Texas Tech Student Case 38-2006

Case 38 – 2006 The complications associated with case arose in trying to find who committed the crime and what the amount of stolen money totaled to. In trying to find out who was guilty, multiple options were presented within the context of the case. The case entry from the Department of Education only cites the owner of a student loan debt collection agency as the offender in the title. Reading further into the case, more offenders are cited. While the main focus of the case is the owner, the article briefly mentions that four of the owner's employees conspired along with him, and that they all had pleaded guilty whereas the owner elected to settle the claims against him in court. After working through the language of the court case, I was

The title of the case states “Texas Tech students” while the opening line of the article refers to only two students being indited. The article really only goes on to describe one those students too. It case brief ends by mentioning even more students. I was able to reconcile this issue though by realizing that the purpose of this case entry is just to highlight the specific indictment of two students. This case is just a part of a greater scheme. The other students involved, the ones only briefly mentioned, had all already plead guilty and been handled. For two particular students though, this case entry is concerned with new developments in connection to their crimes. Furthermore, the reason the entry focuses especially on one student is because he was one of the organizers of the scheme. We are also only provided the amount of money for this “part of the scheme.” The issue of who the offenders also factored into trying to determine the total amount of money stolen. The case provides the amount of money stolen for personal use by one student and the explicitly states a greater total stating that it is only for “this part of the scheme”. I elected to have $200,000 be the total amount again due to my reconciliation that this case is focused on and only concerned with a part of a greater

The case clearly states the total amount of money as 392,000 dollars, but the case mentions a variety of other numbers. The complication arises because there are multiple federal government departments, the Department of Education and the Department of Labor. The case provides one amount from the Department of Education and an additional sum from the Department of Labor. My concern was whether or not to include both. I ultimately decided to include both amounts because the case entry gives equal weight of discussion to both departments and both amounts were requested by the offender for supposedly educational reasons. They both then fall into category of higher education fraud. The amount stolen from the Department of Education is obviously within the boundaries of higher education fraud. The money stolen from the Department of Labor was requested under the guise of educational training programs and such. And because it was education related, I have included