Enquries into ‘cheating services’ offering tailored assignments to students led police to an apparent mortgage fraud. Several days into a four week proceeds of crime hearing, a deal was struck: $2.12 million handed over as proceeds of crime with no admission of guilt.
Police allege Steven Li and Fan Yang were in breach of both the Crimes Act and the Education Act with an assignment-writing service offered through their business: Assignment4U. Police estimate revenue totalling $4.69 million was generated over a six year period with an average price per assignment of some $406. The High Court was told students would lodge requests with Assignment4U setting out the assignment question, word limit, relevant text book sources and assignment deadline date. Higher payments were required both for assignments getting a better grade and assignments needing a quick turnaround. Production was contracted out to ghost writers. They received seventy per cent of the fee paid, with deductions if the assignment provided did not achieve the grade mark required. Disclaimers on Assignment4U’s website said their product should be used only as a study guide and not submitted as part of course work. Police said this disclaimer was a sham.
Police also allege Mr Li and Ms Yang, in conjunction with Jonathon Li and Aiqing Xiang, used fraudulent mortgage applications raising finance to buy properties in central Auckland. Police allege applications overstated their net worth. Sham rental agreements were provided as evidence of future income flows. The court was told they raised mortgage finance totalling $3.3 million.
No criminal charges have been laid in respect of either the alleged assignment fraud or the alleged mortgage fraud. Forfeiture of assets totalling $2.12 million was negotiated under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act. How payment is to be split between the four was not made public. The agreed settlement includes proceeds of crime payments payable by Pengju Chen ordered following an earlier court hearing.
Commissioner of Police v. Li and others – High Court (27.06.18)
18.132