Started By
Message
re: The FBI investigation: where is a federal crime involved?
Posted on 9/29/17 at 11:32 am to BamaGradinTn
Posted on 9/29/17 at 11:32 am to BamaGradinTn
No I've never heard of title IX or the college in Texas named Baylor. Great response thanks for the well thought out input and contribution
1
Posted on 9/29/17 at 11:35 am to the_watcher
quote:
No I've never heard of title IX or the college in Texas named Baylor. Great response thanks for the well thought out input and contribution
It was designed to point out how utterly clueless you have to be to not know that private schools get federal money. Seriously...you were really that clueless? You actually want to lecture people about well thought out responses...after demonstrating that you apparently couldn't think your comment out?
This post was edited on 9/29/17 at 11:38 am
Posted on 9/29/17 at 11:41 am to matthew25
Fraud for the shoe companies on their financial statements, use of federal grants, bribery.
Posted on 9/29/17 at 11:44 am to Dday63
quote:
Its not a "bribe" unless Person was an "agent, employee or fiduciary" of the player.
What his is/was is a state employee and an official representative of Auburn University. He wasn't just some random uncle that had some influence over a few kids. He used his official position to steer athletes to another shithead in Atlanta and in return he profited financially. There is no grey area about whether or not he was taking bribes. I see no difference in what he did and a politician taking money and steering contracts to certain entities in return.
Posted on 9/29/17 at 11:45 am to BamaGradinTn
NYCAuburn literally said
So I asked about private school coaches. You condescendingly interjected yourself with what you thought was a so clever omg have you never heard of a school or title IX haha what an idiot you are comment. All it pointed out was your need to prove how smart you apparently think you are while contributing nothing to the conversation
quote:
you cant do this in state or federal funded positions. not sure why people are having a hard time with this
So I asked about private school coaches. You condescendingly interjected yourself with what you thought was a so clever omg have you never heard of a school or title IX haha what an idiot you are comment. All it pointed out was your need to prove how smart you apparently think you are while contributing nothing to the conversation
Posted on 9/29/17 at 12:33 pm to Dday63
quote:
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...)
By law he is an agent of the university and by accepting money from the FA he broke the law because he is not allowed to do that.
18 U.S. Code § 666 - Theft or bribery concerning programs receiving Federal funds
Posted on 9/29/17 at 12:35 pm to matthew25
No taxes were paid.
Posted on 9/29/17 at 12:59 pm to the_watcher
quote:
So I asked about private school coaches. You condescendingly interjected yourself with what you thought was a so clever omg have you never heard of a school or title IX haha what an idiot you are comment.
His reply is actually on point. The same factors that make Title IX apply to a school also make some of the crimes charged apply in this case.
A private school that took no federal money would be under no obligation to follow Title IX and many of the charges in this case wouldn't apply.
Posted on 9/29/17 at 1:02 pm 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..
Is it not a requirement that these kids who receive an athletic scholarship from a state school disclose their additional income to the government?
In these cases were the additional funds undisclosed?
Fraud.
The students themselves could end up in legal jeopardy. And that's just one aspect of a multi-faceted case here.
Claiming there is no crime here is ridiculous.
Posted on 9/29/17 at 1:09 pm to JustGetItRight
quote:
His reply is actually on point.
Federal funding can go to private schools as well
Posted on 9/29/17 at 2:06 pm to allin2010
Bribery is the federal crime. Saying that Auburn is the victim of the crime, now that's a stretch.
Posted on 9/29/17 at 2:08 pm to lsufan31
quote:
Saying that Auburn is the victim of the crime, now that's a stretch.
then why did the FBI claim so....
Maybe you just didnt understand the scope of the charges
Posted on 9/29/17 at 2:47 pm to matthew25
I don't get it either. How is it any different than paying a current pro athlete to promote your products by wearing them?
How is it any different than a state government offering tax breaks to a large company to convince them to build in their state when other small businesses don't get the break?
How is it any different than a state government offering tax breaks to a large company to convince them to build in their state when other small businesses don't get the break?
Posted on 9/29/17 at 2:52 pm to deltaland
quote:You are smarter than this.
How is it any different than paying a current pro athlete to promote your products by wearing them?
Posted on 9/29/17 at 3:26 pm to Diamondawg
I'm not well versed in law. I probably break about a dozen laws a day at least.
I just don't see why it's illegal? Who cares who adidas gives money to or why? It's their money. I can see unreported income being a tax issue
I just don't see why it's illegal? Who cares who adidas gives money to or why? It's their money. I can see unreported income being a tax issue
Posted on 9/29/17 at 3:35 pm to deltaland
quote:
I just don't see why it's illegal?
This is going to sound curt, but the simple answer is because the Congress has declared it to be.
The basic intent behind it was to protect federal funds by making it a crime to place the entities that get those funds in jeopardy.
Posted on 9/29/17 at 11:09 pm to krandor
Show me the federal funds the Auburn athletic department received.
Posted on 9/29/17 at 11:44 pm to deltaland
quote:
I just don't see why it's illegal? Who cares who adidas gives money to or why? It's their money. I can see unreported income being a tax issue
sigh, because it is against federal law to act as a paid agent without disclosure for both the advisor and agent.
Also the coaches are state employees and there are guidelines they must meet as well and laws governing their behavior and ability to act as agents.
If Adidias did not disclose these payments to the IRS or in their corprate financial statements they are guilty of tax evasion and fraud.
Justice may try to tack on a few other things that are not as clear cut but a large part of this mess is cut and dried black letter law.
While none of these things pertain to catfish farmers, your CPA knows all about them and must comply or risk federal charges.
Posted on 9/29/17 at 11:48 pm to matthew25
quote:
Show me the federal funds the Auburn athletic department received.
Auburn is a fereral tax exempt non profit and agreed to follow the laws pertaining to this status.
Posted on 9/30/17 at 2:23 am to cave canem
As I said in my original post about Reggie Bush:
In 2006 -- to pick just one among the many, many NCAA scandals over the years -- two less-than-reputable agents gave the family of the University of Southern California’s star running back, Reggie Bush, gifts and benefits, including the free use of a house, worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.
They did so in the expectation that Bush would sign with them when he decided to turn pro. (He didn’t.) Although the university was severely punished by the NCAA, the FBI chose not to look into the matter.
Why would it? Giving a star athlete’s family the use of a house may be unseemly, and it may violate NCAA’s rules regarding amateurism, but it doesn’t violate the laws on the United States. Not even close.
In 2006 -- to pick just one among the many, many NCAA scandals over the years -- two less-than-reputable agents gave the family of the University of Southern California’s star running back, Reggie Bush, gifts and benefits, including the free use of a house, worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.
They did so in the expectation that Bush would sign with them when he decided to turn pro. (He didn’t.) Although the university was severely punished by the NCAA, the FBI chose not to look into the matter.
Why would it? Giving a star athlete’s family the use of a house may be unseemly, and it may violate NCAA’s rules regarding amateurism, but it doesn’t violate the laws on the United States. Not even close.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News