• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

College basketball bribery scandal

Yeah, this is what I don't get. I'm certainly no expert in federal criminal law, but don't federal bribery crimes deal with payments to government officials? I can see how, loosely, an assistant coach for a state school could be considered a public official. But in the long ESPN explanation article it discusses payments circling around Miami (a private school) for Nassir. Say in the most direct example, Adidas pays a Miami assistant coach money to give to a player's parent to get that player to commit to Miami ... what is illegal about that? Obviously it violates NCAA eligibility requirements, but none of that is an actual crime. How is that any different than paying a real estate broker to get one person to buy a house from another person? Or any other sort of broker or consultant fee? Assuming the underlying act is not a crime (like drug dealing or prostitution), I can pay anyone for anything. Choosing a college isn't a crime.

I am with you. One counter has been that even private schools receive federal funds which subjects them to the federal bribery laws, but if I was defending an assistant coach at Miami (or even a public university), I would go after any claim based upon the premise that college basketball coaches are "government officials". Seems like a stretch to me.
 
If they work at state universities, they are state employees.
 
Get rid of the shoe deals. Schools can use basketball and football tournament money to buy logoLESS shoes and uniforms. The Sonny Vaccaros of the world should not run college basketball. This all started with the Dapper Dan Tournament in Pittsburgh. Cut a deal with NBA so that, like baseball, players go pro out of high school or stay in college for three years. 18 year olds can vote, get killed in war, but not play in the NBA. Ridiculous!
 
The easiest solution would be the NCAA relaxing rules on players receiving income and endorsements from outside parties. If adidas or nike wants to pay a player, let them. If they want to get endorsements from local business, let them. Allow schools to provide a modest stipend on top of that and that should eliminate most of these problems.

this is probably the most realistic answer to the problem. the rebuttal is "But big Alabama boosters will make up fake jobs at their car dealerships and LOWF and Southeast Alabama Tech won't be able to compete!!11!" It's a dumb rebuttal, because LOWF and Southeast Alabama Tech already are noncompetitive with the big boys like Alabama, and because (as we have seen) kids are already getting paid by big boosters under the table. Take it out of the black market and you at least put some transparency around it and make people pay taxes on this type of income.
 
The easiest solution would be the NCAA relaxing rules on players receiving income and endorsements from outside parties. If adidas or nike wants to pay a player, let them. If they want to get endorsements from local business, let them. Allow schools to provide a modest stipend on top of that and that should eliminate most of these problems.

Maybe that will happen. The issue is the competitive balance as Bama in football or Kentucky in hoop would be able to offer more in endorsements than Northwestern in football or BC in basketball. That said, there is not a whole lot of competitive balance in college sports anyway. So, maybe it would be as big of an issue as people think. That said, it would suck to have Greg Dortch transfer to Bama after this year because Bama offered him a big endorsement deal that WF couldn't match.
 
That's where the money laundering charges come in. It's not like anyone is reporting this money on their tax returns. You're talking about a series of six figure under the table payments where the source and the destination of the money is being hidden. If you pay a real estate broker, they hopefully aren't hiding this fact from the IRS.

Yeah but these charges are from 2017 events, you can't assume that someone isn't going to report something on their taxes 7 months or even a year before their taxes are actually due to be filed.
 
To echo 923, it's not like it's an even playing field now. Alabama and Kentucky's of the world in their respective sports will continue to have an advantage, but they do now anyway. It's not perfect, but at least it brings much of the money already flowing through the system out into the open.
 
The easiest solution would be the NCAA relaxing rules on players receiving income and endorsements from outside parties. If adidas or nike wants to pay a player, let them. If they want to get endorsements from local business, let them. Allow schools to provide a modest stipend on top of that and that should eliminate most of these problems.

Maybe that will happen. The issue is the competitive balance as Bama in football or Kentucky in hoop would be able to offer more in endorsements than Northwestern in football or BC in basketball. That said, there is not a whole lot of competitive balance in college sports anyway. So, maybe it would be as big of an issue as people think. That said, it would suck to have Greg Dortch transfer to Bama after this year because Bama offered him a big endorsement deal that WF couldn't match.

It would suck, but shouldn't Dortch have the freedom to go play ball wherever he feels he can get the best deal or best degree or whatever? If Alabama throws money at Clawson, he's free to leave any time he wants and take his talents to the highest bidder. I have yet to hear a principled argument on why players should not have the same freedom as coaches.
 
