$22 million siphoned from LAUSD in record-setting scam, D.A. says 42%

By Clara Harter64%

3/27/2026, 12:20:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Confirmation Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 23% saturation with 156 hits. Analysis detected 982 faulty-reasoning hits from 678 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 45.9% and a BS Rank of 42% (12,843 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 58.70% of the article peer group.

A former LAUSD employee is accused of directing $22 million in district contracts to a tech company owner who allegedly funneled $3 million back to her. 
L.A. 
County Dist. 
Atty. 
Nathan Hochman called it the largest money laundering scheme in the school district’s history. 
“I broke all law for you already lol,” an L.A. 
Unified employee allegedly texted to a co-conspirator amid what prosecutors say is the largest money-laundering scheme in the school district’s history. 
Hong “Grace” Peng, 56, of Pasadena, is accused of using her role as an IT employee at the Los Angeles Unified School District to ensure that more than $22 million in contracts were awarded to a technology company owned by Gautham Sampath, 56, of Flower Mound, Texas. 
He is accused of then funneling more than $3 million in taxpayer funds back to Peng. 
This isn’t the only scandal shaking up the nation’s second-largest school district. 
Last month, Supt. 
Alberto Carvalho was placed on paid leave after the FBI raided his home and office in connection with an investigation into an AI chatbot company previously contracted with the district that is accused of fraud. 
He has denied any wrongdoing and asked to be returned to his position. 
Peng and Sampath’s alleged scheme, which was carried out between 2018 and 2022, largely predates Carvalho’s time at the district. 
He assumed the leadership role in February 2022. 
The alleged money laundering came to light in April 2022, and Peng resigned later that year after a search warrant related to the investigation was served at her home and workplace, prosecutors said. 
Peng, who previously served as a technical project manager at the district, is accused of working to illegally steer contracts to Innive, a company owned by Sampath, prosecutors said. 
The contracts primarily related to the district’s My Integrated Student Information System, which manages student records, enrollment, attendance, grades and schedules. 
On Thursday, L.A. 
County Dist. 
Atty. 
Nathan Hochman shared a video in which he read aloud alleged text messages exchanged between Peng and Sampath that are included in the charging documents filed against them. 
In June 2018, Sampath allegedly texted Peng asking, “What r the other opportunities in Lausd. 
That we can exploit. 
Any other area.” 
She responded, “You mean all the RFPs”  referencing requests for proposals from companies seeking contracts with the district  later texting him, “You’re so lucky. 
I’m on the selection committee,” prosecutors say. 
Their texts appear to discuss methods to launder the money, according to prosecutors. 
Peng notes that a district employee has “apprehensions” with so much money being channeled to Sampath, noting, “We need to come up with lot of companies... at least 3-4 to take out the money... 
Easy to track unless we are careful in how we do it,” prosecutors allege. 
He responds by asking if they should start another company under a different name, noting that he can set up a company in Hong Kong, Singapore or China, prosecutors say. 
“You can’t make this stuff up,” Hochman said. 
The district attorney said the text messages would help prove “that intent to defraud, that intent to commit money laundering, this intent to violate our conflict of interest laws.” 
Peng and Sampath are each charged with one felony count of money laundering and one felony count of having a financial interest in a contract or purchase made in an official capacity. 
Sampath is additionally charged with aiding and abetting a public official to have a financial interest in such a contract. 
An arrest warrant has been issued for Peng, and an extradition warrant has been issued for Sampath. 
Their arraignment date has not yet been set. 
If convicted as charged, they each face up to seven years in county jail. 
“This case involves a blatant abuse of public trust  funneling taxpayer dollars intended for students into personal coffers,” Hochman said in a statement. 
“This vendor, working with an LAUSD project manager, allegedly carried out a multi-year, multi-contract pay-to-play arrangement that siphoned millions of dollars from our schools.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.7%Clara Harter: 4.3%Daily Pilot: 2.9%Confirmation Bias14.7%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 1.5%Daily Pilot: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 14.7%Clara Harter: 5.4%Daily Pilot: 3.5%Availability Heuristic14.7%This article: 4.4%Clara Harter: 1.1%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic4.4%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.5%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 1.8%Daily Pilot: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.1%Clara Harter: 9.8%Daily Pilot: 7.5%Framing Effect8.1%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.9%Clara Harter: 1.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Status Quo Bias2.9%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 1.8%Daily Pilot: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%Clara Harter: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 1.4%Pessimism Bias2.1%This article: 23.0%Clara Harter: 11.8%Daily Pilot: 7.8%Negativity Bias23.0%This article: 5.0%Clara Harter: 1.0%Daily Pilot: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias5.0%This article: 4.3%Clara Harter: 1.5%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error4.3%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 1.2%Daily Pilot: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 1.7%Daily Pilot: 5.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.5%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.8%Clara Harter: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Recency Bias1.8%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 1.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 16.8%Clara Harter: 5.2%Daily Pilot: 4.9%Appeal to Authority16.8%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.9%Daily Pilot: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 4.3%Clara Harter: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Circular Reasoning4.3%This article: 1.8%Clara Harter: 2.4%Daily Pilot: 4.4%Hasty Generalization1.8%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 11.2%Clara Harter: 8.6%Daily Pilot: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion11.2%This article: 1.9%Clara Harter: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Begging the Question1.9%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 2.1%Daily Pilot: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 1.0%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.0%Clara Harter: 1.2%Daily Pilot: 2.8%Anecdotal5.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 1.2%Daily Pilot: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.5%Clara Harter: 2.5%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Unattributed Quote7.5%This article: 6.6%Clara Harter: 0.9%Daily Pilot: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection6.6%This article: 5.0%Clara Harter: 4.1%Daily Pilot: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice5.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 1.1%Daily Pilot: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 1.8%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 1.5%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Clara Harter: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.5%

678 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers19%attributed speech546writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageNathan Hochman • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageNathan Hochman • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageHong “Grace” Peng • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageNathan Hochman • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageNathan Hochman • 24 words • 100.0% coverageNathan Hochman • 24 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Nathan Hochman

100%flagged-word coverage
98 attributed words74% of attributed speech78% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +24.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Nathan Hochman: 24.5%24.5%Biased Writer Voice+22.7 ptsWriter: 1.8%Nathan Hochman: 24.5%24.5%Unattributed Quote-9.3 ptsWriter: 9.3%Nathan Hochman: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-8.2 ptsWriter: 8.2%Nathan Hochman: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.