Of course some of these players may in fact be innocent. But you can expect the government’s case to be strong here. The prosecutors will probably be able to demonstrate that the medical/dental/chiropractic services detailed in these invoices submitted for reimbursement were not in fact provided. And the government almost certainly has the bank records, phone calls, emails, and text messages showing the transactions between Terrence Williams and the other participating defendants. There are probably several cooperating witnesses as well (i.e. former players who did not participate in the scheme though they were approached about it). So, most of these defendants – if not all of them – are likely to plead guilty. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of federal defendants do.

Sentencing at the federal level is an inexact science. There is no statutory minimum here, and sentencing judges will look to the federal Sentencing Guidelines for guidance. However, the sentences suggested by those Guidelines are merely advisory, and not mandatory or binding. In fraud cases, the biggest variable in the Guidelines calculation is the amount of loss (assuming these defendants mostly do not have criminal records already). The defendants will likely be in Criminal History Category I, on the left hand column of the sentencing table provided for by the Sentencing Guidelines. Their base offense levels for Wire Fraud/Health Care fraud would be six. See U.S.S.G. 2B1.1. But then, you would have to add an additional offense level for the amount of fraud. There is some debate about whether this number should reflect “actual loss” or “intended loss,” which would make a difference here as the intended loss (i.e. the amount of false invoices submitted) was $3.9 million overall, but the actual loss was $2.5 million overall. Theoretically, each member of the group could be held responsible for the entire $3.9 million, as they were co-conspirators in a group effort to defraud the HRA. However, normally, in fraud cases, defendants are held accountable, so to speak, for the amount of money they themselves were actually involved in stealing (though that is not always the case, it is a fuzzy question of foreseeability). Terrence Williams, however, as the mastermind of the scheme, would probably have to add at least 16 levels to his sentencing offense level, in light of his being in charge of the entire scheme. Additionally, “masterminds” or managers of criminal enterprises can have their sentencing levels increased by another four levels. Pleading guilty tends to get a defendant an overall three-level reduction in sentencing offense level, so Terrence Williams could find himself at a suggested Guidelines sentencing range of 57-71 months (offense level 25), or roughly 5-6 years in federal prison.

Many of the other defendants are likely to have sentencing guidelines ranges of less than a year, meaning that they will have good chances of receiving sentences of probation. Judges, in addition to the Sentencing Guidelines, also must take into consideration a variety of sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). These factors include things like the history and characteristics of a defendant, and his educational and medical and rehabilitative needs, among other things. Generally, a judge must impose a sentence that is just and “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to serve the purposes of criminal sentencing. All of these defendants, should they be convicted, will also be ordered to pay restitution and/or forfeit the profits that they received from the scheme, as well.

Defendants in these sorts of cases can sometimes argue that they were unaware of the illegality of their actions, but that argument is rarely viable or plausible. They might also allege that someone else submitted the false claims on their behalf without their permission. Most defendants, however, simply make the best cases that they can to get non-jail sentences with restitution (i.e. repayment) of the fraudulent profits. Some defendants also choose to act as cooperating witnesses against defendants or health care providers in return for leniency. These options must be discussed with an experienced attorney.

Matthew Galluzzo is a federal criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan prosecutor with experience defending people against federal charges of wire fraud and health care fraud. He is also a huge fan of the NBA and still plays in a weekly pickup game with middle-aged men.

If you or a loved one have been arrested or accused of the federal crime of wire fraud or health care fraud, give him a call to schedule an appointment.

The case began as many federal investigations do – with an undercover cooperator. Somehow, law enforcement investigators with the FBI identified William Rick Singer, the founder and chief executive officer of a nonprofit “college placement organization” called the Key, as a person engaged in unlawful activity. Though the precise details have not yet been shared, it is clear that they ultimately confronted him with the evidence of his illegal activity and made a deal with him: cooperate against the people who had enlisted his help in order to minimize his eventual punishment.

