Score:   1
Docket Number:   SD-NY  1:17-cr-00684
Case Name:   USA v. Evans et al
  Press Releases:
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that CHRISTIAN DAWKINS was sentenced to twelve months and a day in prison, and MERL CODE was sentenced to 3 months in prison, after having been found guilty in May 2019 of engaging in a scheme to bribe multiple NCAA Division I men’s college basketball coaches.  The defendants were sentenced in Manhattan federal court by U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos, who also presided over the jury trial.   Both sentences are in addition, and will run consecutive, to sentences previously imposed on both defendants by U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan for their roles in a separate scheme to defraud Adidas-sponsored universities by making illicit cash payments to the families of college-bound student-athletes and concealing those payments from the schools.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “Christian Dawkins and Merl Code have now been sentenced to prison a second time for their roles in corrupting the world of college basketball.  The sentences imposed this week should make crystal clear to other members of the basketball underground exposed during the various prosecutions brought by this Office that bribery is still a crime, even if the recipient is a college basketball coach, and one that will result in term of incarceration.”

According to the allegations contained in the Complaint, Indictment, Superseding Indictment, and evidence presented during the trial in Manhattan federal court:

Overview of the Scheme

DAWKINS and CODE agreed to pay bribes to various NCAA Division I men’s college basketball coaches in exchange for those coaches’ exerting their influence over the student-athletes that they coached in order to retain the services of DAWKINS and a new sports management business (the “Dawkins Company”) that he had recently started.

Prior to founding the Dawkins Company, from in or about 2015 until in or about May 2017, DAWKINS worked for a major sports agency recruiting high school and college basketball players as clients.  In connection with his work for the sports agency, DAWKINS paid bribes to Lamont Evans, who at the time was an assistant coach at the University of South Carolina, in order for Evans to exert his official influence over student-athletes he coached to retain the services of the sports agency that employed DAWKINS.  DAWKINS subsequently introduced Louis Martin Blazer III, a financial advisor who, unbeknownst to DAWKINS, was cooperating with the Government, and Munish Sood, another financial advisor, to Lamont Evans in order for them to continue paying bribes to him.    

In or about May 2017, DAWKINS was terminated from his job at the sports agency and started the Dawkins Company with Munish Sood and another investor who, unbeknownst to DAWKINS, was an undercover law enforcement officer (“UC-1”).  In order to recruit future clients, DAWKINS proposed, among other things, paying bribes to coaches at various NCAA Division I universities so that these coaches would steer their student-athletes to retain the services of the Dawkins Company.  DAWKINS thereafter proposed paying bribes to Emanuel “Book” Richardson, an assistant coach at the University of Arizona.  Soon thereafter, DAWKINS arranged for Richardson to travel to New York City in order to receive a $5,000 cash bribe.  Weeks later, Richardson requested an additional $15,000 from DAWKINS, which Richardson said he would use in order to secure the commitment of a top high school basketball player to attend the University of Arizona, who Richardson would then steer to retain the services of DAWKINS and his company.  DAWKINS arranged for UC-1 and Munish Sood to pay Richardson an additional $15,000 cash bribe in New Jersey in or about July 2017. 

In or about June 2017, DAWKINS introduced Sood, UC-1, and Blazer, among others, to MERL CODE, who at the time was a consultant for Adidas, in order for CODE to work with the Dawkins Company to recruit future clients.  During the initial meeting, DAWKINS, CODE, Sood, Blazer and UC-1 discussed, among other things, CODE’s ability to identify and connect the Dawkins Company with corrupt college basketball coaches willing to accept money.  At the end of the meeting, CODE received a $5,000 cash payment from UC-1 on behalf of the Dawkins Company. 

In or about July 2017, DAWKINS and CODE discussed by telephone, among other things, CODE introducing UC-1 to various men’s college basketball coaches at an upcoming recruiting event in Las Vegas, Nevada, and that CODE would be paid $5,000 for each men’s college basketball coach that he introduced to DAWKINS and UC-1.  CODE later sent a text message to DAWKINS containing a list of coaches that CODE had set up meetings with in Las Vegas, Nevada, including the dates and times of each of the meetings, for the purpose of DAWKINS and his company arranging to bribe them.  In advance of the meetings, CODE advised UC-1 and DAWKINS that they should tell the coaches they would meet with that they would be available to provide them with money in the future, including with respect to any future financial needs these coaches had in connection with recruiting. 

