A college basketball fixing scheme turned access to players into an advantage over sportsbooks and other bettors. AP’s Safiyah Riddle reports that Jalen Smith received a six-year federal prison sentence, the first penalty in a wider investigation of gamblers and athletes accused of profiting from deliberately altered games. Smith pleaded guilty to bribery and wire fraud charges earlier this year.
According to prosecutors, Smith helped fix games during the 2023–24 and 2024–25 NCAA Division I seasons by recruiting players to underperform in exchange for payment. Bettors then wagered against those players’ teams. The broader alleged scheme covered nearly 30 games and included teams at DePaul, Buffalo and Tulane, among others.
The recruitment mechanism matters. Prosecutors say players were offered payments typically ranging from $10,000 to $30,000 per game, exceeding what some could earn from legitimate sponsorships. Smith trained local basketball players for professional scouting combines and, according to prosecutors, used those connections in the scheme. The alleged advantage was not better sports analysis but access to people who could change the performance being wagered on.
The indictment accused Smith and at least 26 other named defendants of wagering millions and paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes. AP reports more than $3 million in fraudulent wagers and a $1.1 million restitution obligation for Smith, which prosecutors described as the gambling platforms’ losses. His sentence also followed a guilty plea to a separate felony gun-possession charge. His attorney said Smith accepted responsibility and apologized, and that the judge imposed less prison time than prosecutors sought.
The financial cost identified in the restitution order falls on gambling platforms; prosecutors also describe other gamblers being defrauded. Athletes drawn into fixing face criminal and sporting consequences, while teammates and spectators lose the assurance that the competition is genuine. The report concerns both legal and illegal betting and does not establish that legalization caused the scheme. It does show a concrete sports-integrity problem: a wagering market can reward coordinated underperformance, and a sentence arrives only after games and bets have already been compromised.