FBI College Basketball Corruption Investigation

Status
Not open for further replies.
#1,201      

illinitiger

I
illinitiger
icengineer said:
That it does!! In other fields it's called commissions, bonuses, finders fees, etc... Perfectly legal as long as you declare the income and pay your taxes on it. ;) The main issue is that there are employees of Federally funded institutions (schools) accepting bribes which is totally illegal. And the money used for the bribes is being laundered, or hidden, by various financial entities including agents, financial advisors, shoe companies, etc...
Click to expand...
found this law on agent trust.

doesnt exclude agent commissions, but does prevent agents from baiting student athletes or their associates with something of value before they sign a contract. If Lamont E. rec'd $ in advance, it would be a clear violation. Seems that if Lamont E. rec'd $ After agent contract signed, there would be no clear legal conflict.

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/statutes/sports-agent-responsibility-trust-act
 
#1,202      

Calvin

C
Calvin
illinitiger said:
OK,...apologize if I'm too geekish but Im really trying to understand the laws surrounding this stuff.

So given this legal explanation on bribe vs agent commission and assuming a legit agent (who claims commisions on their corp taxes)...

sounds like it would be legal for the agent to pre-pay an agent commission to Jawun Evans' mom or dad or previous AAU coach, but it is illegal for the asst coach (Lamont E.) to receive an agent commission since he works for a public institution ( OSU) that theoretically receives some federal funds as a learning institution, is that accurate?

Logically that would mean a non-public school such as Northwestern,.. the asst coach should be free to receive an agent commission anytime, since its not a public institution.

Is that accurate interpretation of the law?
Click to expand...

I am not a lawyer, but I don't think public/private is as you suggest. For example, Title IX applies to all educational institutions that receive federal funds, which I'm sure Northwestern does.

The issue is a person in a federally funded job, even if indirectly or partially or both, is engaged in bribery (not necessarily $, but anything that is greater than nominal value, such as an athlete's services). If the typical scheme is for an assistant coach to offer $ to an agent to 'deliver' an athlete to a university, and then reciprocate by sending that athlete back to the agent, that's a bribe.

Note that this type of arrangement could be done above board, were it not for the NCAA getting in the way (see the baseball or hockey draft as an example). It's a bribe because the parties are doing it in secret from their respective universities, which are using public funds. Because the universities are excluded, the coaches and agents are defrauding them, and by extension, the public.
 
#1,203      

illinitiger

I
illinitiger
Calvin said:
I am not a lawyer, but I don't think public/private is as you suggest. For example, Title IX applies to all educational institutions that receive federal funds, which I'm sure Northwestern does.

The issue is a person in a federally funded job, even if indirectly or partially or both, is engaged in bribery (not necessarily $, but anything that is greater than nominal value, such as an athlete's services). If the typical scheme is for an assistant coach to offer $ to an agent to 'deliver' an athlete to a university, and then reciprocate by sending that athlete back to the agent, that's a bribe.

Note that this type of arrangement could be done above board, were it not for the NCAA getting in the way (see the baseball or hockey draft as an example). It's a bribe because the parties are doing it in secret from their respective universities, which are using public funds. Because the universities are excluded, the coaches and agents are defrauding them, and by extension, the public.
Click to expand...
Thanks for well thought out response Calvin. Makes sense.

Next study is to better understand legalities surrounding a shoe company paying a mom or dad or aau coach who dont have any fed institutional affiliation.... paying for the family and/or kids future loyalty to the shoe co and associated schools.
 
#1,205      

Innocent Primate

I
Innocent Primate
For those of a legal bent, here is a copy (in pdf format) of one of the federal complaints with reference to a couple of the assistant coaches, which you can download to your computer. The complaint indicates the legal theories and statutory bases upon which the feds rely. (I assume these are the same as to all the assistant coaches.)

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/998756/download

I believe the basis for the charges against the shoe company personnel is fraud by use of means of interstate commerce (wire fraud). The fraud consists of the fact that bribes which rendered the athletes ineligible under NCAA rules were paid to athletes and their families to steer the athletes to certain universities. The contention is that the universities were defrauded as a result of extending benefits to those ineligible for such benefits.
 
#1,206      

illinitiger

I
illinitiger
Innocent Primate said:
For those of a legal bent, here is a copy (in pdf format) of one of the federal complaints with reference to a couple of the assistant coaches, which you can download to your computer. The complaint indicates the legal theories and statutory bases upon which the feds rely. (I assume these are the same as to all the assistant coaches.)