In Las Vegas, several coaches received cash bribes during their meetings with DAWKINS, and other coaches DAWKINS agreed to pay later as needed, in exchange for them using their influence to steer players to the Dawkins Company. Anthony Bland, an assistant coach at the University of Southern California, and an assistant coach from Creighton University -- two of the coaches that were on the list of meetings that CODE sent to DAWKINS by text message -- met with DAWKINS, UC-1 and Blazer in Las Vegas in July 2017 and accepted cash bribes.  During the meeting in Las Vegas, Bland accepted a cash bribe and confirmed that he would use his influence to steer student-athletes at the University of Southern California to retain the Dawkins Company.  During the trip to Las Vegas, Nevada, DAWKINS, Blazer and UC-1 also met with a third coach from Texas Christian University and paid this coach a cash bribe, as well. 

After these meetings, DAWKINS discussed with college coaches who had been bribed players that they could steer to DAWKINS and his new company.  For example, in August 2017, Anthony Bland, an assistant coach at the University of Southern California, facilitated meetings between DAWKINS and Sood, and the family members of a then-current student-athlete on the University of Southern California men’s basketball team, as well as a family member of a different student-athlete who was a rising freshman planning to play for the University of Southern California men’s basketball team the next season.  During a meeting on the campus of the University of Southern California in or about August 2017, Bland informed DAWKINS and Sood that if they continued to fund payments to family members of University of Southern California men’s college basketball players and recruits that Bland would use his position as an assistant coach to influence these players to retain the Dawkins Company.  

*                *                *

DAWKINS, 26, of Los Angeles, California, and CODE, 45, of Greer, South Carolina, were also sentenced to 2 years of supervised release. 

Mr. Berman praised the work of the FBI and the Special Agents of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.

The case is being handled by the Office’s Public Corruption Unit.  Assistant United States Attorneys Robert L. Boone, Noah Solowiejczyk, and Eli J. Mark are in charge of the prosecution.

Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today that LAMONT EVANS, a former assistant men’s basketball coach at the University of South Carolina (“South Carolina”) and Oklahoma State University (“OSU”), and EMANUEL RICHARDSON, a/k/a “Book,” a former assistant men’s basketball coach at the University of Arizona (“Arizona”), were each sentenced to three months in prison, and that ANTHONY BLAND, a/k/a “Tony,” a former assistant men’s basketball coach at the University of Southern California (“USC”), was sentenced to a term of probation, each for accepting cash bribes from athlete advisers in exchange for using their influence over the student-athletes they coached to retain the services of the advisers paying the bribes.  The defendants were sentenced this week in Manhattan federal court by U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “Anthony Bland, Emanuel Richardson, and Lamont Evans, all former men’s basketball coaches at NCAA Division I universities, abused their positions as mentors and coaches for personal gain.  They took bribes from unscrupulous agents and financial advisers to steer their players to those agents and advisers.  For their crimes, Richardson and Evans will serve time in federal prison, while Bland will serve a sentence of probation.  These convictions and sentencings send a strong message that bribery in the world of college basketball is a crime, and that those who participate in such crimes will be held accountable for their corrupt actions.”

According to the allegations contained in the Complaint, Indictment, Superseding Indictment, evidence presented during the trial, and statements made in Manhattan federal court:

Overview of the Scheme

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) have been investigating the criminal influence of money on coaches and student-athletes who participate in intercollegiate basketball governed by the NCAA.  The investigation revealed that numerous basketball coaches at NCAA Division I universities, including EVANS, RICHARDSON, and BLAND, received bribes and agreed to receive bribes in exchange for agreeing to pressure and exert influence over student-athletes under their control to retain the services of the bribe payers, including Christian Dawkins, Merl Code, and Munish Sood, once the athletes entered the National Basketball Association (“NBA”).  

