the report, no doubt prepared by civil practitioners, suggested that no specific law or NCAA bylaw had been violated....Hmmmmmm...not so fast my friend....
federal criminal laws (e.g., mail fraud and wire fraud) make it a crime for people to execute or attempt to execute a "scheme to defraud" when certain fedderal jurisdictional elements are met, like the use of the mails, fed ex, or interstate wires are used, to further the scheme.
a scheme to defraud usually involves the intent to deceive, to make others believe what is not actually happening, usually to obtain money. (MEP ought to know all about this because this is most likely the kind of thing that put Nevin in prison.)
well, did you kinow? a scheme or artifice to defraud, under federal law also includes a sheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services (see, 18 usc 1346)
the question here is: did anyone at the ncaa (with Mep) engage in a scheme to defraud?, and if so who's the victim?
some (emmet) might argue the NCAA was victimized, it lost money, paying for legal services (weren't the disbursements orriginally identified as photocopying expenses?) or paying Nevin's commisary funds (perhaps identified as communication expenses).
If NCAA money was improperly spent, contrary to NCAA instruction or understanding, and if the truth had been made known, and the ncaa (as an institution) would not have authorized payment for the real reason the funds were spent the NCAA might be the victim (if were it shown that, in fact, the funds were actually used to subvert the bankruptcy proceeding and improperly secure deposition testimony, or to pay a witness under the table, and the NCAA if truth be known would not have allowed funding.)
a more esoteric theory of possible criminal liability involves the a scheme or artifice to deprive others of honest services, the question here is who's services. (this type of prosecution can best be understood with activities like bribery, where the public is deprived of the honest service of a public official, but the theory is not limited to that behavior.)
It could be argued, and i don't know how forcefully, that people, in particularl litigants, court officers, and personell in the bankruptcy court system, have the right to expect and receive the honest sevices of the bankruptcy court and its legal processes, according to its rules and procedures. If persons, lawyers, scheme to deprive others (e.g., bankruptcy creditors) of the honest functions of government court offices, someone might argue that a (new) scheme to defraud (again) made victims of the bankruptcy creditors and the court as well. A stretch ? maybe, but the equities here militate for some external consequences, outside just the santions of the bar associations. Some of the folks involved might not be lawyers and so would otherwise face no consequences.
Don't assume that all this has not crossed the mind of the bankrupcy judge. he has friend at the US attorneys office.
Anywho, time for all y'all (that's plural for y'all) time for all ya'll to lawyer up.
who's got the popcorn?
The truth is that no one knows.
The Cadwalader report says that enforcement did not violate any NCAA bylaw
s, but breached ethical standards that should govern investigations. It appears that the NCAA has excised substantial parts of what would be the NOA directed to UM because of the ethical breaches and things like the entirety of Sean Allen's testimony will be out.
My guess is that the NCAA has to save face by continuing and concluding the process and that its findings ultimately will justify the bowl bans we put in place, plus maybe some small scholarship losses and a perhaps a period of probation. I don't know what happens to any coaches involved in the investigation.
![[]_[]](https://data.canesinsight.com/avatars/m/2/2310.jpg?1518149361){kind=avatar}