Started By
Message
re: The FBI investigation: where is a federal crime involved?
Posted on 9/29/17 at 10:48 am to JustGetItRight
Posted on 9/29/17 at 10:48 am to JustGetItRight
quote:
No. Not a single person is accused of stealing grant money
SRSLY? Shows that you can't believe the first reports you hear
1
Posted on 9/29/17 at 10:50 am to GnashRebel
quote:
Are you trying to be obtuse?
Not at all
quote:
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
U.S. Code 1343 (Wire Fraud) - Where is the fraud in this situation? Who was the victim of the fraudulent behavior?
Posted on 9/29/17 at 10:51 am to JustGetItRight
I think what is happening is that lawyers question whether the "80 years" in prison is legit. The answer is probably no. They are pressuring these people to roll over other wrongdoers by dangling the "worst potential outcome." If I am an executive, agent, or coach and someone starts talking about decades in prison I am going to talk.
Posted on 9/29/17 at 10:54 am to matthew25
Financial advisor is involved, bribery a federal crime, money crossing state lines, etc..
Posted on 9/29/17 at 10:55 am to the_watcher
quote:
Where is the fraud in this situation? Who was the victim of the fraudulent behavior?
So what I read is that the coaches were advising players and families on financial advisers because they were paid to do it. They misrepresented the advisers and did not tell the families they were basically on their payroll.
Posted on 9/29/17 at 11:01 am to JustGetItRight
I wonder how many of the yet to be named, will use an entrapment defense. The FBI and wired informants seemed to have aggressively pursued some of these folks that fell into the trap. So had they not pursued them, would they not have otherwise committed a crime,i.e., entrapment?
Posted on 9/29/17 at 11:03 am to GnashRebel
quote:
I think what is happening is that lawyers question whether the "80 years" in prison is legit. The answer is probably no.
Legit as the sentence they'll get? No.
Where that comes from is taking the max for each count under the sentencing guidelines and adding them up.
Technically, if they got convicted on all counts and the judge sentenced each count to be served consecutively (do your 20 on count 1, then start your 20 on count 2, wash, rinse, repeat), then they could do 80.
In reality, what would happen is that the sentence would fall somewhere in the guideline range but be less than 20 and the counts would be served concurrently so that actual time behind bars would only equal the sentence of the count with the longest length.
Posted on 9/29/17 at 11:04 am to GnashRebel
quote:
So what I read is that the coaches were advising players and families on financial advisers because they were paid to do it. They misrepresented the advisers and did not tell the families they were basically on their payroll.
Which is what a lawyer friend of mine said and quoted the honest services policy that was instituted after Enron. My problem with that is, how is that different from any other service or profession in America?
A coach was paid by a financial advisor to promote their services. Coach then recommends their services. It's still the kids decision. Golf pro's at courses are normally affiliated with a golf club company. So golf pro A recommends a Calloway driver to a member even though he knows the M1 Taylor Made is better. Golf pro A gets small commission for selling Calloway driver. Is that illegal that he didn't declare he has a deal with Calloway?
Posted on 9/29/17 at 11:05 am to JustGetItRight
That's what I mean. Scare the shite out of them and get them to cooperate.
Posted on 9/29/17 at 11:06 am to the_watcher
quote:
A coach was paid by a financial advisor to promote their services. Coach then recommends their services. It's still the kids decision. Golf pro's at courses are normally affiliated with a golf club company. So golf pro A recommends a Calloway driver to a member even though he knows the M1 Taylor Made is better. Golf pro A gets small commission for selling Calloway driver. Is that illegal that he didn't declare he has a deal with Calloway?
I dunno. I do know that financial persons are covered by some different laws than retail.
Posted on 9/29/17 at 11:09 am to Diamondawg
quote:
I wonder how many of the yet to be named, will use an entrapment defense. The FBI and wired informants seemed to have aggressively pursued some of these folks that fell into the trap. So had they not pursued them, would they not have otherwise committed a crime,i.e., entrapment?
They'll try it, but to successfully mount an entrapment defense you've got to show that the accused likely wouldn't have committed the crime. Most of these folks sought out the money on their own, so that's going to be a hard row to hoe.
Posted on 9/29/17 at 11:12 am to the_watcher
quote:Let's say the course was a public course and was built with federal block grant money. The answer would be yes - illegal.
A coach was paid by a financial advisor to promote their services. Coach then recommends their services. It's still the kids decision. Golf pro's at courses are normally affiliated with a golf club company. So golf pro A recommends a Calloway driver to a member even though he knows the M1 Taylor Made is better. Golf pro A gets small commission for selling Calloway driver. Is that illegal that he didn't declare he has a deal with Calloway?
Posted on 9/29/17 at 11:13 am to JustGetItRight
Aside from whatever illegality may have existed, this much is certain and undeniable:
Chuck Person is a fricking piece of shite.
Taking a bribe too steer the kid and his mom to Blazer, who already had a history of stealing millions of dollars from his clients...and lying about his relationship with Blazer to the mom. Person fully knew that it was likely...at the least very possible...that Blazer would try and steal from this kid and his family.
Chuck Person is a fricking piece of shite.
Taking a bribe too steer the kid and his mom to Blazer, who already had a history of stealing millions of dollars from his clients...and lying about his relationship with Blazer to the mom. Person fully knew that it was likely...at the least very possible...that Blazer would try and steal from this kid and his family.
This post was edited on 9/29/17 at 11:14 am
Posted on 9/29/17 at 11:14 am to the_watcher
quote:
A coach was paid by a financial advisor to promote their services
Yes and that is the illegal part
you cant do this in state or federal funded positions. not sure why people are having a hard time with this
Posted on 9/29/17 at 11:14 am to Vecchio Cane
quote:
SRSLY? Shows that you can't believe the first reports you hear
Seriously.
People saw the word GRANT and just made assumptions. The grants are included to demonstrate a nexus that gives the feds jurisdiction.
Posted on 9/29/17 at 11:21 am to NYCAuburn
So private school coaches are free to do as they wish?
Posted on 9/29/17 at 11:25 am to GnashRebel
quote:
Conspiracy is also a crime. If these individuals are coordinating to commit crimes then that is a problem.
Conspiracy as such is not a crime, but, rather, a theory of vicarious liability where co-conspirators become liable for the crimes committed by other members of the conspiracy rather than only being liable for the acts they personally commit.
The question that was raised by the law professors quoted in the WSJ article was, who was hurt by the Bribes? Would Louisville, for example,claim to have been hurt by having a 5 star recruit steered their Way? You can argue either side of that question.
I have no doubt that there are hundreds of scumbags in this business who deserve some prison time, but actually committing someone to prison isn't easy, and there will be some very capable attorneys picking these charges apart.
Posted on 9/29/17 at 11:25 am to the_watcher
quote:You don't think Vanderbilt gets NIH grants?
So private school coaches are free to do as they wish?
Posted on 9/29/17 at 11:29 am to the_watcher
quote:
So private school coaches are free to do as they wish?
You've never even heard of Title IX, have you?
How about Baylor? Ever heard of them?
Posted on 9/29/17 at 11:32 am to the_watcher
Your argument is should it be illegal then not was it illegal.
Page 4 of 6
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News