Annice Kpana thanks a bride for making her her bridesmaid, and in so doing explains her class attendance policy at Columbia.

Is this the same Annice Kpana who in 2010 filed for Porsche Cayenne-related bankruptcy?

Today Annice Kpana was arrested, along with a Columbia University financial aid director and two other women. She was part of a convoluted but rewarding scheme in which the financial aid director

funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to the three students between 2013 and 2017, inflating their cost-of-attendance figures on forms in years where they weren’t enrolled in any courses so they could obtain large stipends. In turn, according to the complaint, they paid her back with kickbacks in tens of thousands of dollars — sometimes including “love” or “Thank you!” in the memo line of personal checks.

So… the story is starting to bounce around big time, because it’s Columbia, and because it went on for a long while (some sources say it lasted much longer than four years). And because… why did it take the school so long to catch on? How did it finally catch on? There’s plenty more to know. Columbia hasn’t issued a statement.


From the full complaint:

“[D]uring several of these years, KPANA was also receiving federal student aid in connection with her enrollment at unrelated institutions.”

Trackback URL for this post:

9 Responses to “‘I met Marsha during my stunt attendance in a Masters course at Teachers College, Columbia University. I say “stunt attendance” because I was withdrawn from the course for obsessive absences – I was vacationing in Trinidad and Tobago during Carnival Time.’”

  1. Polish Peter Says:

    When I first saw it, I thought “obsessive absences” was a malapropism coined by this individual, but when you do an online search, you’ll find that it is a disturbingly common usage. Yikes!

  2. DRC Says:

    Obsessive absences? Interesting turn of phrase….

  3. Polish Peter Says:

    “Stunt attendance”, on the other hand, is an interesting concept, although I’m not sure where to go with it.

  4. charlie Says:

    Columbia was nailed about a decade ago for grifting students via the financial aid department. They paid a fine, but no arrests. The school still engages in the long con, they bust a few admins, but why in hell is anyone attending a joint that sees its students as marks?

  5. john Says:

    i have trouble seeing these students as victims here

  6. charlie Says:

    Students are victims to the extent that pigeon drop marks are victims. Grifters play on the greed, ignorance and gullibility of people. Doesn’t mean that a grifter ain’t a con, and it doesn’t mean unis ain’t conning their students…,

  7. john Says:

    universities may well be “cons” at various levels. this isn’t an example of such.

  8. charlie Says:

    Wrong. Why, after payin a million dollar fine for earlier corruption, did Columbia still have grifters in their financial aid department receiving kickbacks? Prior FA admins were also greased for student loan malfeasance. Don’t know about you, but it’s apparent a pattern of behavior has emerged.

    And, as always, whatever fallout comes from all this, students will end up paying for this daisy chain of joy. But you have to give CU credit, they stick to their business model…,

  9. john Says:

    seeing the students, who took many thousands of dollars illicitly in this case, as victims here is more than slightly strange.

Comment on this Entry

Latest UD posts at IHE