Another sentenced in college admissions fraud scheme
A California man has become the second affluent parent to be sentenced to serve jail time in relation to a wide-reaching fraud case involving college admissions. Devin Sloane, CEO of a Los Angeles water and wastewater treatment facility, was sentenced to serve four months, plus two years of supervised release, complete 500 hours of community service and pay a $95,000 fine in federal court in Boston on Sept. 24. He originally plead guilty to his charges in May.
Sloane is the second parent, the first being actress Felicity Huffman – who received a two-week prison sentence earlier in September – to be convicted of making fraudulent claims to a high-profile university as part of a scheme to get their children accepted into the school. A third parent, a Chinese foreign national, was also indicted on the same day of Sloane’s sentencing for allegedly paying $400,000 to get her son admitted into UCLA as a soccer recruit, despite never playing the sport competitively.
In Sloane’s case, not only did he knowingly defraud the University of Southern California (USC), he also lied to government officials at the IRS and directly conspired with the scheme’s admitted mastermind, William Singer, who is also awaiting trial. In total, there are 52 current defendants charged in connection with the college admissions scandal.
The Sloane case demonstrates another example of a wealthy parent utilizing outright fraud to trick a university into granting admission to their child. Sloane, according to federal prosecutors, took multiple steps to fraud USC into believing that his son was an aspiring water polo star, despite his son never playing the sport. He went so far as to purchase water polo equipment online, staged a fake photoshoot of his son playing the sport in their family pool, and then went so far as to hire a graphic design team to alter the photos to make it appear as though he were playing competitively.
The brazenness of Sloane’s case goes farther, as he paid $250,000 in a direct bribe to compromised USC officials to facilitate the fraud. When high school counselors of Sloane’s son – who knew he had never played the sport at any level – questioned how he was being recruited to play the sport at a collegiate competitive level, Sloane reportedly exhibited anger that he should even be questioned. Sloane would also cover up his bribe to USC by reporting it as a donation from his mother, who is deceased.
These cases demonstrate the importance of legal oversight
Just as the Felicity Huffman case sparked widespread outrage at how the accused parents in this fraud case demonstrated a clear lack of regard for going about the college admissions process in a legally honest way, Mr. Sloane’s sentencing will further set a precedent that these affluent parents – who it seems have behaved in a way that indicates they think spending lots of money is a means to subvert the law and normal societal processes – are not above the law.
While some may argue that the prison sentences being doled out do not match the crimes that have been committed, the fact that they are being held responsible for their crimes is at least a step in the right direction towards justice. To have each of these cases aired out will further drive the point home that such behavior is more widespread than many had possibly thought, and will mean more vigilance and oversight to prevent such activity from occurring in the future.