Beginning in 2016, and continuing into September 2017, when EVANS was arrested, EVANS received approximately $22,000 in cash bribes from current and aspiring financial advisers and/or managers, including Dawkins and Sood, in exchange for EVANS’s agreement to exert his influence over certain student-athletes EVANS coached at South Carolina and OSU to retain the services of the bribe payers once those players entered the NBA.  In one meeting recorded during the investigation, EVANS explained how “every guy I recruit and get is my personal kid,” and that “the parents believe in me and what I do . . . that’s why I say, if I need X, so if I do take X for that, it’s going to generate [business] toward you guys,” referring to the bribe payers.  EVANS also stated in a call recorded during the investigation how this arrangement was “generating more wealth” for the scheme participants, because they were “able to scratch my back, scratch yours, and help each other with different things and . . . at the same time get compensated and then . . . just go from there.”  In return for the cash bribes EVANS received, EVANS, including at in-person meetings, attempted to pressure a player at OSU, and a relative of a different player attending South Carolina, into retaining the financial services of the bribe payers.

Beginning in or around February 2017, and continuing into September 2017, when RICHARDSON was arrested, RICHARDSON received approximately $20,000 in cash bribes from Dawkins and Sood in exchange for RICHARDSON’s agreement to exert his influence over certain student-athletes RICHARDSON coached at Arizona to retain the services of Dawkins and Sood once those players entered the NBA.  For example, in discussing his commitment to steering Arizona players to retain the bribe payers upon entering the NBA, RICHARDSON told an undercover FBI agent and others, during a recorded meeting, “I used to let kids talk to three or four guys, but I was like, why would you do that?  You know that’s like taking a kid to a BMW dealer, a Benz dealer, and a Porsche dealer.  They like them all . . . You have to pick for them.”  In return for the cash bribes RICHARDSON received, RICHARDSON facilitated a meeting between the bribe payers, including Dawkins and Sood, and a relative of a player attending Arizona for the purpose of pressuring that player to retain the financial services of the bribe payers.

Beginning in or around July 2017, and continuing into September 2017, when BLAND was arrested, Dawkins paid a cash bribe to BLAND in exchange for BLAND’s agreement to exert his influence over certain student-athletes BLAND coached at USC,  and to retain Dawkins’s and Sood’s business management and/or financial advisory services once those players entered the NBA.  In particular, as BLAND told Dawkins and Sood during a recorded meeting, in return for their bribe payment, “I definitely can get the players. . . .  And I can definitely mold the players and put them in the lap of you guys.”  As part of the scheme, BLAND facilitated a meeting between Dawkins and Sood and a relative of a player attending USC, and a meeting between Dawkins and Sood and a relative of a USC recruit, both for the purpose of pressuring those players to retain the financial services of Dawkins and Sood.

*                *                *

In addition to the prison sentences, Judge Ramos ordered LAMONT EVANS, 41, of Deerfield Beach, Florida, to pay forfeiture in the amount of $22,000, EMANUEL RICHARDSON, 46, of Tucson, Arizona, to pay forfeiture in the amount of $20,000, and ANTHONY BLAND, 39, of Gardena, California, to pay forfeiture in the amount of $4,100.  Each of the three defendants was sentenced to two years of supervised release, and EVANS and BLAND were also each sentenced to 100 hours of community service.

Christian Dawkins and Merl Code were each found guilty by a unanimous jury on May 8, 2019, of one count of conspiracy to commit bribery, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison.  Dawkins was also convicted of an additional count of bribery, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.  Sentencing is scheduled for August 15, 2019, before Judge Ramos.

Munish Sood, a financial adviser, previously pled guilty, pursuant to a cooperation agreement with the Government, in connection with this scheme and is awaiting sentence. 

Mr. Berman praised the work of the FBI and the Special Agents of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.

The case is being handled by the Office’s Public Corruption Unit.  Assistant United States Attorneys Robert L. Boone, Noah Solowiejczyk, and Eli J. Mark are in charge of the prosecution.

Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today the conviction of CHRISTIAN DAWKINS and MERL CODE for conspiring to bribe various NCAA Division I men’s college basketball coaches.  DAWKINS was additionally found guilty of a substantive count of bribery.  The defendants were convicted after a two-and-a-half week trial before U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos. 

DAWKINS and CODE were both previously convicted for their roles in a scheme to defraud an Adidas-sponsored university by funneling payments from Adidas to the family of a high-school college basketball player and then concealing those payments from the school.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “Today, Christian Dawkins and Merl Code were found guilty a second time for their roles in corrupting the world of college basketball, in this case for conspiring to bribe multiple Division I men’s basketball coaches.  And while their convictions mark the culmination of the criminal charges announced by this Office in September 2017, they should also make clear to those who might be tempted to engage in the sort of misconduct these prosecutions have only begun to expose:  that bribery is a crime, one this Office is prepared to charge criminally and prosecute to the full extent of the law.”

According to the allegations contained in the Complaint, Indictment, Superseding Indictment, and evidence presented during the trial in Manhattan federal court:

Overview of the Scheme

DAWKINS and CODE agreed to pay bribes to various NCAA Division I men’s college basketball coaches in exchange for those coaches’ exerting their influence over the student-athletes that they coached in order to retain the services of DAWKINS and a new sports management business (the “Dawkins Company”) that he had recently started.

Prior to founding the Dawkins Company, from 2015 until May 2017, DAWKINS worked for a major sports agency recruiting high school and college basketball players as clients.  In connection with his work for the sports agency, DAWKINS paid bribes to Lamont Evans, who at the time was an assistant coach at the University of South Carolina, in order for Evans to exert his official influence over student-athletes he coached to retain the services of the sports agency that employed DAWKINS.  DAWKINS subsequently introduced Louis Martin Blazer III, a financial advisor who, unbeknownst to DAWKINS, was cooperating with the Government, and Munish Sood, another financial advisor, to Lamont Evans in order for them to continue paying bribes to him.

 

In May 2017, DAWKINS was terminated from his job at the sports agency and started the Dawkins Company with Munish Sood and another investor who, unbeknownst to DAWKINS, was an undercover law enforcement officer (“UC-1”).  In order to recruit future clients, DAWKINS proposed, among other things, paying bribes to coaches at various NCAA Division I universities so that these coaches would steer their student-athletes to retain the services of the Dawkins Company.  DAWKINS thereafter proposed paying bribes to Emanuel “Book” Richardson, an assistant coach at the University of Arizona.  Soon thereafter, DAWKINS arranged for Richardson to travel to New York City in order to receive a $5,000 cash bribe.  Weeks later, Richardson requested an additional $15,000 from DAWKINS, which Richardson said he would use in order to secure the commitment of a top high school basketball player to attend the University of Arizona, who Richardson would then steer to retain the services of DAWKINS and his company.  DAWKINS arranged for UC-1 and Sood to pay Richardson an additional $15,000 cash bribe in New Jersey in July 2017. 

In June 2017, DAWKINS introduced Sood, UC-1, and Blazer, among others, to MERL CODE, who at the time was a consultant for Adidas, in order for CODE to work with the Dawkins Company to recruit future clients.  During the initial meeting, DAWKINS, CODE, Sood, Blazer, and UC-1 discussed, among other things, CODE’s ability to identify and connect the Dawkins Company with corrupt college basketball coaches willing to accept money.  At the end of the meeting, CODE received a $5,000 cash payment from UC-1 on behalf of the Dawkins Company. 

In July 2017, DAWKINS and CODE discussed by telephone, among other things, CODE introducing UC-1 to various men’s college basketball coaches at an upcoming recruiting event in Las Vegas, Nevada, and that CODE would be paid $5,000 for each men’s college basketball coach that he introduced to DAWKINS and UC-1.  CODE later sent a text message to DAWKINS containing a list of coaches that CODE had set up meetings with in Las Vegas, including the dates and times of each of the meetings, for the purpose of DAWKINS and his company arranging to bribe them.  In advance of the meetings, CODE advised UC-1 and DAWKINS that they should tell the coaches they would meet with that they would be available to provide them with money in the future, including with respect to any future financial needs these coaches had in connection with recruiting. 

