111. On or about June 5, 2017, CW-1 mailed Dvorskiy a check for $40,000, drawn on one of the KWF charitable accounts. On or about June 3, 2017, CW-1 mailed Proctor 2 a check for $2,000.
112. The following weekend, Proctor 2 again flew from San Jose to Los Angeles and purported to proctor the ACT exam for the HENRIQUEZES’ daughter at the West Hollywood Test Center.
113. After the exams, CW-1 mailed Proctor 2 a check for $4,000.
114. The HENRIQUEZES’ daughter received a score of 33 out of a possible 36 on the ACT, and scores of 720, 740, and 770 out of a possible 800 on the SAT subject tests for math, Spanish, and history, respectively.
115. In addition to cheating on the ACT and SAT exams, the HENRIQUEZES agreed with CW-1 to bribe Ernst, the head tennis coach at Georgetown, to designate their older daughter as a recruited athlete, in order to facilitate her admission to the university.
116. As part of that scheme, on or about August 19, 2015, CW-1 e-mailed ELIZABETH HENRIQUEZ and her daughter, directing them to send an e-mail with a “PDF of subject tests and transcript to Gordie Ernst at Georgetown using my message asap thanks.” Accompanying the e-mail was a message CW-1 had drafted for the HENRIQUEZES’ daughter to send to Ernst in her own name, stating, among other things: “I have been really successful this summer playing tennis around the country. I am looking forward to having a chance to be part of the Georgetown tennis team and make a positive contribution to your team’s success.” CW-1 has advised investigators that the information in the note was fabricated.
117. ELIZABETH HENRIQUEZ replied to CW-1’s message that her daughter was “on it.” The next day, the HENRIQUEZES’ daughter sent CW-1’s message to Ernst, who forwarded it to an admissions officer with the note: “Potential spot.”
118. On or about August 24, 2015, CW-1 circulated to ELIZABETH HENRIQUEZ and her daughter a draft application essay. The essay included no mention of tennis. Two days later, CW-1 e-mailed ELIZABETH HENRIQUEZ and her daughter again, advising that he was going to change the essay to “talk about tennis.” The final essay submitted to Georgetown falsely stated: “[B]eing a part of Georgetown women’s tennis team has always been a dream of mine. For years I have spent three – four hours a day grinding out on and off court workouts with the hopes of becoming successful enough to play college tennis especially at Georgetown. What is most amazing is how quickly I connected with Coach Ernst. He spent time with me while on campus and at several tournaments I played in.”
119. On or about October 22, 2015, the HENRIQUEZES’ daughter e-mailed Ernst her fraudulently obtained SAT scores.
120. The HENRIQUEZES’ daughter’s application was submitted to Georgetown on or about October 25, 2015. In addition to the falsified essay, the application falsely indicated that she played “club tennis” all through high school for 20 hours per week and 52 weeks per year, and listed her as having a “Top 50 ranking” in the United States Tennis Association (“USTA”) Junior Girls Tennis for her sophomore through senior years of high school, and as being on the USTA All-Academic Team for tennis for her junior and senior years. In fact, records obtained from the USTA do not show that she played at any USTA tournaments in high school.
14 At her best, she appears to have ranked 207th in Northern California in the under-12 girls division, with an overall win/loss record of 2-8.
121. On or about November 6, 2015—less than two weeks after submitting her application—the HENRIQUEZES’ daughter received a letter from Georgetown indicating that the university had “conducted an initial review of [her] application to the Class of 2019 at the request of Mr. Gordie Ernst, tennis coach,” and that her admission was “likely.” The HENRIQUEZES’ daughter was ultimately offered admission to Georgetown the following spring.
122. On or about May 4, 2016, the Henriquez Family Trust made a purported contribution of $400,000 to KWF. On or about May 9, 2016, CW-1 caused a donation receipt letter to be sent to ELIZABETH HENRIQUEZ stating that the gift would “allow us to move forward with our plans to provide educational and self-enrichment programs to disadvantaged youth.” The letter falsely stated that “no goods or services were exchanged” for the money.
