Neither Brand nor Zhao have any connection to the sprawling case dubbed “Operation Varsity Blues” by federal prosecutors in Boston, though that also involved wealthy parents allegedly paying to gain their children admission to elite colleges. That scheme, orchestrated by college counselor William “Rick” Singer, ensnared dozens of wealthy and celebrity parents—including actors Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin—who either paid conspirators to cheat on admissions tests or recruit their kids as athletes in sports they sometimes didn’t even play.
In the “Varsity Blues” scandal, many corrupt coaches had the sole power to pick athletic recruits and offer admission in exchange for bribes. At Harvard, a coach can only make recommendations to the admissions committee, which Brand did for Zhao’s sons.
‘Incentive to Recruit’
Harvard fired Brand after an internal investigation into the over-priced sale of his home in 2019. Suspicions about the sale by the city assessor were detailed in a series of news stories by the Boston Globe.
Between 2013 and 2019, prosecutors claim, Zhao paid off Brand’s car and mortgage, bought the coach’s $550,000 house in suburban Boston for almost $1 million, paid a contractor $150,000 to remodel a more expensive condo Brand subsequently bought closer to Harvard, and spent more than $40,000 on tuition and student loans for Brand’s son to attend Penn State.
Stearns said Brand struggled financially, driving an ordinary car and living in an old house, before he connected with Zhao. The government has highlighted a 2013 email in which Brand allegedly told Ryjik that he could tell Zhao that his sons “don’t have to be great fencers” and that he just needed an “incentive to recruit them.”
Brand said Zhao’s older son would be “my no 1 recruit as long as my future is secured” in a later email cited in court filings.
‘Not an Exchange’
“The evidence will show these payments were bribes,” Stearns said in court.
The defense claims the money was loaned to Brand, and Packard told the jury he would present evidence showing that Zhao and his wife often made large loans to friends “based on their life experiences and culture.”
The money was “not an exchange, not a quid pro quo,” Packard said.
Brooks said Monday that Brand repaid Zhao with interest after receiving an inheritance and argued that the coach was not motivated by financial gain. Noting that Brand was a state social worker before becoming a fencing coach, the lawyer said his client was “clueless about money.”
The case is U.S. v. Brand, 20-cr-10306, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts (Boston).
This article was provided by Bloomberg News.