Predatory Student Loan Scheme Prosecutions
📘 What Are Predatory Student Loan Schemes?
Predatory student loan schemes involve deceptive, fraudulent, or abusive practices related to student loans or financial aid. This includes:
Misleading borrowers about loan terms.
Charging excessive fees.
False promises of loan forgiveness or debt relief.
Using high-pressure sales tactics.
Operating fake student loan companies or debt relief firms.
These schemes violate federal and state consumer protection laws, the False Claims Act, and anti-fraud statutes.
⚖️ Relevant Legal Framework
Truth in Lending Act (TILA)
Higher Education Act
False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733)
Federal Trade Commission Act
18 U.S.C. § 1341 (Mail fraud)
18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire fraud)
State consumer protection statutes
🔍 Detailed Case Law Examples of Predatory Student Loan Scheme Prosecutions
1. United States v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. (2016)
Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Facts:
Corinthian Colleges, a large for-profit education company, was accused of misleading students about their job prospects and the cost of their education, resulting in many students defaulting on loans.
Charges:
False Claims Act violations for fraudulently obtaining federal student aid.
Outcome:
Corinthian agreed to a $30 million settlement with the Department of Education and the FTC.
Significance:
One of the largest cases targeting predatory practices in for-profit education linked to student loans.
2. United States v. Student Finance Corp. (2018)
Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Facts:
Student Finance Corp. operated a debt relief scheme that falsely promised borrowers loan forgiveness and reduced payments for upfront fees.
Charges:
Wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) and mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341).
Outcome:
The company’s owner was convicted and sentenced to 5 years in prison.
Significance:
Highlighted enforcement against scams targeting vulnerable student borrowers.
3. FTC v. Debt Relief USA (2019)
Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
Facts:
Debt Relief USA marketed fake student loan debt relief programs and charged high fees without providing promised services.
Charges:
Violations of the FTC Act and consumer protection laws.
Outcome:
Court issued an injunction, froze assets, and ordered refunds to victims.
Significance:
Demonstrated FTC’s active role in shutting down fraudulent student loan relief firms.
4. United States v. Scott C. Wilson (2020)
Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Facts:
Wilson operated a fake student loan company that convinced borrowers to consolidate loans through bogus programs, collecting fees but failing to deliver.
Charges:
Conspiracy to commit wire fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering.
Outcome:
Pled guilty and sentenced to 7 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Emphasized criminal penalties for operators of fraudulent loan schemes.
5. State of New York v. Aspire Resources (2017)
Court: New York Supreme Court
Facts:
Aspire Resources used deceptive advertising to lure borrowers into high-cost student loans and refinancing schemes with hidden fees.
Charges:
Violation of New York consumer protection laws.
Outcome:
Company fined $15 million and ordered to compensate affected borrowers.
Significance:
Illustrated state-level enforcement against predatory student loan practices.
6. United States v. EduLoan Solutions (2019)
Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Facts:
EduLoan Solutions promised student loan forgiveness programs and induced borrowers to pay upfront fees; no legitimate services were provided.
Charges:
Mail fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy.
Outcome:
Company executives convicted; sentenced to prison terms and ordered to pay restitution.
Significance:
Reinforced the criminal risks associated with fraudulent student loan relief operations.
🧩 Common Legal Themes in Predatory Student Loan Scheme Prosecutions
| Theme | Description |
|---|---|
| False promises | Misleading borrowers about loan forgiveness or repayment terms. |
| Upfront fees | Charging illegal upfront fees for services that are never provided. |
| Deceptive advertising | Using false claims in marketing to lure borrowers. |
| Use of wire/mail fraud | Employing electronic and postal communications to carry out scams. |
| Violation of federal/state laws | Breaking consumer protection, False Claims, and lending laws. |
⚠️ Challenges in Prosecution
Victims may be unaware they have been defrauded.
Complex financial arrangements require forensic accounting.
Scams often operate online or across state lines.
Some operators shut down and reopen under different names.
🧠 Conclusion
Predatory student loan scheme prosecutions involve both criminal and civil actions, focusing on protecting vulnerable borrowers from deceptive and fraudulent practices. Courts have imposed significant penalties on companies and individuals abusing the student loan system. The cases above highlight the importance of enforcement at both federal and state levels to deter such schemes.
RELATED Blog
0 comments