123. Between approximately September 11, 2015 and November 30, 2016, KWF paid Ernst $950,000. CW-1 has advised that these payments were made in exchange for Ernst’s designation of the HENRIQUEZES’ daughter and several other students as purported tennis recruits, in order to facilitate their admission to Georgetown.
124. On or about October 24, 2018, CW-1 called ELIZABETH HENRIQUEZ at the direction of law enforcement agents and told her that KWF was being audited by the IRS. The following is an excerpt from the call, which was consensually recorded.
CW-1 Well, the reason I’m callin’ is-- So I’m in Boston now. And I just wanted to let you know that—
E. HENRIQUEZ You-- well, first of all, you didn’t-- sayin’ it right. Boston. Yeah.
CW-1 Okay. Excuse me. So, my-- so my foundation is getting audited now.
E. HENRIQUEZ Oh.
E. HENRIQUEZ Well, that sucks.
CW-1 Right. And they’re going back, like they always do.
E. HENRIQUEZ Yeah.
CW-1 Pretty normal. So, they’re taking a look at all my payments. So, they asked me about the large sums of money that came in from you guys.
E. HENRIQUEZ Okay.
CW-1 And so, essentially—
E. HENRIQUEZ For all the good deeds that you do.
CW-1 Absolutely. So, of course, I didn’t say anything-- you know, I’m not gonna tell the IRS that, you know, [CW-2] took the test for [your eldest daughter] or that Gordie—
E. HENRIQUEZ Right. Yeah.
CW-1 --or that Gordie-- you know, we paid—
E. HENRIQUEZ Like-- Yeah.
CW-1 --Gordie to help her get into Georgetown, right?
E. HENRIQUEZ Right.
CW-1 So I just want to make sure that you and I are on the same page—
E. HENRIQUEZ Okay.
CW-1 --in case they were to call.
E. HENRIQUEZ So what’s your story?
CW-1 So my story is, essentially, that you gave your money to our foundation to help underserved kids.
E. HENRIQUEZ You-- Of course.
E. HENRIQUEZ Those kids have to go to school.
125. In a call on or about November 5, 2018, CW-1 and ELIZABETH HENRIQUEZ discussed the ACT that the HENRIQUEZES’ younger daughter took in 2016 at the Houston Test Center and the multiple exams she took in June 2017 at the West Hollywood Test Center. The following is an excerpt from the conversation, which was consensually recorded.
CW-1 Okay. So, essentially [your younger daughter] came to Houston in October to ta-- in 2016 to take her tests with [CW-2]—
E. HENRIQUEZ Right.
CW-1 --and then I have it again that she-- in 2017, in June, we took it in L.A. because-- and it’s like-- and I don’t under-- and I’m trying to figure out wh-- what happened there because there’s money that went in my foundation and then there’s also a seven-- like a $75,000 credit. I think that’s when Manuel helped [the Northeastern applicant] get in Northeastern, but I’m—
E. HENRIQUEZ Right. I don’t know that deal a whole-- 100%. I know there was a deal you guys talked about but—
E. HENRIQUEZ Yeah. So, I think that that was it because-- right. And that went against the June one in L.A., which wasn’t [CW-2]. It was obviously the other situation.
CW-1 Okay, Okay. All right. And so—
E. HENRIQUEZ So we didn’t have [CW-2] for that. We had-- oh-- we had what’s his face [Proctor 2]. Uh—
CW-1 But it was an ACT test.
E. HENRIQUEZ Right.
CW-1 Wasn’t it?
E. HENRIQUEZ He did it again.
CW-1 Oh, we did it again.
E. HENRIQUEZ Remember the first one was-- no, actually, those-- remember those were subject tests, as well.
CW-1 But they couldn’t have been because—because in June-- so was June the subject test?
E. HENRIQUEZ Yeah. Those are the subject tests they take after they get out. Remember there was a-- it-- what did she take? English, history.
E. HENRIQUEZ There was a-- there was a math one because I know that-- that was one we really need-- it was like math B or II or whatever you call it. And then she also did Spanish, some Spanish and some English or history or something. Shit, I don’t remember. Getting confused between subject tests and AP tests.
