Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today that MELANIE WILLIAMS-BETHEA, the former director of financial aid at Teachers College, Columbia University, and two former Teachers College students, MAWULI HORMEKU and CARMEN CANTY, were sentenced to prison terms for their respective roles in illicitly obtaining hundreds of thousands of dollars from Teachers College through a years-long bribery and kickback scheme. WILLIAMS-BETHEA was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Alison J. Nathan, who previously sentenced HORMEKU and CANTY. The defendants received the following sentences:
MELANIE WILLIAMS-BETHEA
40 months in prison
MAWULI HORMEKU
12 months and one day in prison
CARMEN CANTY
3 months in prison
WILLIAMS-BETHEA pled guilty to conspiracy to commit bribery on October 17, 2018; HORMEKU pled guilty to committing bribery on July 26, 2018; and CANTY pled guilty to committing bribery on July 31, 2018. Two additional students who participated in the scheme, ANNICE KPANA and KYLA THOMAS, also have pled guilty and are scheduled to be sentenced later this month.
U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “These defendants exploited and stole from an institution of higher learning, taking money that was intended to help provide opportunities for individuals training to teach future generations. They cumulatively pocketed more than $2 million, and their prison sentences reflect the significant harm caused by their conduct.”
According to the Indictment, other filings in Manhattan federal court, and evidence presented in court at the sentencings:
From 2008 through 2017, the defendants engaged in bribery and kickback schemes resulting in the loss of more than $2 million from Teachers College. WILLIAMS-BETHEA, who was employed by Teachers College as the director of financial aid during the relevant time period, perpetrated the scheme by approving aid payments to HORMEKU, CANTY, KPANA, and THOMAS (collectively, the “Students”) far in excess of their actual need, and then obtaining portions of the unjustified aid allotments she approved as kickback payments from the Students.
Specifically, WILLIAMS-BETHEA approved excessive “cost of attendance” figures for the Students that did not comport with their actual needs or costs of living, which had the effect of increasing the amount of financial aid they were eligible to receive, and by then approving stipends for the Students up to – and at times exceeding – these inflated amounts. To facilitate some of the stipends, WILLIAMS-BETHEA created fraudulent stipend request forms for financial awards to the Students, which gave the appearance that professors or other administrators had requested stipends, when in fact they had not, and then approved the fraudulently requested stipends herself.
After WILLIAMS-BETHEA facilitated these awards of unjustified financial aid, HORMEKU, CANTY, KPANA, and THOMAS paid WILLIAMS-BETHEA nearly $1 million in kickbacks.
* * *
In addition to the prison terms, Judge Nathan ordered WILLIAMS-BETHEA, 49, to pay restitution and forfeiture in the amount of $2,067,349; ordered HORMEKU, 39, to pay restitution and forfeiture in the amount of $620,010; and ordered CANTY, 40, to pay restitution and forfeiture in the amount of $166,105.
Mr. Berman praised the investigative work of the Department of Education, Office of the Inspector General in this investigation.
This case is being handled by the Office’s Public Corruption Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Thomas McKay and Alex Rossmiller are in charge of the prosecution.
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 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
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Debbi Mayer, Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the U.S. Department of Education Office of Inspector General, Northeastern Regional Office (“ED-OIG”), announced today the unsealing of a criminal complaint charging four individuals, including the former Director of Financial Aid of a graduate school receiving federal funds (the “Graduate School”) and three students, with fraudulently obtaining hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Graduate School, bribery, and kickback scheme. MELANIE WILLIAMS-BETHEA, the former Director of Financial Aid, and student ANNICE KPANA were arrested this morning and presented today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses. Student CARMEN CANTY was arrested this morning in the Middle District of North Carolina, and student KYLA THOMAS, a/k/a “Kyla Britt,” was arrested this morning in the District of South Carolina; both are expected to be presented in those districts today.
U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “As alleged, for years, these four defendants took advantage of a federal program intended to assist those who need financial aid to make higher education a reality. The defendants’ alleged falsification of documents to show extreme financial hardship enabled the student defendants cumulatively to pocket hundreds of thousands of dollars for which they did not qualify. A substantial portion of this stolen money was allegedly kicked back to Williams-Bethea. Student loan fraud ultimately affects all students and taxpayers with increased fees and interest rates.”
ED-OIG Assistant Special Agent in Charge Debbi Mayer said: “Today’s action alleges that Melanie Williams-Bethea knowingly and willfully abused her position of trust for personal gain and recruited others to assist her in a fraud scheme that targeted the very students she was supposed to help. OIG Special Agents will continue to aggressively pursue those who seek to enrich themselves at the expense of our nation’s students. America’s students, their families, and taxpayers deserve nothing less.”
According to the Complaint[1] unsealed today in Manhattan federal court:
From 2008 through 2017, WILLIAMS-BETHEA, KPANA, CANTY, and THOMAS engaged in fraud and bribery schemes resulting in the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Graduate School. WILLIAMS-BETHEA, who was employed by the Graduate School as the Director of Financial Aid during the relevant time period, perpetrated the scheme by approving aid payments to KPANA, CANTY, and THOMAS (collectively, the “Students”) well in excess of their need, and then obtaining kickback payments from the students of portions of the unjustified aid.
Specifically, WILLIAMS-BETHEA approved excessive “cost of attendance” figures for the Students that did not comport with their actual needs or costs of living, which had the effect of increasing the amount of financial aid they were eligible to receive, and by then approving stipends for the Students up to – and at times exceeding – these inflated amounts. To facilitate some of the stipends, WILLIAMS-BETHEA created fraudulent stipend request forms for financial awards to the Students, which gave the appearance that professors or other administrators had requested stipends for KPANA, CANTY, and THOMAS, when in fact they had not, and then approved the fraudulently requested stipends herself.
After WILLIAMS-BETHEA facilitated these awards of unjustified financial aid, KPANA, CANTY, and THOMAS paid WILIAMS-BETHEA more than $350,000 in kickbacks.
* * *
WILLIAMS-BETHEA, 47, of Springfield Gardens, New York, KPANA, 35, of Valley Stream, New York, CANTY, 39, of Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and THOMAS, 39, Greer, South Carolina, each are charged with one count of conspiracy to commit bribery and fraud in connection with federal student aid, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison; one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison; and one count of bribery, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. WILLIAMS-BETHEA, CANTY, and THOMAS are each also charged with one count of fraud in connection with federal student aid, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison.
The statutory maximum penalties are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencings of the defendants would be determined by the judge.
Mr. Berman praised the investigative work of the Department of Education Office of Inspector General in this investigation, and thanked the Graduate School for its cooperation with the investigation.
This case is being handled by the Office’s Public Corruption Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Thomas McKay and Alex Rossmiller are in charge of the prosecution.
[1] As the introductory phase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Complaint, and the description of the Complaint set forth herein, constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.
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 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