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 1 Version 2
In College Admissions Scandal, Prosecutors Say One Parent Stood Out In College Admissions Scandal, Prosecutors Say One Parent Stood Out
(about 2 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.
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. 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. It was the heaviest punishment of any parent who has been sentenced in the admissions scandal, though it fell considerably short of the two years that prosecutors had recommended.
“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.” “There is no term in the English language that describes your conduct as well as the Yiddish term of chutzpah,” Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton told Mr. Hodge before imposing his sentence. “You need to pay a significant and conspicuous price for unconscionable, egregious criminal conduct in order to deter you and others who can afford it from the blatant misuse of your good fortunes.”
The judge said that were it not for Mr. Hodge’s record of philanthropy and other good works, which his lawyers had sought to lay out in detail, he would have sentenced him to more than a year in prison.
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.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.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.
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.” Prosecutors had hoped that the sentence would send an even stronger message. In a sign of how much importance they placed on Mr. Hodge’s case, Andrew E. Lelling, the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, attended the hearing.
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. The prosecutors had argued to the judge that Mr. Hodge was uniquely culpable, engaging in the admissions scheme more often and over a longer period of time than any other defendant, and doing so from a position of immense privilege.
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. Over more than a decade, they said, 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 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. Referring to Mr. Hodge’s philanthropy, particularly aimed at expanding educational opportunities for disadvantaged children, a prosecutor, Justin D. O’Connell, said he did not dispute Mr. Hodge’s charitable acts, but he called the hypocrisy “stunning.”
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 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 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. At least three of Mr. Hodge’s children have already graduated from the schools they were admitted to. Prosecutors said that three of Mr. Hodge’s children had gained some insight into the scheme when it was happening. Mr. Hodge and his lawyers said his children were unaware and not involved.
“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.” Mr. Hodge’s lawyers also disputed the prosecution’s assertion 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 to Loyola Marymount University in that situation.
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. Mr. Hodge’s lawyers presented a different picture of him, as a devoted father, a man known for his integrity in business, and a generous philanthropist. In a speech in which he frequently choked up with emotion, one of Mr. Hodge’s lawyers, Brien T. O’Connor, described how, over the years that Mr. Hodge was engaged in the admissions scheme, he also gave away over $30 million, to causes including charter schools in California and an orphanage in Cambodia.
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.” He accused the prosecutors of saying that Mr. Hodge should be punished more harshly because of his wealth and success and urged the judge to reject that argument.
Mr. O’Connor also sought to put Mr. Hodge’s involvement in the admissions scheme in a more sympathetic light. He said the college counselor at the center of the conspiracy had told Mr. Hodge that his money would go to support athletic programs and, in some cases, underprivileged college athletes, making it seem to Mr. Hodge at first like “a win-win-win.”
Mr. Hodge’s lawyers asked for part of Mr. Hodge’s sentence to be served in home detention. In his retirement, the lawyers said, Mr. Hodge was a stay-at-home caregiver to his two youngest children, while his wife worked full-time running a foundation that the couple started, dedicated to mentoring girls and young women. The judge rejected the request.
Mr. Hodge addressed the judge in a short speech in which he only briefly became emotional, when he referred to his wife of 30 years.
“I have in my heart the deepest remorse for my actions,” he said.
He then 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.”