Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Nealley and Rodriguez plead guilty, sentenced to two years in prison

Published: Thursday, June 25, 2009

Updated: Thursday, June 25, 2009 13:06

Jodie Nealley and her former co-worker Ray Rodriguez pleaded guilty on Friday to stealing close to a combined $1 million from Tufts in separate schemes.


Each received a two-year sentence in state prison, followed by five years of probation. Woburn Superior Court Judge Sandra Hamlin also ordered them to pay full restitution.


"The discovery last fall of the thefts by Jodie Nealley and Ray Rodriguez was a devastating blow to the university community," university spokeswoman Kim Thurler told the Daily in an e-mail. "Appropriately, justice has now been rendered."

Nealley, former director of the Office of Student Activities (OSA), stole $372,576 from student activity accounts between 2001 and 2007. Rodriguez stole $604,873 from the same funds in a separate scheme between 2005 and 2007.

"It was a harsh sentence, and obviously Ms. Nealley feels the same way," Nealley's attorney Howard Lewis told the Daily. "It will do no good for anyone or society for these people to be in jail … but it is what it is."

Nealley was immediately taken to prison from court and is currently serving in Framingham Women's Prison. "She's very upset," Lewis said.

But Nealley was anticipating going to prison immediately after the trial. Lewis had offered the court 120 days to serve immediately, "so I knew that if the judge didn't offer a stay, she was definitely going to jail," he said.

Meanwhile, Lewis added, "the co-defendant offered nothing."

Steven Goldwyn, Rodriguez's attorney, declined to comment for reasons of confidentiality.

"These two employees abused the access that they were given by the University to steal hundreds of thousands of dollars that was meant to help students," Middlesex District Attorney Gerry Leone said in a statement. Leone had sought a three-year prison sentence for Nealley.

"We want to thank Tufts University for referring this case to our office as soon as they uncovered this scheme and then working cooperatively with us to conduct a full investigation."

Leone spokesperson Jessica Venezia declined to comment on the judge's sentence, but she said her office was satisfied with the ultimate result.

"We believe the crimes warranted state prison time and the judge clearly agreed with that," she told the Daily.

Rodriguez is alleged to have used the stolen money for concert tickets and trips to such locations as Paris and New York. Hundreds of thousands of dollars went toward luxury items from high-end designers like Gucci and Prada.

Lewis told the Daily last month that Nealley's larceny was driven by a gambling addiction. Bank records show that she used the stolen funds at locations including Omaha Steaks and Whole Foods. A majority of the money, however, went to Foxwoods Resort and Casino.

"Jodie Nealley has a disease. She is addicted to gambling," he said. "All the money went there."

Nealley emptied her personal bank accounts and borrowed money from her partner and mother to gamble, Lewis said. She also took out a home equity line of credit.

"She only took money from Tufts as a last resort because she ran out of money," Lewis said.

As part of her probation Nealley is to continue attending Gamblers Anonymous meetings indefinitely. Prior to Friday's trial, she had been attending five meetings per week, Lewis said.

In an effort to avoid jail time, during the May 8 proceedings Lewis argued for a pre-sentence investigation to determine whether a probationary sentence would be adequate.

The investigation made no recommendation, but Lewis maintains that his client was the "perfect candidate for probation."

He added that he could understand the harsher sentence, given the economic climate and particularly in the wake of the Madoff scandal.

Chubb Insurance reimbursed Tufts for over $973,000 for the thefts, but the company has a right to collect the claims from the defendants, according to Thurler. Lewis and Nealley worked with Chubb over the past year to reach a settlement of $20,000, which she has already paid to the company.

Nealley now has only Tufts' $25,000 deductible left to pay as part of the restitution. Lewis said he offered to involve Rodriguez and Goldwyn, his attorney, in negotiations with Chubb, but Goldwyn did not return his calls.

Rodriguez will have to pay back over $600,000 in restitution within five years of being released from prison.

Lewis said Rodriguez' attorney had "set him up to fail," adding that Rodriguez will likely be in jail again if he cannot meet the payments.

Though Rodriguez stole significantly more than Nealley, Lewis said he was not surprised that they received the same sentence.

Nina Ford contributed reporting to this article.
 