In Las Vegas, several coaches received cash bribes during their meetings with DAWKINS in exchange for agreeing to use their influence to steer players on their teams to the Dawkins Company.  In particular, Anthony Bland, an assistant coach at the University of Southern California, and an assistant coach from Creighton University -- two of the coaches that were on the list of meetings that CODE sent to DAWKINS by text message -- met with DAWKINS, UC-1, and Blazer in Las Vegas in July 2017 and accepted cash bribes.  During the meeting in Las Vegas, Bland accepted a cash bribe and confirmed that he would use his influence to steer student-athletes at the University of Southern California to retain the Dawkins Company.  During the same trip to Las Vegas, DAWKINS, Blazer, and UC-1 also met with a third coach from Texas Christian University and paid this coach a cash bribe, as well. 

After these meetings, and consistent with the bribery scheme, DAWKINS continued to discuss with these corrupt college coaches players that they could steer to DAWKINS and his new company.  For example, in August 2017, Bland, facilitated meetings between DAWKINS, Sood, and the family members of a then-current student-athlete on the University of Southern California men’s basketball team, as well as a family member of a different student-athlete who was a rising freshman planning to play for the University of Southern California men’s basketball team the next season.  During a meeting on the campus of the University of Southern California in August 2017, Bland also informed DAWKINS and Sood that if they continued to fund payments to family members of University of Southern California men’s college basketball players and recruits that Bland would use his position as an assistant coach in order to influence these players to retain the Dawkins Company.  

*                *                *

DAWKINS, 26, of Atlanta, Georgia, and CODE, 45, of Greer, South Carolina, were each convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit bribery, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison.  DAWKINS was also convicted of a substantive bribery count, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.  DAWKINS and CODE were acquitted of the other charges in the Indictment.  Both defendants will be sentenced before Judge Ramos at a future date.

Mr. Berman praised the work of the FBI and the Special Agents of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.

The case is being handled by the Office’s Public Corruption Unit.  Assistant United States Attorneys Robert L. Boone, Noah Solowiejczyk, and Eli J. Mark are in charge of the prosecution.

Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today that LAMONT EVANS, a former men’s basketball coach at the University of South Carolina (“South Carolina”) and later at Oklahoma State University (“OSU”), pled guilty in Manhattan federal court today to taking approximately $22,000 in cash bribes from athlete advisers in exchange for using his influence over South Carolina and OSU basketball players to retain the services of the advisers paying the bribes.  EVANS pled guilty before U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos.   

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “Lamont Evans, formerly a men’s basketball coach at South Carolina and Oklahoma State, abused his position as a mentor and coach for personal gain.  Evans took bribes from unscrupulous agents and financial advisers to steer his players to those agents and advisers.  A scheme Evans apparently thought was a slam-dunk actually proved to be a flagrant foul.”

 According to the Complaint, the Indictment, statements made in court, and publicly available documents:

EVANS was a men’s basketball coach at South Carolina until on or about April 2016, and then at OSU until shortly after his arrest.  Beginning in 2016, and continuing into September 2017, when EVANS was arrested, EVANS received approximately $22,000 in cash bribes from current and aspiring financial advisers and/or managers for professional athletes in exchange for EVANS’s agreement to exert his influence over certain student-athletes EVANS coached at South Carolina and OSU to retain the services of the bribe payers once those players entered the National Basketball Association (“NBA”).  

In one meeting recorded during the investigation, Evans explained how “every guy I recruit and get is my personal kid,” and that “the parents believe in me and what I do … that’s why I say, if I need X, so if I do take X for that, it’s going to generate [business] toward you guys,” referring to the bribers.  Evans also stated in a call recorded during the investigation how this arrangement was “generating more wealth” for the scheme participants, because they were “able to scratch my back, scratch yours, and help each other with different things and . . . at the same time get compensated and then . . . just go from there.”  In return for the cash bribes EVANS received, EVANS facilitated a meeting between the bribe payers and a player at OSU, and a meeting between the bribe payers and a relative of a different player attending South Carolina, for the purpose of pressuring those players to retain the financial services of the bribe payers.