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/998756/download

I believe the basis for the charges against the shoe company personnel is fraud by use of means of interstate commerce (wire fraud). The fraud consists of the fact that bribes which rendered the athletes ineligible under NCAA rules were paid to athletes and their families to steer the athletes to certain universities. The contention is that the universities were defrauded as a result of extending benefits to those ineligible for such benefits.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info. So families and shoe companies committed fraud (offenders), and the universities were defrauded ( victims) in these shoe co. fraud schemes.

I didnt previously view the likes of Louisville as "defrauded" victim by the likes of Bowen's family and Adidas (or other shoe cos). I guess it gets a little uglier when the schools have knowledge of or request the shoe company influence.
 
#1,207      

Deleted member 16340

D
Guest
Deleted member 16340
An institution does not have to a public one to receive federal funding in some form. Plenty of private organizations, to include schools, receive federal funds in some form. The laws still apply.
 
#1,208      

geneseo

G
geneseo
Innocent Primate said:
For those of a legal bent, here is a copy (in pdf format) of one of the federal complaints with reference to a couple of the assistant coaches, which you can download to your computer. The complaint indicates the legal theories and statutory bases upon which the feds rely. (I assume these are the same as to all the assistant coaches.)

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/998756/download

I believe the basis for the charges against the shoe company personnel is fraud by use of means of interstate commerce (wire fraud). The fraud consists of the fact that bribes which rendered the athletes ineligible under NCAA rules were paid to athletes and their families to steer the athletes to certain universities. The contention is that the universities were defrauded as a result of extending benefits to those ineligible for such benefits.
Click to expand...

It might be interesting if one of the accused requested a trial and let the prosecutors explain the above to a jury. I'd also like to see one of the accused give the prosecutors exactly what they say they want, that is, to name names, not in the secrecy of a prosecutor's office, but in open court where they can't control the narrative. The damage to the revenue of the ncaa and its member institutions might reach into the billions.
 
#1,209      

EJ33

E
San Francisco
EJ33
icengineer said:
Why would the Feds give two hoots about NCAA violations? It's the money laundering and bribery which are federal crimes that they are policing. Sure, I can see how some NCCA violations come out in the course of things, but that will be incidental. The FBI couldn't care less about NCAA infractions, the vast majority of which are not crimes in the legal sense.
Click to expand...

This is the concern for coaches like Underwood. Agreed that it's not the main interest of the Feds, but it is part of the system that creates the space for illegal activities.

The illegal agent kickbacks, bribes, or whatever you want to call them are not going to come back on Underwood.
 
#1,211      

Deleted member 19448

D
Guest
Deleted member 19448
Cognitive dissonance is the phrase that comes to mind when reading that article.
 
#1,219      

TheGMan

TheGMan
TheGMan
Especially since, of all the colleges that are known to be involved and under investigation, the only one that I know that is being put in front of a grand jury is OSU. So either OSU did the worst actions, or is the only one that they can get anything on right now. Either way, it is just Illinois’ luck.
 
#1,221      

TheGMan

TheGMan
TheGMan
Normally I try to be level headed with these things. But this isn’t good. Underwood might not get brought into the bribery scandal. But this increases the chances that he gets hit with NCAA sanctions. At the very least for having lack of institutional control.
 
#1,222      

foby

foby
Bonnaroo Land
foby
icengineer said:
I wouldn't doubt that every single school connected to the case up to this point has received, or will receive, the same subpoena.

I don't think that this implicates Underwood any more than previously. This is all just a waiting game. And if this whole investigation has far reaching repercussions and creates massive turnover in the coaching ranks as some suggest, I think it will be a while. Like after the season. Until something happens, I think we just carry on as usual. If the hammer drops, it drops, and we deal with it then.
Click to expand...

The voice of reason. :thumb:
 
#1,223      

Deleted member 10676

D
Guest
Deleted member 10676
TheGMan said:
So basically Lamont Evans sang like a canary.
Click to expand...

They're all going to. Basketball coaches do not ever expect to face heavy prison time. That's why the estimate of coaches and asst coaches going down has ranged up to 150.
Those of you who think this isn't eventually going to touch Underwood are living in a dreamworld.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.