When most people think about education fraud, they picture diploma mills or predatory for-profit colleges in the United States. Few would imagine that a recruitment company helping American students study abroad in the United Kingdom could be running a scheme that defrauded the U.S. government and put vulnerable students at risk. But that is precisely what one courageous whistleblower uncovered — and the result is a landmark case that has reshaped how the federal government enforces student protection laws both domestically and internationally.
Background: What Was Study Across the Pond?
Study Across the Pond LLC (SATP) was a Boston-based educational recruitment company that helped American students navigate the process of enrolling in U.K. universities. On the surface, it appeared to offer a valuable service: guidance on admissions paperwork, help understanding foreign university systems, and critically, assistance with applications for U.S. federal financial aid. American students could use their federal loans and grants to attend eligible foreign universities, and SATP positioned itself as the helpful bridge between eager U.S. students and prestigious British institutions.
Behind the scenes, however, the company was allegedly operating in direct violation of federal law — and building a business model that prioritized its own profits over the educational wellbeing of the students it was supposed to serve.
The Law at the Heart of the Case: The Incentive Compensation Ban
To understand the significance of this case, it is essential to understand the federal rule that SATP allegedly violated: the Incentive Compensation Ban.
Under Title IV of the Higher Education Act, any institution that participates in federal student aid programs is strictly prohibited from paying student recruiters on a per-student basis. That means no commissions, no bonuses, and no other direct or indirect financial incentives tied to the number of students a recruiter successfully enrolls. The rule is known as the Incentive Compensation Ban, and it exists for a very important reason: to protect students from aggressive, misleading, and financially harmful recruitment tactics.
When a recruiter’s income is tied to how many students they sign up, their financial interest is fundamentally at odds with the student’s educational interest. Recruiters under such a system are incentivized to recruit as many students as possible — regardless of whether those students are academically or financially prepared for the programs they are being pushed into. The Incentive Compensation Ban is designed to break that conflict of interest and ensure that students receive honest guidance rather than a sales pitch dressed up as advising.
The Alleged Fraud: Commissions Hidden in Plain Sight
According to the complaint filed in the case, SATP allegedly designed all of its contracts with U.K. universities to pay the firm on a per-student basis — a direct violation of the Incentive Compensation Ban. See United States ex rel. Hitrost, LLC v. Study Across the Pond LLC, et al., Case No. 21- CV-10274-ADB (D. Mass. 2021). The company reportedly worked with at least 28 U.K. universities, and the arrangement was straightforward: the more American students SATP recruited for a given school, the more money SATP collected. Id.
To conceal this arrangement from federal auditors and the Department of Education, SATP allegedly created sham contracts that appeared to show flat-fee payment structures — fixed amounts that, on paper, had nothing to do with enrollment numbers. In reality, there were side agreements in place to adjust the so-called “flat fee” based on the actual number of students recruited. The fraudulent contracts were designed to allow the schools to falsely certify their compliance with federal student aid requirements — certifications that, in turn, allowed the Department of Education to disburse tens of millions of dollars in federal student aid to students attending those institutions.
Court documents also cite a particularly revealing exchange from 2013. A representative from the University of Exeter reportedly asked an SATP employee whether it was “illegal for us to pay commission on any student in receipt of a US federal loan.” Rather than giving an honest answer, SATP allegedly advised the university that the rule did not apply to their situation — even though the company was well aware of the ban’s existence. When the university offered to shift to a flat fee arrangement, SATP’s principal, John Borhaug, reportedly agreed — so long as the flat fee was “the equivalent of what commission would have been.” The arrangement changed in name only.
The Whistleblower Steps Forward
In 2021, a whistleblower with direct knowledge of SATP’s practices filed a qui tam lawsuit under the False Claims Act (FCA) in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The case was formally captioned United States ex rel. Hitrost, LLC v. Study Across the Pond, LLC, et al., Case No. 21-CV-10274-ADB (D. Mass. 2021).
Qui tam refers to a provision of the False Claims Act that allows a private citizen, known as a relator, to sue on behalf of the United States government when they have evidence of fraud against federal programs. The whistleblower files the lawsuit under seal, meaning it is kept confidential while the government investigates the claims. If the government chooses to intervene and pursue the case, and the litigation is ultimately successful, the whistleblower is entitled to receive between 15 and 30 percent of whatever the government recovers.
The whistleblower in this case was motivated not only by the financial harm to taxpayers but by genuine concern for students. As their attorney Poppy Alexander of Whistleblower Partners LLP explained, the whistleblower came forward out of worry about students who had been placed in difficult financial and academic circumstances due to SATP’s recruitment practices. Filing a qui tam case is never easy. It requires courage, legal coordination, and a willingness to participate in a process that can take years to resolve. This whistleblower did all of that — and waited.
