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/2020/02/07/us/douglas-hodge-college-admissions-scandal.html

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
In College Admissions Scandal, Prosecutors Say One Parent Stood Out In College Admissions Scandal, Prosecutors Say One Parent Stood Out
(about 8 hours later)
BOSTON — Of all the wealthy parents charged in the sprawling college admissions scandal, prosecutors have described Douglas Hodge, the retired chief executive of the bond giant Pimco, as one of the most active and prolific people involved.BOSTON — Of all the wealthy parents charged in the sprawling college admissions scandal, prosecutors have described Douglas Hodge, the retired chief executive of the bond giant Pimco, as one of the most active and prolific people involved.
Most of the parents accused of paying to cheat on college admissions exams and bribing college coaches to designate students as athletic recruits were pushing, prosecutors say, to get one or perhaps two children into college.Most of the parents accused of paying to cheat on college admissions exams and bribing college coaches to designate students as athletic recruits were pushing, prosecutors say, to get one or perhaps two children into college.
But prosecutors have said that Mr. Hodge, one of the most prominent business executives involved in the scandal, went further, paying bribes to get no fewer than four of his seven children into elite schools, and attempting to do so with a fifth child.But prosecutors have said that Mr. Hodge, one of the most prominent business executives involved in the scandal, went further, paying bribes to get no fewer than four of his seven children into elite schools, and attempting to do so with a fifth child.
Mr. Hodge is expected to appear before a judge for sentencing on Friday. He has pleaded guilty to two counts — money laundering conspiracy and conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and honest services mail and wire fraud — in the case that has drawn in dozens of parents and coaches and was announced last March. On Friday, a federal judge sentenced Mr. Hodge, who pleaded guilty to two counts — money laundering conspiracy and conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and honest services mail and wire fraud — to nine months in prison, the heaviest punishment of any parent who has been sentenced in the admissions scandal to date.
Prosecutors are asking the judge to impose on Mr. Hodge the longest sentence in the case so far — two years in prison. It is unlikely he will receive a sentence that long, but he may get a longer one than the others. “I have in my heart the deepest remorse for my actions,” Mr. Hodge told the judge. But he added: “I do not believe that ego or desire for higher social status drove my decision-making. Rather, I was driven by my own transformative educational experiences and my deep parental love.”
The sentencing of Mr. Hodge comes at a critical moment. Twenty parents have pleaded guilty and 13 have been sentenced, with punishments ranging from no prison time to six months behind bars. Several parents, including the actress Felicity Huffman, who was sentenced to two weeks in prison for paying a consultant to cheat on her daughter’s SAT exam, have already completed their prison sentences. Mr. Hodge’s sentencing comes at a critical moment in the case that has drawn in dozens of parents and coaches and was announced last March.
Twenty parents have pleaded guilty, and now 14 have been sentenced, with punishments for the other parents ranging from no prison time to six months behind bars. Several parents, including the actress Felicity Huffman, who was sentenced to two weeks in prison for paying a consultant to cheat on her daughter’s SAT exam, have already completed their prison sentences.
Another 15 parents, including the actress Lori Loughlin, have pleaded not guilty and appear headed to trial, possibly this year.Another 15 parents, including the actress Lori Loughlin, have pleaded not guilty and appear headed to trial, possibly this year.
As some of those parents weigh whether to continue fighting the charges, the outcome for Mr. Hodge may provide an indication of how much the stakes are increasing the longer they wait.As some of those parents weigh whether to continue fighting the charges, the outcome for Mr. Hodge may provide an indication of how much the stakes are increasing the longer they wait.
In court filings, prosecutors described Mr. Hodge and three other parents, including the founder of a financial firm and an heiress whose father and uncle invented Hot Pockets, as “far and away the most culpable parents” to have pleaded guilty in the case. These parents, the prosecutors wrote, committed their crimes “from perches at the apex of money and power in the United States,” where they enjoyed “extreme, almost unfathomable privilege.” Prosecutors had recommended that the judge sentence Mr. Hodge to two years in prison. In court filings, they described Mr. Hodge and three other parents, including the founder of a financial firm and an heiress whose father and uncle invented Hot Pockets, as “far and away the most culpable parents” to have pleaded guilty in the case. These parents, the prosecutors wrote, committed their crimes “from perches at the apex of money and power in the United States,” where they enjoyed “extreme, almost unfathomable privilege.”
In addition to the two years they sought in Mr. Hodge’s case, prosecutors recommended relatively lengthy sentences for the three other parents, ranging from 18 to 26 months.In addition to the two years they sought in Mr. Hodge’s case, prosecutors recommended relatively lengthy sentences for the three other parents, ranging from 18 to 26 months.
According to the prosecutors, Mr. Hodge engaged in the admissions scheme more often and over a longer period of time than any of the other defendants. Over more than a decade, the prosecutors wrote in a sentencing memo, Mr. Hodge had paid $850,000 in bribes — $325,000 to a Georgetown University tennis coach to have his eldest daughter and son admitted to that school as tennis recruits, and $525,000 to have another daughter and son admitted to the University of Southern California as recruits in soccer and football with fabricated qualifications. According to the prosecutors, Mr. Hodge engaged in the admissions scheme more often and over a longer period of time than any of the other defendants. Over more than a decade, the prosecutors wrote in a sentencing memo, Mr. Hodge paid $850,000 in bribes — $325,000 to a Georgetown University tennis coach to have his eldest daughter and son admitted to that school as tennis recruits, and $525,000 to have another daughter and son admitted to the University of Southern California as recruits in soccer and football with fabricated qualifications.