In addition to today’s plea, Emanuel Richardson, a/k/a “Book,” a former men’s basketball coach at the University of Arizona, and Anthony Bland, a/k/a “Tony,” a former men’s basketball coach at the University of Southern California, both previously pled guilty, pursuant to plea agreements with the Government, in connection with this scheme.  Munish Sood, a financial adviser, also previously pled guilty, pursuant to a cooperation agreement with the Government, in connection with this scheme.

*                *                *

EVANS, 41, of Stillwater, Oklahoma, pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit bribery.  As a condition of his plea, EVANS agreed to forfeit $22,000.  The charge carries a maximum term of five years in prison.  The maximum potential sentence in this case is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the judge.  Sentencing is scheduled for May 10, 2019, before Judge Ramos.

Mr. Berman praised the work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Special Agents of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.

The case is being handled by the Office’s Public Corruption Unit.  Assistant United States Attorneys Robert Boone, Noah Solowiejczyk, and Eli J. Mark are in charge of the prosecution.

Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today that EMANUEL RICHARDSON, a/k/a “Book,” a former men’s basketball coach at the University of Arizona (“Arizona”), pled guilty in Manhattan federal court today to taking approximately $20,000 in cash bribes from athlete advisers in exchange for using his position to influence Arizona basketball players on his team to retain the services of the advisers paying the bribes.  RICHARDSON pled guilty before U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos.  

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “As he admitted in court today, Emanuel Richardson, a former Arizona men’s basketball coach, abused his position as a mentor and coach to student-athletes for his own personal gain.  Richardson, entrusted to help players develop as athletes and young men, instead helped himself to the cash offered by unscrupulous agents and financial advisers.”

 According to the Complaint, the Indictment, statements made in court and publicly available documents: 

RICHARDSON, a former men’s basketball coach at Arizona, agreed to accept cash bribes in return for agreeing to exert his influence over student-athletes on Arizona’s Division I men’s basketball team to retain the services of the bribe-payers once the student-athletes entered the National Basketball Association (“NBA”).  

Beginning in or around February 2017, and continuing into September 2017, when RICHARDSON was arrested, RICHARDSON received approximately $20,000 in cash bribes from current and aspiring financial advisers and/or managers for professional athletes in exchange for RICHARDSON’s agreement to exert his influence over certain student-athletes RICHARDSON coached at Arizona to retain the services of the bribe payers once those players entered the NBA.  For example, in discussing his commitment to steering Arizona players to retain the bribe payers upon entering the NBA, RICHARDSON told an undercover FBI agent and others, during a recorded meeting, “I used to let kids talk to three or four guys, but I was like, why would you do that?  You know that’s like taking a kid to a BMW dealer, a Benz dealer, and a Porsche dealer.  They like them all . . . You have to pick for them.”  In return for the cash bribes RICHARDSON received, RICHARDSON facilitated a meeting between the bribe payers and a relative of a player attending Arizona for the purpose of pressuring that player to retain the financial services of the bribe payers.

In addition to today’s plea, Anthony Bland, a/k/a “Tony,” a former men’s basketball coach at the University of Southern California, previously pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement with the Government, in connection with this scheme.  Munish Sood, a financial adviser, also previously pled guilty, pursuant to a cooperation agreement with the Government, in connection with this scheme

*                *                *

RICHARDSON, 46 years old, of Tucson, Arizona, pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit bribery.  As a condition of his plea, RICHARDSON agreed to forfeit $20,000.  The charge carries a maximum term of five years in prison.  The maximum potential sentence in this case is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant will be determined by a judge.  Sentencing is scheduled for April 24, 2019, before Judge Ramos.

Mr. Berman praised the work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Special Agents of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.

The case is being handled by the Office’s Public Corruption Unit.  Assistant United States Attorneys Robert Boone, Noah Solowiejczyk, and Eli J. Mark are in charge of the prosecution.

Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today that ANTHONY BLAND, a/k/a “Tony,” a former men’s basketball coach at the University of Southern California (“USC”), pled guilty in Manhattan federal court today to taking a cash bribe from athlete advisers in exchange for using his influence over USC college basketball players to retain the services of the advisers paying the bribes.  BLAND pled guilty before U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos.  Munish Sood, a financial adviser, previously pled guilty, pursuant to a cooperation agreement with the Government, in connection with this scheme.  

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “As he admitted in court today, Tony Bland, a former USC men’s basketball coach, abused his position as a mentor and coach to student-athletes and aspiring professionals.  He treated his players not as young men to counsel and guide, but as opportunities to enrich himself.  Now Tony Bland awaits sentencing for his crime.”

 According to the Complaint, the Indictment, statements made in court, and publicly available documents[1]: 

BLAND, a former men’s basketball coach at USC, agreed to accept a cash bribe in connection with agreeing to exert his influence over student-athletes on USC’s Division I men’s basketball team to retain the services of the bribe-payers, including once the student-athletes entered the National Basketball Association.   BLAND’s co-defendants, with BLAND’s knowledge and approval, also funneled additional money to USC student-athletes and their families in connection with efforts to sign these potential professional athletes.

Beginning in or around July 2017, and continuing into September 2017, when BLAND was arrested, BLAND’s co-defendants paid and/or facilitated the payment of a cash bribe to BLAND in exchange for BLAND’s agreement to exert his influence over certain student-athletes BLAND coached at USC to retain BLAND’s co-defendant’s business management and/or financial advisory services once those players entered the NBA.  In particular, as BLAND told Christian Dawkins and Munish Sood, during a recorded meeting, in return for their bribe payment, “I definitely can get the players. . . .  And I can definitely mold the players and put them in the lap of you guys.”  In addition, and as part of the scheme, with BLAND’s knowledge and approval, Dawkins and Sood paid or facilitated the payment of an additional $9,000 directly to the families of two student-athletes at USC.  In return, BLAND facilitated a meeting between Dawkins and Sood and a relative of a different player attending USC for the purpose of pressuring that player to retain the financial services of Dawkins and Sood.

*                *                *

BLAND, 38, of Los Angeles, California, pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit bribery.  As a condition of his plea, BLAND agreed to forfeit $4,100.  The charge carries a maximum term of five years in prison.  The maximum potential sentence in this case is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant will be determined by a judge.  Sentencing is scheduled for April 2, 2019, before Judge Ramos.

Mr. Berman praised the work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Special Agents of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.

The case is being handled by the Office’s Public Corruption Unit.  Assistant United States Attorneys Robert Boone, Noah Solowiejczyk, and Eli J. Mark are in charge of the prosecution.

The charges contained in the Indictment against Christian Dawkins, Merl Code, Emmanuel Richardson, and Lamont Evans are merely accusations, and Dawkins, Code, Richardson, and Evans are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.  Trial is scheduled to commence against the other defendants on April 22, 2019.

Code and Dawkins are scheduled to be sentenced on March 5, 2019, by U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan in United States v. Gatto, No. 17 Cr. 686 (LAK), based on their conviction for participating in a separate wire fraud scheme to make payments to the families of men’s basketball student-athletes in connection with their decisions to matriculate in Adidas-sponsored Division I schools.

 





[1] The descriptions set forth below of conduct by BLAND’s co-defendants constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation with respect to BLAND’s co-defendants, including Christian Dawkins, Merl Code, Emmanuel Richardson, and Lamont Evans.





Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17nS5TKBH2_RRcARO2P0zfs9gU2k_yMU9V0yBUmdHSFU
  Last Updated: 2025-03-11 15:56:23 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5

Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2

Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15

Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3

Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1

Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2

Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fifth highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE5
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE5
Format: A3

Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5

Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8

Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10

Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2

Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Magistrate Docket Number:   SD-NY  1:17-mj-07119
Case Name:   USA v. Evans, et al
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5

Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2

Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15

Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3

Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1

Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2

Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fifth highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE5
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE5
Format: A3

Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5

Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8

Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10

Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2

Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
F U C K I N G P E D O S R E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E