United States v. Khoury

United States v. Khoury

Opinion

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CASPER, J.

I. Introduction

Defendant Amin Khoury ("Khoury") has moved to dismiss Count I of the indictment against him. D. 33. For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES the motion.

II. Factual Background

For consideration of a motion to dismiss an indictment, the Court presumes the allegations of an indictment to be true. United States v. Dunbar, 367 F. Supp. 2d 59, 60 (D. Mass. 2005); United States v. Bohai Trading Co., Inc., 45 F.3d 577, 578 n.1 (1st Cir. 1995). Accordingly, the Court summarizes the relevant facts based on the allegations in indictment, D. 1.

Georgetown University ("Georgetown") is a highly selective private university with athletic teams that compete in Division I. Id. ¶¶ 2, 6. Georgetown sets aside a specific number of admissions slots to each head coach of an athletic team for that coach's recruited student athletes ("Recruits"). Id. ¶ [*2]  7. Recruits have a substantially higher chance of being admitted than non-Recruits with similar grades and standardized test scores. Id. Georgetown expects Recruits to be contributing members of its athletic teams once enrolled. Id.

As alleged, in or about May 2014, Khoury agreed to pay Gordon Ernst ("Ernst"), then employed at Georgetown as the head men's and women's tennis coach, $200,000 in exchange for designating Khoury's daughter as a Georgetown tennis team ("Team") Recruit. Id. ¶¶ 4, 10(a). Ernst agreed to pay an unnamed tennis recruiter $10,000 to act as a middleman in the transaction between Ernst and Khoury, and Ernst understood that Khoury would also pay additional compensation to the tennis recruiter. Id. ¶ 10(b).

On or about July 21, 2014, Khoury emailed the director of college counseling at his daughter's high school that Ernst was "willing to energetically recruit" his daughter onto the Team. Id. ¶ 10(c). When Khoury's daughter later applied to Georgetown, on or about October 13, 2014, an accompanying letter of recommendation stated that she played number six singles and third doubles on her high school team, below the level of a typical Recruit. Id. ¶ 10(d). Several days [*3]  later, Khoury reiterated to the high school director of college counseling that he was in touch with Ernst and that "[i]t's looking really good." Id. ¶ 10(e). Then, on or about October 19, 2014, Ernst emailed a Georgetown admissions officer and named Khoury's daughter as a Recruit, suggesting that the director of college counseling at her high school approached him, but not disclosing his prior agreement with Khoury to designate his daughter as a Recruit. Id. ¶ 10(f). Ernst later forwarded Khoury's daughter's grades and standardized test scores to the admissions officer. Id. ¶ 10(g). On or about November 15, 2014, Khoury texted Ernst to ask whether his daughter should participate in a Georgetown alumni interview. Id. ¶ 10(h). Ernst told Khoury that she should participate in the interview and suggested that she tell the interviewer she wanted to play on the Team. Id. On or about December 9, 2014, Georgetown sent Khoury's daughter a letter explaining that the admissions committee had conducted an initial review of her application at Ernst's request and had rated her prospect of admission as "likely," which corresponds to a greater than 95 percent chance of later being admitted. Id. ¶ [*4]  10(i).

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.