This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/11/us/parent-college-admissions-scandal.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
An Admissions Scandal Parent Got Probation. His Argument? Not Rich or Famous. An Admissions Scandal Parent Got Probation. His Argument? Not Rich or Famous.
(about 1 hour later)
BOSTON — In a case known for Hollywood celebrities and powerful business executives, Peter Jan Sartorio was different, his lawyer argued. The founder of a natural food company, he was neither rich nor famous, the lawyer said. When he was arrested on charges that he had paid $15,000 to cheat on his daughter’s ACT exam, he quickly told the court that he would plead guilty. And unlike some of the nearly three dozen parents swept up in the nation’s largest admissions prosecution, Mr. Sartorio issued no statements or news releases, his lawyer said, because “he doesn’t have a public image to maintain.”BOSTON — In a case known for Hollywood celebrities and powerful business executives, Peter Jan Sartorio was different, his lawyer argued. The founder of a natural food company, he was neither rich nor famous, the lawyer said. When he was arrested on charges that he had paid $15,000 to cheat on his daughter’s ACT exam, he quickly told the court that he would plead guilty. And unlike some of the nearly three dozen parents swept up in the nation’s largest admissions prosecution, Mr. Sartorio issued no statements or news releases, his lawyer said, because “he doesn’t have a public image to maintain.”
When the time came for Mr. Sartorio, a father from Menlo Park, Calif., to be sentenced on Friday, he indeed stood out, becoming the first parent sentenced in the case so far to avoid prison time. When the time came for Mr. Sartorio, a father from Menlo Park, Calif., to be sentenced on Friday, he indeed stood out, becoming the first parent sentenced in the case to avoid prison time.
The judge, Indira Talwani of Federal District Court in Massachusetts, sentenced Mr. Sartorio to a year of probation, and ordered him to perform 250 hours of community service and pay a fine of $9,500. It was the lightest sentence yet given to a parent, including the 14 days of incarceration given to the actress Felicity Huffman, who committed essentially the same crime — paying a corrupt college consultant to cheat on her daughter’s SAT exam.The judge, Indira Talwani of Federal District Court in Massachusetts, sentenced Mr. Sartorio to a year of probation, and ordered him to perform 250 hours of community service and pay a fine of $9,500. It was the lightest sentence yet given to a parent, including the 14 days of incarceration given to the actress Felicity Huffman, who committed essentially the same crime — paying a corrupt college consultant to cheat on her daughter’s SAT exam.
Sentences in the case have ranged from Ms. Huffman’s two weeks to five months for a parent who conspired both to cheat on the SAT and to bribe college athletic officials to designate his daughter as a recruit in a sport she was not qualified to play. All of the sentences, though, have been less than what prosecutors sought. In the cases of Ms. Huffman and Mr. Sartorio, prosecutors asked for sentences of one month in prison.Sentences in the case have ranged from Ms. Huffman’s two weeks to five months for a parent who conspired both to cheat on the SAT and to bribe college athletic officials to designate his daughter as a recruit in a sport she was not qualified to play. All of the sentences, though, have been less than what prosecutors sought. In the cases of Ms. Huffman and Mr. Sartorio, prosecutors asked for sentences of one month in prison.
On Friday, Mr. Sartorio’s lawyer, Peter K. Levitt, argued that Mr. Sartorio should get a lighter sentence than Ms. Huffman because he was not as famous or privileged. Any wish to send a message about how even celebrities are held accountable for crimes, his lawyer said, was irrelevant in Mr. Sartorio’s case.On Friday, Mr. Sartorio’s lawyer, Peter K. Levitt, argued that Mr. Sartorio should get a lighter sentence than Ms. Huffman because he was not as famous or privileged. Any wish to send a message about how even celebrities are held accountable for crimes, his lawyer said, was irrelevant in Mr. Sartorio’s case.
But the judge took pains to say that was not her reasoning for a period of probation.But the judge took pains to say that was not her reasoning for a period of probation.
