College basketball’s sky probably isn’t falling: An FBI investigation primer

The FBI’s investigation into bribery in college basketball is unlikely to bring down the sport

Ever since Federal Bureau of Investigation officials and the United States Attorney’s Office announced the arrest and charging of 10 individuals, including four assistant coaches, associated with a college basketball bribery scheme last week, anxiety levels in the sport have been on the rise.

Rampant media speculation regarding which defendant could flip and overthrow the rest of college hoops has been buttressed by images of head coaches squirming as they fall asleep in fear that they could be next.

What’s missing from the current conversation, though, is a real understanding of how these type of investigations are conducted, so I spoke with an attorney who has worked closely with the FBI for nearly two decades in order to garner some background information regarding investigations and sort out what this one could potentially mean for college basketball.

The best starting point for us is also likely an endpoint of the FBI investigation.

“The biggest misconception that people have is understanding that for them to have a press conference like that indicates they had reached an important almost endpoint of the investigation,” the attorney told FanSided. “You do not have press conferences at the beginning of an investigation.”

Indeed, although both the FBI and the USAO suggested that their investigation is ongoing, it is likely they had run aground their leads involving those individuals charged in the complaints filed on September 26. Barring additional tips received via the FBI’s hotline (that the FBI would actually have to follow through on), it seems unlikely that a great purge is coming.

The retort to that conclusion is the general public’s assumption that the Bureau and the prosecutors involved will get one of the defendants to roll over on the rest of college basketball, but the truth is those discussions have almost certainly already occurred and did not bear significant fruit for one reason or another.

“If they had someone they thought they could flip to get more, they wouldn’t have had the press conference,” the attorney said.

In these investigations, the best carrot that prosecutors have to offer is the protection of the suspect’s reputation, but last Tuesday’s press conference took that away as, for example, the assistant coaches involved were simultaneously labeled cheaters and criminals.

To understand how the FBI flips an individual to generate additional charges elsewhere, you don’t have to look much further than this investigation. The FBI’s probe into the bribery scheme in college basketball began back in 2015 and nearly all of the charges that have been announced stem initially from the cooperation of a witness, “CW-1,” according to the complaints.

CW-1 is identified in those complaints as someone who “ran a business management firm that primarily serviced professional athletes, as well as a registered investment advisory firm that provided investment related services to CW-1’s clients.” The complaints note that CW-1 has been cooperating with the government dating all the way back to November 2014.

However, charges against CW-1, identified as Louis Martin Blazer III, weren’t filed until May 6, 2016, the date, according to the college basketball bribery complaints, that he agreed to settle those charges.

According to the attorney we spoke with, the Bureau would have “unquestionably” already had conversations with the individuals charged on September 26 prior to the filing of those charges to explore the possibility of cooperation. It is possible that those individuals simply could not offer additional viable information to investigators. Remember, “I heard Coach X is paying Player Y” is not sufficient evidence for the FBI. They need proverbial receipts like the wiretaps and conversations quoted throughout the complaints.

The other piece of the puzzle worth considering with regards to the press conference is that once the USAO announces the charges, anyone else involved in a similar scheme would tighten up to avoid getting caught. The government would also have to worry about the destruction of evidence that it could need to prosecute additional individuals. If you’re trying to discretely investigate a criminal conspiracy, you usually do not loudly and publicly announce that you’re doing so.

Beyond the low likelihood of a groundbreaking investigation into college hoops, the attorney suggested that there are minimal incentives for the FBI to get involved in a long, drawn out probe. The Bureau has approximately 13,000 agents aimed at investigating crimes across the globe and by far its biggest priority — suggested both by its budget and personnel allocation — is counterterrorism.

The FBI doesn’t “go on fishing expeditions, particularly for non-violent crimes,” the attorney said.

The Bureau also risks exposing itself to public criticism if it pursues such an investigation with extreme rigor, especially if members of Congress come to believe the FBI is treating colleges unfairly. The “why aren’t you doing something more important” crowd can be a tough one, especially if members of the FBI are tasked with testifying at Congressional hearings. In basketball terms, there isn’t much upside in conducting an extensive investigation. As the attorney noted, “Bill Self and Coach K are big deals to college basketball. They are not big deals to the FBI.”

Of note, there is some potential risk for the shoe companies mentioned in the complaints as they are much bigger fish than college basketball head coaches. That risk largely lies in the possibility that the FBI finds out similar payments are being made in international markets to foreign government officials, which could invoke the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, a law that carries significantly more jail time, larger fines and the potential to disgorge company profits.

Next: The bribery scandal's recruiting fallout

Certainly the biggest concern for college basketball fans is how this investigation might affect their team in relation to potential NCAA penalties. The attorney that I spoke with noted that if the NCAA wants to enforce possible violations of its bylaws, it will have to do so itself and based solely on the available public record. The prosecutors involved in the legal case likely have no interest in briefing a private entity like the NCAA. In fact, as Acting U.S. Attorney Joon H. Kim noted at the initial press conference, the NCAA found out about the investigation just like the rest of us.

Obviously we can’t be sure that the current investigation won’t lead to additional charges. The attorney I spoke with did not profess any direct knowledge of the college basketball bribery investigation, but their knowledge of FBI investigations in general formed over nearly two decades of experience suggests that current hysteria is likely misplaced.