The Government Intervenes
For several years, the case proceeded quietly under seal as federal investigators examined the whistleblower’s allegations. In April 2024, the United States announced that it was partially intervening in the matter — a significant development that signals the government has reviewed the evidence and believes the case has sufficient merit to pursue. The Department of Justice filed its own complaint in May 2024, formally alleging that SATP and its principal, John Borhaug, had induced U.K. universities to submit false claims to the Department of Education for federal student aid. See id.
The government’s intervention was notable for several reasons. Incentive Compensation Ban cases are notoriously difficult to prosecute. Proving that a recruiter is being paid on a per-student basis requires evidence of the actual payment structure — and when companies go to the lengths SATP allegedly did to hide those arrangements behind sham contracts and withheld audit information, building that evidentiary record is a serious challenge. Attorney Poppy Alexander noted that she was “fairly confident” this was the first-ever intervened case involving incentive compensation ban violations related to the recruitment of American students at foreign universities. It was, in every sense, a case without precedent.
The Settlement: Justice Delivered
In late February 2025, the United States reached a settlement with Study Across the Pond. The total recovery to the federal government was $1.3 million. As the whistleblower whose tip-off initiated the entire investigation, the relator received $240,500 — their legally guaranteed share of the recovery under the False Claims Act.
SATP, which had already ceased operations in the United States by the time the settlement was finalized, was required to pay the agreed amount by March 6, 2026. The settlement terms were made public in the days that followed.
The case drew praise from attorneys, government investigators, and advocates across the whistleblower community. Jason Williams, Assistant Inspector General for Investigation Services at the U.S. Department of Education Office of Inspector General, credited the combined efforts of his office, the DOJ, and the whistleblower in holding SATP accountable. Gordon Schnell of Constantine Cannon called strict enforcement of the Incentive Compensation Ban “crucial to protecting students from unsavory recruiting practices.” Erica Blachman Hitchings of Whistleblower Law Collaborative expressed gratitude both to the whistleblower client and to the government team that pursued the matter without letting the complexity of an international case become an excuse to look the other way.
Why This Case Matters
The Study Across the Pond case is significant for several reasons that extend well beyond the $1.3 million settlement.
First, it establishes that the Incentive Compensation Ban applies internationally. U.S. law does not stop at the water’s edge when it comes to protecting American students and American taxpayer dollars. Recruiters operating in foreign countries, and foreign universities accepting American students on federal financial aid, are bound by the same rules that govern domestic institutions. As Poppy Alexander put it, “government contractors are not excused from following the rules simply by operating outside of national borders.”
Second, it demonstrates the power of the qui tam mechanism. Without the False Claims Act’s whistleblower provisions, this fraud might never have come to light. The government has limited investigative resources and cannot monitor every education recruitment company operating across international borders. Empowering private citizens who have inside knowledge of fraudulent schemes — and incentivizing them to come forward with the promise of a financial reward and legal protection — is one of the most effective fraud-detection tools the federal government has.
Third, the case has already had reverberations across the Atlantic. Attorneys involved in the litigation noted that it helped facilitate a national conversation in the United Kingdom about student recruitment practices and the ethical obligations of universities that accept students on American federal financial aid. That broader cultural impact is difficult to quantify, but it is real.
Finally, this case is a reminder that whistleblower cases take time — but they work. The whistleblower filed their complaint in 2021. The government intervened in 2024. The settlement came in 2025. Four years is a long time to carry the weight of a case, and it requires trust in the legal process and the attorneys navigating it. The outcome here vindicates that trust.
What Potential Whistleblowers Can Learn
If you are aware of fraud involving federal programs — including student financial aid — the Study Across the Pond case offers several important lessons. The False Claims Act protects whistleblowers from retaliation. It rewards them financially for coming forward with credible, original information. And it has a proven track record of holding bad actors accountable, even when those bad actors are sophisticated enough to create layers of fake paperwork to conceal their conduct.
You do not have to work inside the federal government to expose government fraud. You do not have to be in the United States to report conduct that harms American students and taxpayers. And you do not have to go it alone — experienced qui tam attorneys can guide you through the process, evaluate the strength of your case confidentially, and advocate on your behalf every step of the way.
The whistleblower in the Study Across the Pond case took a significant personal and professional risk to shed light on a scheme that was harming students and defrauding taxpayers. Because they did, millions of dollars were returned to the federal government, predatory recruitment practices were exposed to public scrutiny, and a message was sent to the international education industry that the rules apply everywhere.
That is what whistleblowing looks like. And it matters.