Mystery parent paid $6.5 million to get children into top universities |

Mystery parent paid $6.5 million to get children into top universities

Carol Folt takes questions after being named as University of Southern California’s 12th president in Los Angeles Wednesday, March 20, 2019. The announcement comes a week after news broke of a massive college bribery scandal involving USC and other universities across the country. She will take office as USC’s new president on July 1.

Of the many outrageous allegations by federal prosecutors in the college cheating scandal, one stands out.

Someone paid $6.5 million to get his or her children into elite schools. But the identity of that parent — and details about which schools were involved — remains a mystery nearly two weeks after authorities in Boston filed the charges against dozens of wealthy individuals.

The lack of information about the money is more notable given that the charges go into close detail about the alleged actions of other parents, who are accused of bribing and cheating to get their kids into schools such as Yale, the University of Southern California and UCLA.

Prosecutors have mentioned the $6.5 million in payments at a news conference and in court. But they are not included in the hundreds of pages detailing the charges.

“The name was not divulged,” Christina Sterling, a spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney’s office in Boston, said in an email. “We did not tie the amount to anyone by name. That is not public.”

She declined to say whether the person who paid the $6.5 million is among those already charged. But that is unlikely because the court records show that none of the other parents allegedly paid anywhere close to that amount of money.

Many parents already facing charges are under increasing pressure to cooperate and assist prosecutors with bringing charges against others.

It remains unclear how many parents took part in the college admissions scam. Court documents said college fixer William “Rick” Singer had more than 700 clients.

The case accuses Singer, university coaches and more than 30 parents, including actresses Lori Loughlin and Felicity Huffman.

It centers on a Newport Beach, Calif., college placement firm run by Singer. Wealthy parents are accused of paying Singer to help their children cheat on college entrance exams and to falsify athletic records of students to enable them to secure admission to elite schools, including UCLA, USC, Stanford, Yale and Georgetown, court records show.

More than 750 parents used Singer’s services, according to prosecutors. While 33 have been charged, prosecutors have sent subpoenas to high schools in Southern California with names of students whose parents have not been charged, suggesting that authorities are preparing to expand the number of prosecutions, according to sources who have seen the documents.

Sources familiar with the investigation but not authorized to discuss it say several parents and their attorneys have been informed they are the subject of the federal inquiry.

In the charging documents, there also are unidentified people who made payments to Singer and various coaches but have not been charged.

The family of a person identified as only “Yale Applicant One” paid Singer $1.2 million, including $900,000 into his charitable organization. Singer, according to the documents, was introduced to the applicant’s family in November 2017 by a financial advisor. The girl’s father told Singer he wanted to make a “donation” for his daughter’s application.

Singer sent the girl’s admissions application to Yale women’s soccer coach Rudy Meredith, along with her art portfolio, and told Meredith he would change the materials from art to soccer.

On Nov. 17, Singer sent the coach a fabricated athletic profile for the student, making her the co-captain of an elite Southern California soccer club. Singer then got Laura Janke, a former assistant coach at USC, to create the phony credentials, according to documents.

“Need a soccer pic probably Asian girl,” prosecutors say Singer wrote in the email. “Jr National Development team in China … we saying she got hurt this spring so was not recruited til now.”

At the start of the new year, Singer sent Meredith, who had coached the Yale soccer team for more than two decades, a check for $400,000, drawn on the Key Worldwide Foundation charity account.

It was Meredith’s actions that led to the scam’s unraveling. Prosecutors say he solicited $450,000 from another parent, who had previously been charged with securities fraud and promptly gave up the coach’s offer, wearing a concealed microphone during a payoff meeting with Meredith in April 2018. The coach ultimately told federal prosecutors of his deal with Singer.

Yale said in a statement that one of two students linked in court records to the scam was admitted and currently attends the university, while the other was denied entry.

Meredith and Singer have been cooperating with investigators since last year, officials said. Meredith, who resigned from Yale in November, has agreed to plead guilty to wire fraud, honest services fraud and conspiracy. Singer has pleaded guilty to a series of related fraud charges.

Because authorities got the cooperation of the kingpin, court records show that prosecutors have some of the defendants on wiretaps talking about cheating and bribes aimed at getting their kids into elite colleges. Legal experts say that makes for a strong case and increases the likelihood of early pleas.

Usually, fraud refers to a scheme to obtain money from someone through a false promise. But in 1988, Congress expanded the anti-fraud law. A one-line amendment made it a crime to deprive someone of the “intangible right of honest services.”

In the college cheating scandal, prosecutors are alleging that parents deprived universities of their property — a slot in the school — by deception.

Categories: News | World
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.