
Originally Posted by
Dan Druff
I think defense attorneys have a great angle with this one, as far as the parents are concerned.
They can use the "College admissions have always been a joke" defense, basically pointing out that it's common knowledge that people get into college all the time via nepotism, athletic ability (without academic qualification), donations to the school, etc.
Parents can use the defense of, "We thought that was the system in place, and we thought we were basically doing the same thing as the guy who donates $1 million to the school to partially fund a new building, and then his daughter gets in,"
I think enough reasonable doubt can be created, and it can be cast that the parents were simply manipulating within an already broken system, and weren't even aware they were committing crimes.
I'd almost buy that explanation myself.
I wouldn't accept it
there is a tax fraud angle--the payments to Singer were usually treated as a charitable contribution deduction by the parents...and one even went so far as to charge the payments to his business as a consulting fee...these folks were buying a service (an illegal one) rather than making a true gift--the definition of a charitable gift is in the Treasury Regulations and instructions to tax returns, IRS publications and in tax court decisions.
also, every college in the USA except Hilldale accepts federal government grants, and thus all except Hillsdale comply with admission standards/protocols the federal government lays down...here the parents were attempting to get around those admission standards
claiming learning disabilities to get extended time to take placement exams, having the placement exams taken where the proctor would change answers, building a false resume of high school achievement, claiming to be an athlete all show knowing intent to cheat the system of placement...
those charged better hope I'm not called to serve on their jury