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

9 comments Log in to Comment

Anonymous
Mon Mar 8 2010 23:18
I hope that I score a big embezzlement from Tufts, and all of you prison haters come to my rescue.
Not Kent
Thu Jul 23 2009 00:09
Kent,
I understand that some people feel non-violent crimes deserve non-violent punishments. In this case, Jodie Nealley has a disease, so perhaps prison isn't the best place for her. However, I fail to see your logic in using Bernie Madoff as an example of why not to imprison those who steal from others when it involves "typ[ing] things into a computer, writ[ing] things on pieces of paper, print[ing] things out, and buy[ing] things." Tufts is extremely fortunate to have insurance to protect itself and its students for situations like this. However, for the retired people and the charities involved in the Madoff scam, nothing will be the same. Hundreds of charities were counting on money from benevolent donors who had made pledges and could no longer donate because they lost their money in the despicable ponzi scheme run by Madoff. To these charities, medical, social, legal and educational, where people will be fired and those less fortunate will be left without badly needed services, what would you say to them? There is a real impact to what Bernie Madoff did, and this doesn't just affect the wealthy with the "out of sight, out of mind" mentality. The man stole from those who had no control over the situation, who depended on this money for stability in their lives and to provide for those who couldn't provide for themselves.
One of the reasons we punish in our society is to deter. I guarantee you now that Bernie Madoff is serving a 150 year sentence, those "with power," seeking to "guard it closely," will be wary of what the prosecution will throw at them if they are caught running a ponzi scheme or defrauding innocent investors in a similar manner to Madoff's scheme. Hopefully Neally's and Rodriguez's sentence will deter others acting similarly. Thinking outside the box can be a good thing, however, just make sure you've thought everything through before you post it to the Daily's website.
Your name
Wed Jul 15 2009 21:25
kent - what you just said is, without a doubt, the most insanely idiotic thing i have ever heard. at no point in your incoherent rambling were you even close to anything that can be considered a rational thought. i award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul
Jumbolaya
Sat Jul 4 2009 15:04
Sorry Kent, but going to Africa does not make you a philosopher. One good argument against sending those two to jail would be that the cost to the government of jailing them will exceed the benefit they or society receive by going to prison. I'm sure there are others, but honestly, save your naive musings on human nature for your LiveJournal.
kent
Thu Jul 2 2009 22:41
I did go to tufts, by the way, and perhaps my views are evidence of a slightly antisocial mentality, but the time I have spent overseas, especially in Africa, has shown me that humans have an incredible ability to adapt to their surroundings. Those with power guard it closely, because it can be taken at any time. It keeps them strong and vigilant and is, no surprise, the main source of most of the violence. In no way do I think in any possible situation, that prison sentences will be removed from white collar crime. I am just pointing out the face that violent crime and non-violent crime, are very different animals. If prison is the only option, because we just don't have any other way to punish them. (Loss of citizneship? Deportation?) Our country doesn't work that way. It seems that jail may be the only option. For some reason though, jailing a computer hacker seems wrong to me. It is absurd to say that Kevin Mitnick is more of a danger to his fellow man than most of the assault and battery cases that go throught the jail system on a daily basis. All other issues aside, the philosophical basis for jailing someone for a non-violent act just seems very wrong, even if is the only way to handle it.
kent
Thu Jul 2 2009 22:27
I know this crazy "outside the box" thinking scares you in your perfect, sheltered little lives...but predators exist in this world. It's time you put down your cell phone and your flashlight huddled in the corner of your dark bedroom and starting waking up to the fact that whether its illegal to be one or not, con men exist. People are simply not smart enough to fend for themselves in this world. In my opinion, they should be thrown to the wolves. If you are so dependent on law enforcement to come to your rescue every time you get duped by someone while you were off watching HBO, then your probably wouldn't last very long doing business in any part of the world where the rule of law and the enforcement abilities of police are lower than that of the wealthiest few nations.
Anyone's smarter than Kent
Mon Jun 29 2009 20:41
Kent is an astounding idiot.
smarter than Kent
Mon Jun 29 2009 19:46
Kent is an idiot.
Kent
Mon Jun 29 2009 19:07
They should be released immediately. All they did was type things into a computer, write things on pieces of paper, print things out, and buy things. They never did any physical harm to anyone and therefore should not be in prison. All nonviolent offenses should be punishable with civil penalties alone. Forceful imprisonment should be reserved for individuals who commit crimes where another individual can be physicall harmed, NOT financially or emotionally harmed. If you tenrust someone with the keys to your castle or with the password to your bank account, it is ultimately up to you to ensure they act appropriately.

Example of crimes with potential to cause physical harm: Drunk/Reckless Driving, Assault, Rape, Murder, Breaking and Entering, Certain types of vandalism, Computer hacking that can actually (not maybe) cause phsycial damage, Failure to provide a PHYSICALLY safe environment (workplace or any public venue), arson, physical robbery (because the person you are stealing from has a right to physically protect their belongings and thus this brings the offense to a physical level), making threats with a weapon (because again this can elicit a physical response from the victim)
These offesnses should all come with mandatory prison sentences. Some sentences could be as short as a few days or weeks for the less serious ones. All other crimes, esp. white collar crimes should not involve prison at all.
Full restitution should have to be made of course and all other punishments such as probation should definitely be on the table. Using madoff as an example, most of his "victims" knew that they were getting something that most others didn't or couldn't. Their amazing investment returns came with a "out of sight, out of mind" attitude. They didn't want to know where the money was going or how they were beating the market, and many would not have batted an eyelash if they were told that their earnings were at the expense of other's losses. In this case, their earnings were at the expense of their own losses. Anyone who lost money with madoff, esp. the hedge fund managers, are just as guilty as the man himself, because they facilitated the ignorance is bliss mentatlity that funded his imaginary gains. Madoff was a con man, plain and simple. His con was painfully simple and its execution and daily operation was fragile as it was simple. If I put up a sign that says pay me and I might pay you back, its not my fault if I take ur money and run, its your fault for giving it to me in the first place. If you work for your money and want to guarantee that you won't lose it, then don't use it to speculate, for if you do, someone will be waiting to take it and run and you can't jail them for wanting to do so.

You must be logged in to comment on an article. Not already a member? Register now

Log In