Huffman's Legal Troubles: Which Laws Were Broken?

In 2019, actress Felicity Huffman was sentenced to 14 days in prison for her role in a college admissions scandal. Huffman, who starred in the television series Desperate Housewives, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud. She was accused of paying $15,000 to boost her daughter's SAT scores, as part of a wider scheme involving wealthy parents, college coaches, and insiders at college testing centers. The scandal brought to light the lengths that some wealthy parents will go to in order to give their children an advantage in the competitive college admissions process.

Conspiracy to commit mail fraud

In 2019, actress Felicity Huffman was accused of participating in a college admissions scam, known as Varsity Blues, and was sentenced to 14 days in prison. Huffman pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud.

• An agreement between two or more persons
• To commit mail fraud
• An overt act committed by one of the conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy

In the context of wire fraud, the threshold for conspiracy charges involves a collaborative effort to intentionally deceive and defraud others using electronic means. It is important to note that one does not have to be the mastermind of the plan to be charged with conspiracy. Additionally, the fraudulent scheme does not need to have been fully executed or for money to have exchanged hands.

The specific elements that must be present for a conspiracy charge to stand are:

• An agreement to commit wire fraud: This agreement does not need to be formal and can be expressed directly or implied indirectly.
• The conspirators must have the intent to commit wire fraud: Each participant must have knowingly and willingly joined the conspiracy, understanding its objectives and intending to contribute to its accomplishment.
• An overt act must be taken in furtherance of the conspiracy: This act itself need not be unlawful but must connect to the achievement of the underlying crime – to commit wire fraud. These may include purchasing supplies for the planned crime, making preparations, or initiating communications related to the criminal activity.

Conspiracy to commit fraud is a serious offense that can result in severe legal consequences, including imprisonment and financial penalties.

Honest services mail fraud

In 2019, actress Felicity Huffman was sentenced to 14 days in prison for her role in what authorities called the largest college admissions scam ever prosecuted. Huffman was one of over 30 parents charged in the scheme, and was accused of paying $15,000 to the scam's mastermind to boost her daughter's SAT scores. Huffman pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud.

> "For the purposes of this chapter, the term scheme or artifice to defraud includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services."

The statute has been applied by federal prosecutors in cases of public corruption, as well as in cases where private individuals breached a fiduciary duty to another. Honest services fraud typically requires at least three people: someone who pays a bribe, someone who accepts the bribe, and someone who is harmed by the transaction. The person who accepts the bribe owes a duty to the third person, typically an employee or elected official. This duty can be a "fiduciary duty".

In the college admissions scandal, coaches owed a duty to their universities to find the best athletes for the school. They violated that duty by accepting bribes to promote students with no history of athletic ability. For example, Yale University women's soccer coach Rudolph Meredith pleaded guilty to violating honest services wire fraud. He was charged with devising a scheme to get money and property by fraudulently contriving admission to Yale through bribes and kickbacks, depriving Yale of its right to his honest services.

Honest services fraud can take many forms and involves many types of conduct, all of which fall within the scope of white-collar crime. Some forms include fraud involving financial institutions, breach of fiduciary duty for personal gain, and offenses that also entail violations of wire fraud statutes. It can involve people from both the private and public sectors and can be a consequence of public corruption.

The interpretation of the honest services fraud statute was first established in the Supreme Court case McNally v. United States, which held that honest services fraud applied only to tangible property. However, Congress disagreed with this interpretation and changed the statute to specifically include intangible property. After McNally, prosecutors increased their use of honest services fraud, which alarmed Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who rebuked the statute for its vagueness and expansive scope.

Finally, in Skilling v. United States, the Supreme Court took on the honest services statute directly. The holding in the Skilling case anchored the statute's meaning to pre-McNally cases, which required a bribe or kickback. John Skilling, the CEO of Enron, perpetrated a broad fraudulent scheme on shareholders and the public. He was found not guilty of violating the honest services fraud statute because his scheme did not involve bribes or kickbacks.

