I don't buy it, but the article includes a quote that appears to attempt to address your concern:
> "Their true intent could not be clearer," Assistant U.S. Attorney Brandon Helms wrote in a sentencing memo this month for Rampeesa, one of the eight recruiters, of the hundreds of students enrolled. "While 'enrolled' at the University, one hundred percent of the foreign citizen students never spent a single second in a classroom. If it were truly about obtaining an education, the University would not have been able to attract anyone, because it had no teachers, classes, or educational services."
Their argument is that, because no student ever attended class, all of the students were knowingly attempting to commit fraud. That claim seems suspect, considering that there were no classes for the students to attend.
I suppose you could argue that, if a student found out that there were no classes and did not attempt to report the university or un-enroll, that they were complicit in the fraud, but still, what the hell?
> "Their true intent could not be clearer," Assistant U.S. Attorney Brandon Helms wrote in a sentencing memo this month for Rampeesa, one of the eight recruiters, of the hundreds of students enrolled. "While 'enrolled' at the University, one hundred percent of the foreign citizen students never spent a single second in a classroom. If it were truly about obtaining an education, the University would not have been able to attract anyone, because it had no teachers, classes, or educational services."
Their argument is that, because no student ever attended class, all of the students were knowingly attempting to commit fraud. That claim seems suspect, considering that there were no classes for the students to attend.
I suppose you could argue that, if a student found out that there were no classes and did not attempt to report the university or un-enroll, that they were complicit in the fraud, but still, what the hell?