At least three of these children have already graduated from the schools they were admitted to. Prosecutors have said that Mr. Hodge allowed his oldest daughter to become complicit in the scheme because the college counselor who arranged the bribes told her to “stay under the radar” and not let on during a Georgetown interview that she had already essentially been promised admission. Mr. Hodge’s lawyers have disputed the significance of that request and said none of his children were aware they were being falsely presented as athletes. At least three of these children have already graduated from the schools they were admitted to. Prosecutors have said that Mr. Hodge allowed his oldest daughter to become complicit in the scheme because the college counselor who arranged the bribes told her to “stay under the radar” and not let on during a Georgetown interview that she had already essentially been promised admission. Mr. Hodge and his lawyers have disputed the significance of that request and said that none of his children were aware they were being falsely presented as athletes.
Mr. Hodge’s lawyers have also disputed the prosecution’s assertions that he tried to engage in the fraud a fifth time, with a fifth child, saying that he was seeking to make a legitimate donation in that case.Mr. Hodge’s lawyers have also disputed the prosecution’s assertions that he tried to engage in the fraud a fifth time, with a fifth child, saying that he was seeking to make a legitimate donation in that case.
Over all, Mr. Hodge’s lawyers accused the government of trying to twist the facts and the law in pursuit of a heavy sentence. In court documents, they accused the prosecutors of a “single-minded obsession” with trying to get out-of-proportion punishments. They criticized prosecutors for lumping the four defendants together and for disregarding the length of sentences already given out in the scandal. And they accused the prosecutors of arguing, in essence, that Mr. Hodge should be punished more harshly because of his wealth and success. Mr. Hodge’s lawyers in their arguments accused the government of trying to twist the facts and the law in pursuit of a heavy sentence. In court documents filed ahead of the sentencing, they accused the prosecutors of a “single-minded obsession” with trying to get out-of-proportion punishments. They criticized prosecutors for lumping the four defendants together and for disregarding the length of sentences already given out in the scandal. And they accused the prosecutors of arguing, in essence, that Mr. Hodge should be punished more harshly because of his wealth and success.
Mr. Hodge’s lawyers also sought to place his actions in a more sympathetic light. They argued that the college counselor at the center of the entire admissions scheme had told Mr. Hodge that his money would go to support athletic programs and, in some cases, underprivileged college athletes. The college counselor, William Singer, who is known as Rick, has pleaded guilty to racketeering and other charges and is cooperating with the government. Mr. Hodge’s lawyers had also sought to place his actions in a more sympathetic light. They argued that the college counselor at the center of the entire admissions scheme had told Mr. Hodge that his money would go to support athletic programs and, in some cases, underprivileged college athletes. The college counselor, William Singer, who is known as Rick, has pleaded guilty to racketeering and other charges and is cooperating with the government.
“I did not set out to bribe or deceive anyone,” Mr. Hodge wrote in a letter to the judge. “My actions were motivated at the start by the false promise of being able to help colleges and universities and their athletic programs through donations, while at the same time helping my children. Once enamored of that idea, my deepest human failing was in not being able to step back from it — and to extricate myself — once Rick Singer’s scheme, with its quid pro quo payments and deceptions, became clear to me.”“I did not set out to bribe or deceive anyone,” Mr. Hodge wrote in a letter to the judge. “My actions were motivated at the start by the false promise of being able to help colleges and universities and their athletic programs through donations, while at the same time helping my children. Once enamored of that idea, my deepest human failing was in not being able to step back from it — and to extricate myself — once Rick Singer’s scheme, with its quid pro quo payments and deceptions, became clear to me.”
The lawyers suggested that Mr. Hodge was susceptible to Mr. Singer’s pitch in part because of his longtime habit of charitable giving. They wrote that he had given away more than $30 million to philanthropic causes, including funding the construction of schools and an orphanage in Cambodia, where his two oldest daughters had volunteered.The lawyers suggested that Mr. Hodge was susceptible to Mr. Singer’s pitch in part because of his longtime habit of charitable giving. They wrote that he had given away more than $30 million to philanthropic causes, including funding the construction of schools and an orphanage in Cambodia, where his two oldest daughters had volunteered.
They argued for a sentence at the low end of a federal guidelines range, perhaps three months or less. In his retirement, the lawyers said, Mr. Hodge is a stay-at-home caregiver to his two youngest children, while his wife works full-time running a foundation that the couple started, dedicated to mentoring girls and young women. Mr. Hodge would use his wealth, his lawyers suggested, to try to make amends for his crimes, saying that he would “redouble his efforts to provide educational assistance to children from disadvantaged backgrounds, at home, across the country, and around the world.” They had argued for a sentence at the low end of a federal guidelines range, perhaps three months or less. In his retirement, the lawyers said, Mr. Hodge is a stay-at-home caregiver to his two youngest children, while his wife works full-time running a foundation that the couple started, dedicated to mentoring girls and young women. Mr. Hodge would use his wealth, his lawyers suggested, to try to make amends for his crimes, saying that he would “redouble his efforts to provide educational assistance to children from disadvantaged backgrounds, at home, across the country, and around the world.”