“other than some money”? What more do you want? Most gain is ultimately measured in monetary terms whether or not it is actual cash.
As to the students who hired him, it may be that they were busted before having a chance to use the scores fraudulently to gain admission to a college. It could also be that it’s very difficult to prove that a single college entrance criteria (like a test score) made the difference between acceptance and not, or getting a scholarship or not. These are both just guesses, though, about a couple of things that a prosecutor would have to consider before leveling criminal charges at the kids.
Just before you take the test, the SAT probably requires that you sign a document testifying that you are who you claim to be. That would open up all sorts of fraud charges if you forge the name of someone else.
The legal definition of what constitutes a benefit, for starters.
We are talking about actions to “obtain a benefit.” Payment for taking the test would not be a benefit, it would be compensation, at least in my mind, relying on the M-W definition of a benefit.
I think the relevant section of the NY statute is section 2, " Pretends to be a representative of some person or organization and
does an act in such pretended capacity with intent to obtain a benefit
or to injure or defraud another; or"
I think the intent here was to defraud SAT. I’m not seeing how the accused in the OP obtained any benefits. The people the accused in the OP took the test for may or may not have obtained a benefit, but nonetheless the intent to defraud is clear, regardless of section 1 of the statute.
So is a guy who robs a bank gaining from the robbery, or being compensated for the work of preparing and carrying out the robbery? Or a guy who steals a work of art, and then sell it to a collector?
I don’t know why this is so strange to you. There are all kinds of acts of fraud in purely private settings that are punishable as crimes. To start with, consumer protection, fair dealing, and unfair trade practices laws.
There is significant and obvious harm in test cheating – very likely monetary harm – being done to the testing company, to schools that rely on the results, to the government and other providers of financial aid, and to the test-takers who didn’t cheat.
The statute does not define that term. I think a defense that tried to argue that the test-taker received no benefit would draw laughter from the court room. Can you point to a law dictionary or other source that draws the distinction between “benefit” and 'compensation" that you do?
OP I suspect you’re getting stuck on some kind of end/means confusion.
The students’ own purpose in commiting the acts (their end) was to cheat on the exam. That in itself is not a crime.
But the acts they undertook in order to cheat (their means toward their end) are, in themselves, crimes. The acts include use of false I.D. and intent to defraud.
As a parallel example:
I may kill someone in order to procure a kidney for someone else. But I’d be wrong to argue that the police were arresting me “for trying to save a life.” That’s not what they’d be arresting me for, after all.
Similarly, the police didn’t arrest anyone “for cheating on the SAT.”
However, several other versions of the stories donotsay that. In fact, the relevant portions appear to be quoting the DA.
It would make no sense for him to forge several, notoriously difficult to forge, NY state driver’s licenses when he could just make passable student IDs. Most SAT proctors would be familiar enough with a NY state license to spot a fake, and would likely have their own legitimate version to compare it to if they have any doubts. Why wouldn’t he take the path of least resistance? Accordingly, I think the first article made a mistake.
What benefit did he receive from the aggrieved party?
He was allowed to take their test under the fake name. Taking a test might not seem like a benefit but millions of people pay for that benefit each year.
I looked a little bit. I found a case where some one was sent to jail for 6 months. But it is really different than this case. The one I found was a guy was caught cheating and the SAT people invalidated his test. He sued to has the score reinstated. It later came out that he lied during the testimony and went to jail for perjury.
You’re playing with semantics. He was arrested and paraded in front of the nation for cheating on the SAT, period. Don’t try and rationalize it otherwise.
I don’t understand why people are getting so cranky at minkyhaha. His central question is a good one. People are caught taking the test for someone else fairly frequently. What usually happens is that the SAT test is invalidated, and that is it. No other penalties apply. You are allowed to take the test again. Why in this case were people arrested?
Most other times there is no penalty for cheaters.
I believe the answer as to why these people were arrested is that the high school decided not to keep quiet about the improper scores and notified the authorities.