When you "donate" a building, the school gets to use it. It blurs the line between legitimate and fraud because there's obvious benefits that transcend the arra

When you "donate" a building, the school gets to use it. It blurs the line between legitimate and fraud because there's obvious benefits that transcend the arrangement of a wealthy sprog. When you "donate" $1.2m to a "consultancy" you're just committing fraud. Nobody benefits except your kid and the "consultancy." It's much easier to prove that this transaction is fraudulent. So in this case the government is going after fraudsters because the government isn't getting paid, and neither is the school. I'd be willing to bet that the government would have continued looking the other way if a) the wealthy had paid taxes on their bribe or b) there was some indisputable asset one could point to and say "there's my donation!"