To be guilty of violating the honest services fraud statute, one must owe a duty of honest service to someone and have deprived that person or entity of the duty owed by accepting a bribe or kickback from another person. Examples include an elected official violating their duty to voters by accepting a bribe to vote a certain way.

Bribing college coaches

In 2019, actress Felicity Huffman was charged in a college bribery scheme alongside nearly 50 other people, including fellow actress Lori Loughlin. The scheme involved wealthy parents bribing college coaches and insiders at testing centres to help get their children into some of the most elite schools in the country. Huffman was specifically accused of paying $15,000 to boost her daughter's SAT scores.

Huffman and Loughlin were charged with conspiracy to commit mail fraud and wire fraud, with Huffman also charged with honest services mail fraud. The charges carried a minimum of five years in prison and substantial fines. Huffman was the first of the parents to be sentenced, receiving 14 days in prison, a $30,000 fine, 250 hours of community service, and a year of supervised release.

The scandal involved coaches at a number of prestigious schools, including Yale, Stanford, Georgetown, Wake Forest, the University of Texas, the University of Southern California, and the University of California, Los Angeles. A former Yale soccer coach pleaded guilty and helped build the case against others.

Prosecutors said parents paid an admissions consultant from 2011 through to last month to bribe coaches and administrators to falsely make their children look like star athletes to boost their chances of getting into college. The consultant also hired people to take college entrance exams for students, and paid off insiders at testing centres to alter students' scores.

The bribes were allegedly dispensed through an admissions consulting company in Newport Beach, California, founded by William Singer, who pleaded guilty to racketeering conspiracy. Singer was described as the mastermind of the scheme, facilitating cheating on standardised tests and bribing college coaches and administrators.

In total, 51 people were charged in the scandal, including 34 parents. The scandal exposed the lengths to which parents will go to get their children into elite schools and reinforced suspicions that the college admissions process is slanted towards the rich.

Inflating her daughter's SAT score

In 2019, actress Felicity Huffman was charged with conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud. Huffman was the first of over 30 parents to be sentenced in the college admissions scandal known as Operation Varsity Blues or Varsity Blues. She was accused of paying $15,000 to boost her daughter's SAT scores.

Huffman's daughter took the SAT at a private school in West Hollywood. Unbeknownst to her, Huffman and prosecutors say, the test proctor was paid by William "Rick" Singer, a college admissions consultant, to correct her answers after she finished the test. As a result, her score jumped 400 points above her PSAT performance to 1420 out of a possible 1600.

Huffman admitted that she had made a mistake and apologised for her actions. In a letter to the judge, she wrote:

> "I am deeply ashamed of what I have done... I especially want to apologize to the students who work hard every day to get into college, and to their parents who make tremendous sacrifices supporting their children."

Huffman's lawyers asked for no jail time, one year of probation, 250 hours of community service, and a $20,000 fine. However, the judge sentenced Huffman to 14 days in prison, one year of probation, 250 hours of community service, and a $30,000 fine. She was ordered to report to prison by October 25, 2019.

In her sentencing, the judge, Indira Talwani, criticised the admissions process for favouring wealthy students:

> "This is a system which does not have a pure meritocracy and a person in a position of wealth and position you are is in a much easier position in this meritocracy of college admissions... In a system of that sort, in that context, that you took the step of obtaining one more advantage to put your child over theirs."

Money laundering

In the context of this case, money laundering was a crucial tool to facilitate the larger scheme of college admissions fraud. By laundering the bribe money, Huffman and her husband were able to hide their true intentions and make their payment appear as a legitimate donation. This demonstrates the deceptive nature of money laundering and how it can be used to facilitate other illegal activities.

The consequences of money laundering can be severe, and in Huffman's case, it was a key factor in the college admissions scandal. By laundering the bribe money, Huffman was able to avoid detection and successfully boost her daughter's SAT scores. This not only gave her daughter an unfair advantage but also took away opportunities from other applicants who played by the rules. The use of money laundering in this scheme underscores the importance of transparency and accountability in financial transactions, especially when they involve educational institutions.

Frequently asked questions