Instead, it was a quirk of Mr. Sartorio’s case that made the judge see him as less culpable than Ms. Huffman. He had paid the college consultant at the center of the admissions scheme in cash, withdrawing the money from two different bank accounts in three separate transactions over the course of several days. Ms. Huffman, like the other parents who have pleaded guilty in the testing scheme, paid for the cheating by making a purported donation to a foundation set up by the consultant, William Singer, which claimed to help underprivileged children.Instead, it was a quirk of Mr. Sartorio’s case that made the judge see him as less culpable than Ms. Huffman. He had paid the college consultant at the center of the admissions scheme in cash, withdrawing the money from two different bank accounts in three separate transactions over the course of several days. Ms. Huffman, like the other parents who have pleaded guilty in the testing scheme, paid for the cheating by making a purported donation to a foundation set up by the consultant, William Singer, which claimed to help underprivileged children.
Prosecutors had cast this distinction as potentially worse for Mr. Sartorio because it showed him trying to avoid detection, but Judge Talwani viewed it differently.Prosecutors had cast this distinction as potentially worse for Mr. Sartorio because it showed him trying to avoid detection, but Judge Talwani viewed it differently.
Yes, the judge said, it showed that Mr. Sartorio was aware that what he was doing was wrong. But, she said, that was preferable to other parents who, by writing a check to an ostensible charity, attempted to obfuscate, even to themselves, what they were doing.Yes, the judge said, it showed that Mr. Sartorio was aware that what he was doing was wrong. But, she said, that was preferable to other parents who, by writing a check to an ostensible charity, attempted to obfuscate, even to themselves, what they were doing.
“Some people thought about it and realized it was wrong and went forward, and some people couldn’t be bothered to think about whether it was wrong or right,” she said.“Some people thought about it and realized it was wrong and went forward, and some people couldn’t be bothered to think about whether it was wrong or right,” she said.
“He is the only one in front of me,” the judge said, “who didn’t try to convince himself, let alone his tax accountant, let alone the U.S. government, that what he was doing was legitimate.”“He is the only one in front of me,” the judge said, “who didn’t try to convince himself, let alone his tax accountant, let alone the U.S. government, that what he was doing was legitimate.”
But Judge Talwani rejected the idea that she was sentencing Mr. Sartorio more lightly because he was less wealthy than some of the other defendants.But Judge Talwani rejected the idea that she was sentencing Mr. Sartorio more lightly because he was less wealthy than some of the other defendants.
“I am not here to punish rich people more than poor people — that’s not my job,” she said. “And to the extent this has been interpreted as, the richer you are, the worse you’re going to do, that is not the framework, and that is not the framework that I intended to convey.”“I am not here to punish rich people more than poor people — that’s not my job,” she said. “And to the extent this has been interpreted as, the richer you are, the worse you’re going to do, that is not the framework, and that is not the framework that I intended to convey.”
Mr. Sartorio was clearly pleased after he left the courtroom. “I’m happy with him,” he said, smiling and pointing at Mr. Levitt, before adding that he was “still shaking.”Mr. Sartorio was clearly pleased after he left the courtroom. “I’m happy with him,” he said, smiling and pointing at Mr. Levitt, before adding that he was “still shaking.”
Mr. Sartorio and Ms. Huffman each pleaded guilty to a single count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud.Mr. Sartorio and Ms. Huffman each pleaded guilty to a single count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud.
Prosecutors have not expressed disappointment with the sentences, though they have continued to ask for sentences longer than the judge has given out, despite criticism from her that they are ignoring the legal decisions she has already made and the need for consistency.Prosecutors have not expressed disappointment with the sentences, though they have continued to ask for sentences longer than the judge has given out, despite criticism from her that they are ignoring the legal decisions she has already made and the need for consistency.
In a recent television interview, the United States attorney from Massachusetts, Andrew Lelling, said his office was happy with the 14 days that Ms. Huffman received.In a recent television interview, the United States attorney from Massachusetts, Andrew Lelling, said his office was happy with the 14 days that Ms. Huffman received.
“We thought the one month was proportional,” he said, referring to the amount of incarceration his office had asked for. “I think the two weeks that she actually got was also reasonable. We were happy with that. I think it was a thoughtful sentence.”“We thought the one month was proportional,” he said, referring to the amount of incarceration his office had asked for. “I think the two weeks that she actually got was also reasonable. We were happy with that. I think it was a thoughtful sentence.”