Saturday, December 23, 2017

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/21855825/lawyers-argue-fbi-findings-college-basketball-corruption-scandal-violate-federal-law
"The wire fraud statute prohibits 'schemes to defraud' victims, not schemes to help them," the motion said.
It is probably irrelevant because ultimately, in the public eye, it is about association with sleaze.  Maybe they'll hire LaVar Ball as a consultant.  Speaking of Ball, it sure is nice to have him and his family removed from college athletics.

In the meantime, these cases--Pitono's too--are just going to dump all over the NCAA.  We've already heard the gist:  the NCAA and my school let me do it.  Is that Adidas' official position too?

If I remember correctly there are transcripts, emails, checks, and a whole lot of other evidence.  Someone has to be lying.  Sure the government (no caps) can lose but recordings and photographs are tough to deny.

There's a good chance the government knows, or at least has experience with, the wire fraud statutes too.  You see it a lot and as illogical as it might seem it has teeth.  It is kind of a catch-all that works.  Here's a woman who got 20 years and a $54 million fine because of it.

There was a comment or post long, long ago on Mgoblog that said something like "everything lawyers say is a lie."  It was re-posted here many pages back and years ago.  The detailed comments were from someone who appeared to be an insider and they were awfully insightful.

And that's where it gets really interesting.  Of course everyone's entitled to their say and a vigorous defense.  But what are the implications?  Save your own ass and bring everyone else down is one option; looking like a fool and making everything worse is another.  This latter position may henceforth be known as the LaVar Ball strategy.  But seriously, it is a real pickle because you are literally fighting for your life.  Even a Chinese prison or administrative sentence isn't an option.  What are you going to do?

It is almost Christmas and it is not the time to look up statutes or even legal definitions.  But no, I don't think "defrauding" is OK as long as someone presumably stands to benefit.  More generally, defraud means to deceive, and more specifically, something having to do with money.

Will the Robin Hood defense work?

No comments:

Post a Comment