From Page 2 of the complaint against Lamont Evans et al (includes Bland at USC). Emphasis added:

"2. It was a part and object of the conspiracy that LAMONT
EVANS, EMANUEL RICHARDSON, a/k/a "Book," and ANTHONY BLAND,
a/k/a "Tony," the defendants, being agents of organizations that
received, in a one-year period, benefits in excess of $10,000
under a Federal program involving a grant, contract, subsidy,
loan, guarantee, insurance, and other form of Federal
assistance
, to wit, University-2, University-3, University-4,
and University-5,1 corruptly would and did solicit and demand for
the benefit of a person, and accept and agree to accept,
something of value
from, among others, CHRISTIAN DAWKINS and
MUNISH SOOD, the defendants, and a cooperating witness for the
Government ("CW-1") and undercover law enforcement officers,
intending to be influenced and rewarded in connection with a
business, transaction, and series of transactions of such
organizations, involving something of value of $5,000 and more
,
in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section
666(a)(1)(B)."
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/us-attorney-announces-arrest-10-individuals-including-four-division-i-coaches-college#_ftn1

That just seems like a stretch to me. How is that different than a faculty member helping another in his department apply for a grant in the hopes that it maintains or increases salaries of everyone in the department including himself? I know the feds don't bring charges unless they are really confident of a conviction, but this just seems really tenuous to me if you ignore the NCAA eligibility components.
 
Yeah but these charges are from 2017 events, you can't assume that someone isn't going to report something on their taxes 7 months or even a year before their taxes are actually due to be filed.

Still would involve wire fraud, no? I'm no attorney, but funneling that much cash around under the table and across state lines for an illicit purpose would violate some federal law I'd think. Though perhaps the answer is just that even private university's receive significant federal funds and thus are liable to federal bribery laws. Like I said, I'm no expert but it doesn't seem like a reach that this violates some federal laws.
 
That just seems like a stretch to me. How is that different than a faculty member helping another in his department apply for a grant in the hopes that it maintains or increases salaries of everyone in the department including himself? I know the feds don't bring charges unless they are really confident of a conviction, but this just seems really tenuous to me if you ignore the NCAA eligibility components.

Because a coach pocketing under-the-table bribe money is not the same as securing federal research grants for legitimate academic or other purposes.
 
Still would involve wire fraud, no? I'm no attorney, but funneling that much cash around under the table and across state lines for an illicit purpose would violate some federal law I'd think. Though perhaps the answer is just that even private university's receive significant federal funds and thus are liable to federal bribery laws. Like I said, I'm no expert but it doesn't seem like a reach that this violates some federal laws.

How can it be fraud if both the sender and recipient intend for the wire to happen? Nobody got defrauded.
 
Because a coach pocketing under-the-table bribe money is not the same as securing federal research grants for legitimate academic or other purposes.

But why? The only reason the payment to the coach is "under the table" is for NCAA purposes, not any actual law. The coach gets paid a salary, the coach gets paid for endorsements, how is this any different? Somebody is paying him for providing a service that they deem valuable, and that isn't illegal.
 
Here is the full text of the statute:

(a) Whoever, if the circumstance described in subsection (b) of this section exists
(1) being an agent of an organization, or of a State, local, or Indian tribal government, or any agency thereof—
(A) embezzles, steals, obtains by fraud, or otherwise without authority knowingly converts to the use of any person other than the rightful owner or intentionally misapplies, property that—
(i) is valued at $5,000 or more, and
(ii) is owned by, or is under the care, custody, or control of such organization, government, or agency; or
(B) corruptly solicits or demands for the benefit of any person, or accepts or agrees to accept, anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organization, government, or agency involving any thing of value of $5,000 or more; or
(2) corruptly gives, offers, or agrees to give anything of value to any person, with intent to influence or reward an agent of an organization or of a State, local or Indian tribal government, or any agency thereof, in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organization, government, or agency involving anything of value of $5,000 or more;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

(b) The circumstance referred to in subsection (a) of this section is that the organization, government, or agency receives, in any one year period, benefits in excess of $10,000 under a Federal program involving a grant, contract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, or other form of Federal assistance.

(c) This section does not apply to bona fide salary, wages, fees, or other compensation paid, or expenses paid or reimbursed, in the usual course of business.

(d) As used in this section—
(1) the term “agent” means a person authorized to act on behalf of another person or a government and, in the case of an organization or government, includes a servant or employee, and a partner, director, officer, manager, and representative;
(2) the term “government agency” means a subdivision of the executive, legislative, judicial, or other branch of government, including a department, independent establishment, commission, administration, authority, board, and bureau, and a corporation or other legal entity established, and subject to control, by a government or governments for the execution of a governmental or intergovernmental program;
(3) the term “local” means of or pertaining to a political subdivision within a State;
(4) the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States; and
(5) the term “in any one-year period” means a continuous period that commences no earlier than twelve months before the commission of the offense or that ends no later than twelve months after the commission of the offense. Such period may include time both before and after the commission of the offense.

It seems to me like the exception in (c) provides a lot of wiggleroom for the defense and in some ways neutralizes the entire statute.
 
Last edited:
You should volunteer to represent the accused coaches pro bono !
 
I don't think the FBI would arrest these guys if they didn't know the law themselves.
 
Back
Top