws violated were passed by bi-racial city commission, was motivated by Robert E. Lee statue to disregard the clear meaning of the Law.
I suspect the research of the Wall Street Journal on this issue is far more in depth than the opinions being expressed here. Trying to make a federal crime over business dealings? I doubt the schools that make a "deal" with Nike, AND ARE GIVEN A CASH INCENTIVE BY THAT COMPANY (bribe?), to wear their uniforms inform the players of the details of that deal.
And what about Morris Bart? He "bribes" TV stations to send him accident victims...
This post was edited on 9/29/17 at 10:22 am
Posted on 9/29/17 at 10:09 am to Dday63
quote:
How is that a "bribe", or more importantly, how is that illegal? I mean, as already discussed the payments themselves result in tax evasion, and the Feds are now saying this results in fraud on the University, but I don't see how you can say the student athlete has been illegally bribed. He was offered a cash incentive to pick a certain school, but HE's the one who is effected by his choice, not some other person that he owes some financial duty to.
Please tell me you are 12 years old an not an actual alumnus of OM, besides not having an even basic understanding of the facts at hand you made a textbook definition of bribery but can sort out why.
The judge was offered a cash incentive to pick a certain verdict, but HE's the one who is effected by his choice, not some other person that he owes some financial duty to.
Does it look a bit different now?
Posted on 9/29/17 at 10:13 am to twk
I think ill take word of experienced southern district us attornys on what corruption is over a bunch of liberal hacks at the WSJ. Those clowns cober up more corruption than they write about.
Posted on 9/29/17 at 10:16 am to artompkins
quote:
liberal hacks at the WSJ
WTF? Murdock owns the WSJ and it is consistently the voice of thoughtful reason ... what are you talking about?
Posted on 9/29/17 at 10:17 am to Dday63
quote:
effected
Affected
Posted on 9/29/17 at 10:20 am to Jacknola
Just a dig at reporters in general. I atually know a writer there. Point being whe the feds come they usually always have the goods. I would trust them on what and what not to prosecute any day over someone writing about. These people are dirty and in bed with scumbags.
Posted on 9/29/17 at 10:21 am to matthew25
So I am not a lawyer but the obvious trouble is under the table transactions of tens of thousands of undeclared dollars which the US government frowns upon.
Conspiracy is also a crime. If these individuals are coordinating to commit crimes then that is a problem.
Money was provided to coaches under the table. Most coaches fall within a status that makes them susceptible to bribery charges.
Conspiracy is also a crime. If these individuals are coordinating to commit crimes then that is a problem.
Money was provided to coaches under the table. Most coaches fall within a status that makes them susceptible to bribery charges.
Posted on 9/29/17 at 10:23 am to GnashRebel
quote:
tens of thousands of undeclared dollars
and tens of thousands of federal grant dollars. That'll do it every time
Posted on 9/29/17 at 10:29 am to Jacknola
Ah yes, an opinion story by noted sportwriter Nicole Hong with perhaps the greatest weasel byline of
Some outdoosmen think bigfoot exist
Some Americans believe they were abducted by aleins
Some Adults still believe in Santa
More hard hitting info as usual lately from the WSJ, nothing but filler, sadly ESPN has had the best info out there from the begining.
quote:and zero meat in the story.
Some legal experts question whether the defendants’ alleged misconduct broke federal law
Some outdoosmen think bigfoot exist
Some Americans believe they were abducted by aleins
Some Adults still believe in Santa
More hard hitting info as usual lately from the WSJ, nothing but filler, sadly ESPN has had the best info out there from the begining.
Posted on 9/29/17 at 10:30 am to Jacknola
quote:
I suspect the research of the Wall Street Journal on this issue is more in depth than the opinions being expressed here... trying to make a federal crime over business dealings
If the WSJ had done ANY research they'd have found cases that look a lot like this one, they just haven't involved sports programs.
It isn't nearly as much of a stretch as they'd have you believe.
Posted on 9/29/17 at 10:30 am to GnashRebel
quote:
So I am not a lawyer but the obvious trouble is under the table transactions of tens of thousands of undeclared dollars which the US government frowns upon.
Then why wasn't a single word about this included in the FBI complaint? No one has been charged for tax evasion.
quote:
If these individuals are coordinating to commit crimes then that is a problem.
Breaking an NCAA bylaw isn't a crime
quote:
Money was provided to coaches under the table. Most coaches fall within a status that makes them susceptible to bribery charges.
Bribery laws state - The individual being bribed is a "public official," which includes rank-and-file federal employees on up to elected officials; - Do coaches fall under this designation? What about private school coaches? And where is the victim in this case?
Posted on 9/29/17 at 10:34 am to matthew25
What the shoe companies are doing is racketeering in fact the very definition of it. It falls under RICO laws. The agents and coaches who influence these young men with inducements fall under the Rico laws which in themselves can be loosely interpreted by the feds to fit their needs. Then the IRS may get involved also.
Posted on 9/29/17 at 10:39 am to the_watcher
Are you trying to be obtuse?
quote:
They have been charged with wire fraud, bribery, travel act, and conspiracy offenses. According to the complaint, the coaches facilitated and received bribes from athlete advisers, including business managers and financial advisers Christian Dawkins and Munish Sood, over multiple instances, in exchange for directing and pressuring players and their families to retain the services of these advisers. In a second scheme, the complaints allege that the athlete advisers and individuals affiliated with major athletic apparel company Adidas paid bribes directly to student athletes and their families. The money paid was in exchange for the athlete's commitment to attend a specific university sponsored by the company, and an agreement to ultimately be represented by the "bribe-payers" once they enter the NBA.
Posted on 9/29/17 at 10:46 am to Vecchio Cane
quote:
and tens of thousands of federal grant dollars.
No.
Not a single person is accused of stealing grant money.
The statutes only apply to entities that receive federal funds in excess of $10,000. The first thing the prosecution has to do is show that the law applies, so they've got to include evidence that the institutions get that money. Anther element is that the action places the entity getting federal money at risk of financial loss, which is where NCAA rules come into play. There's a serious financial loss if teams are banned from postseason play even if they don't make it there themselves. How many millions did Ole Miss lost by missing out on the SEC bowl money?
The OP asked if it was a crime for him to give a college student money if they promised to come to work for them after school. Consider this example:
College student is in a program conducting government funded research into a cutting edge technology field and has signed an agreement with a clause that requires him to disclose any relationships with businesses in that field. OP's company operates in that field and gives college student $25,000 to come to work for him after graduation and tells him not to disclose that agreement.
Has a crime been committed? You better fricking believe it has.
That's essentially what's happened in these cases. Despite what the WSJ may write, it isn't much of a stretch at all.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News