Mr. Singer then started recording his telephone calls and conversations with his criminal clients. Those calls apparently revealed a wide-ranging series of scams designed to get students into the schools of their choice. For example, Singer arranged for students who had struggled on the college entrance exams to get favorable disability diagnosis from an enlisted medical professional so as to get more time to take their tests. Then, he also arranged for the prospective students to take their college placement tests under the supervision of a paid-for proctor who either corrected their answers or permitted someone else to take their tests for them. Singer made arrangements to have students appear to be successful athletes when they were not, or flat-out bribed college athletic coaches into agreeing to tell the admissions office that they needed the students for their college sports teams. Some of the college coaches were allegedly paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to fraudulently accept students onto their teams (and therefore, into the school) without the relevant athletic credentials.

The evidence against some of these parents is going to be overwhelming and devastating. Of course the FBI is in possession of numerous recorded conversations about the details of the scheme, as well as emails and text messages, between the conspirators. There will inevitably be bank records and wire transfers showing the “donations” made by the parents to Singer in furtherance of the scheme. Some of the messages will be particularly damning; for example, the co-chairman of the international law firm Wilkie Farr & Gallagher, Gordon Caplan, is charged with paying Singer to help his daughter improve her college entrance exam scores, among other things. Caplan was allegedly recorded stating that he had no problem with the moral implications of his actions, but was only concerned about the consequences should he be caught. Statements like those make it virtually impossible to prevail at trial.

Some of these defendants may attempt to argue that they were unaware of what exactly they were paying Singer to do, or that there were other unrecorded conversations that paint their understandings in a different light. However, assuming that these defendants all eventually plead guilty, the next question is the sentencing exposure for the defendants. (Note: the ultimate charges are likely to be violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, and/or 1346).

The crimes with which these defendants are charged – mail/wire and honest services fraud – do not carry mandatory minimum prison sentences, meaning that they could receive non-incarceratory sentences. The sentencing judge will be required to consider the Federal Sentencing Guidelines in deciding how to sentence them, but the judge need not be bound by the recommendations set forth by those Guidelines. Most defendants can realistically expect to be sentenced within the Guidelines unless there are mitigating factors justifying a downward departure or reduction in the sentence.

The Sentencing Guidelines include a table with an X and Y axis that helps judges determine the appropriate sentence for a defendant. On the X axis lies the criminal history of the defendant. Given that the defendants appears to be wealthy professionals, it is probably safe to assume that they will all be classified as having the lowest criminal history score, Level I. On the Y-axis is the factor called the sentencing level, which corresponds to the seriousness of the crime.

To calculate the Guidelines sentencing level in a fraud case, one looks to 2B1.1 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The base offense level would be 6 in this case, and then the level is increased according to the amount of money at issue in the fraud. Here, with the parents having allegedly donated from between $200,000 and $6.5 million in fraudulent payments, the sentencing levels would be increased anywhere from 12 to 18 levels, resulting in base offense levels between 18 and 24. Typically, when one pleads guilty in federal court, however, a judge will credit a defendant with a 2-3 level reduction in sentencing level for “acceptance of responsibility”. U.S.S.C. § 3E1.1 (the 3 level reductions are for base offense levels at level 16 or higher). Thus, the defendants in this case might be getting sentenced in the range of Level 10-15. At Level 10, the Guidelines recommend a sentence of 6-12 months in prison, and at Level 15, they recommend a sentence of between 18-24 months in prison. Admittedly, there may be other factors that could influence the base offense level calculation, but that is a reasonable estimate at this stage.

Some people may scoff and say that there is no way that wealthy and powerful parents will actually go to federal prison. They may have a point. Pursuant to Section 3551, a judge is supposed to impose a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to advance the interests of sentencing. A good argument can be made that these individuals do not need to be incarcerated to protect the public. These defendants have been publicly shamed, and some, like Gordon Caplan, are likely to suffer other significant punishments, like disbarment. However, a judge needs to promote a healthy respect for the law, and arguably these defendants brazenly and knowingly cheated the system. Prison sentences may be necessary to send the appropriate message to other people thinking about trying to unlawfully bribe their children into an elite university. Also, the recent prison sentences imposed in the somewhat-comparable college basketball federal scandal suggest that these parents could realistically be looking at short but meaningful prison sentences.

The author, Matthew Galluzzo, is a former Manhattan prosecutor and current criminal defense attorney with the law firm of Matthew Galluzzo PLLC. He regularly represents defendants in federal criminal cases throughout the United States. He most often practices in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, where he is a member of the Criminal Justice Act panels.