CW-1 Yeah, because-- okay. Because—
E. HENRIQUEZ See, can I just looked back at her ACT stuff and get back to you? Like I-- I can look back in her file or just-- I can just ask.
CW-1 Okay, that would be great. That would be great. And then-- yeah, because I think that’s—
E. HENRIQUEZ I think that’s when he went back down in June. I don’t think it was another ACT. We stuck with the ACT.
CW-1 In October.
E. HENRIQUEZ Had, I think. Yeah.
CW-1 Okay. So why-- if you could go back and check that would be great.
E. HENRIQUEZ Yeah, that was subject test. I’m almost positive that was-- that was-- because that would be the time of year that would be.
CW-1 Right. That’s what I thought. That’s what I thought. But it looks like the date was on an ACT date, but I don’t know that. So, if you could check that would be great.
E. HENRIQUEZ Yeah. So, I will get back to you on that one. I’ll-- I’ll-- I can ask [my younger daughter]. She definitely will remember.
E. HENRIQUEZ Do you want—
CW-1 And then I know the first one was the-- in Houston. [CW-2] was there. Okay. So that’s what I needed to know. Okay.
E. HENRIQUEZ Yeah, that was easy. That one I totally remember.
126. ELIZABETH HENRIQUEZ later called CW-1 back to advise him, in substance, that she had checked with her daughter and that CW-2 had purported to proctor the ACT exam in Houston and that Proctor 2 had purported to proctor the exams at the West Hollywood Test Center. 127. Thereafter, CW-1, at the direction of law enforcement agents, called Proctor 2. In the call, which was consensually recorded, Proctor 2 confirmed that he had proctored the SAT subject tests for the HENRIQUEZES’ daughter in Los Angeles, that he had been paid $2,000 for doing so, and that he had answered questions for her during the exams.
128. On or about January 27, 2019, CW-1, acting at the direction of law enforcement agents, met with both MANUEL HENRIQUEZ and ELIZABETH HENRIQUEZ at their home in Atherton, California. In the meeting, CW-1 told the HENRIQUEZES that Williams, the Houston test administrator, had been subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury in Boston about students from out-of-state, including their daughter, who had flown to Houston to take the ACT in 2016. The HENRIQUEZES first discussed, in substance, what excuse they could offer about why their daughter had taken the exam in Houston, given that they live near San Francisco. CW-1 then told the HENRIQUEZES that there was no “paper trail” of money for that exam, due to the fact that MANUEL HENRIQUEZ had agreed to help the Northeastern applicant gain admission to that university. The following is an excerpt from the conversation, which was consensually recorded.
M. HENRIQUEZ Okay. So why did [my daughter] do the test there [Houston]? So, we gotta get into that story.
CW-1 So-- lemme, go into that. So, you’re right. That’s-- that’s part of it, right? So, Niki said to me, “Don’t worry about it. You know, these are the outta-state kids. Essentially, there’s nowhere where anybody knows--” Because in my books, it doesn’t show that there was any money paid for [CW-2] helping [your daughter] do the test. Okay? So, there’s nothing-- Because we did the deal with [the Northeastern applicant]. So [it] doesn’t show anything at all, in our foundation or anything, just so you know.
E. HENRIQUEZ So there’s no paper trail of money?
CW-1 There’s no paper trail of money. Okay? ’Cause remember we did that? And you helped? So.
M. HENRIQUEZ Right.
129. Later in the conversation, MANUEL HENRIQUEZ told CW-1 that if anyone asked about the testing, he would not answer them.
M. HENRIQUEZ So-- Well, the-- the question is that, anybody calls me, the response is that “I’m not gonna comment regarding my daughter’s Houston issue,” on simply getting a phone call from somebody. Uh—
E. HENRIQUEZ Well, remember she went there because she needed special—
M.HENRIQUEZ I understand.
E. HENRIQUEZ Accommodations.
M. HENRIQUEZ but I’m not gonna comment. We gotta be very careful—
E. HENRIQUEZ Yeah.
M. HENRIQUEZ --on just getting an inbound call from somebody. “I have no idea who you are. So, I’m not responding to an inbound call from anybody.”