As federal prosecutors on Tuesday brought new money laundering charges against 16 parents enmeshed in the college admissions scandal, a question hung over the sprawling case: Would anybody implicated in the scam actually serve time behind bars?

The Hollywood actress Lori Loughlin and her husband, the designer Mossimo Giannulli, were among those indicted on a count of conspiracy to commit fraud and another of money laundering conspiracy, raising the legal stakes for parents who have not said whether they would plead guilty in the case.

But it was a wide open question, legal experts and former prosecutors said, as to what price celebrities, business executives and other boldface names may end up paying if they are convicted in the largest-ever admissions prosecution.

“This is somewhat uncharted waters because this is a really unique case — we haven’t seen a case where dozens of parents are being hauled off into court before,” said Bradley Simon, a former federal prosecutor who now leads the white-collar defense practice at Phillips Nizer, a law firm based in New York.

Prosecutors have charged a total of 50 people, including the college consultant at the center of the scandal, William Singer, who has already pleaded guilty to racketeering and other charges. Thirty-three parents are accused of paying Mr. Singer to arrange for cheating on entrance exams or conspiring with him to bribe coaches or athletic officials to get their children admitted to colleges as recruits to sports teams, on the basis of fake credentials.

On Monday, prosecutors said that 13 of the parents, including the actress Felicity Huffman, would plead guilty. In all but one case, those parents will plead guilty to a single count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest service mail fraud. Then on Tuesday came indictments, including new counts, against many of the parents who had not announced plans to enter guilty pleas.

Vassili Thomadakis, a former assistant United States attorney in the district of Massachusetts, said Mr. Singer would almost certainly be sent to prison for some period of time, even though he has cooperated with the investigation, including making recorded phone calls to parents at investigators’ request. Mr. Thomadakis said it was also likely that any coaches or administrators who were convicted would face prison time, perhaps for a matter of months or a few years.

Less clear, it seemed, was what might happen to any parents convicted in the case.

Former prosecutors said that might depend on an array of matters. How much did the parents spend on the scheme to get their child into college? Did they opt to plead guilty? Did they fight the charges through a trial, but get convicted anyway? Did they cooperate with the authorities?“For folks who have these kind of the bigger payments that you see in the indictment, I think that they certainly face some prison time, especially if they take the case to trial and lose,” Mr. Thomadakis said. Mr. Thomadakis said that prosecutors are likely to argue that a sentence of some prison time is necessary to dissuade other parents eager to do anything to help their children get into college from engaging in similar behavior.

If convicted, those accused of paying some of the largest sums — some families are accused of paying as much as $500,000 in bribes to get their children into schools — might be penalized most harshly.

Courtney Oliva, executive director of the Center on the Administration of Criminal Law at New York University and a former federal prosecutor, said that Ms. Huffman, who apologized this week for her role in the case and said she would plead guilty, most likely faces a short prison sentence or might avoid prison time altogether, serving most or all of a penalty through a home confinement or probation. Ms. Huffman acknowledged having paid Mr. Singer $15,000 to arrange for cheating on her daughter’s SAT exam.

“I personally think it would be crazy to send her to prison,” Ms. Oliva said.

Mr. Simon, the former federal prosecutor, noted that Ms. Huffman and Gordon Caplan, another parent who has said he would plead guilty, each issued long statements expressing remorse.

“Those were long and seemingly sincere statements of contrition,” Mr. Simon said. “If I were a judge, that would go a long way to ensure they don’t get jail.”

On the other hand, Mr. Simon said, intense publicity around the case could create pressure to impose some prison time.

“Judges and prosecutors are always very sensitive to the court of public opinion in determining what sentences they get,” Mr. Simon said. “They will feel some pressure to send a message. A lot of people are really horrified by this. It undermines the system. It smacks of breathtaking self-entitlement.”

Lawyers for defendants pleading guilty may argue that the harm their clients have suffered to their reputations, and the professional and other consequences of pleading guilty to a felony, provide enough of a deterrent.

Representatives for some parents have said that they intend to fight the charges, and are eagerly awaiting their chance to give their side of the story in court.

Among the parents indicted on Tuesday was William McGlashan, a major Silicon Valley investor, who is accused of paying Mr. Singer $50,000 for cheating on his son’s ACT and of agreeing to pay $250,000 to get his son admitted to the University of Southern California as a football recruit, although prosecutors say Mr. McGlashan did not ultimately go through with that scheme.

“The prosecutor’s case against Mr. McGlashan is deeply flawed and ignores important exculpatory facts,” one of Mr. McGlashan’s lawyers, John Hueston, said. “We look forward to presenting his side of the story.”

David Schumacher, who represents Gregory and Amy Colburn, parents who are accused of arranging for cheating on the SAT, said that his clients were innocent of the charges. “They’re looking forward to asserting their rights under the Constitution and under the federal rules to a speedy trial so they can clear their good names,” Mr. Schumacher said.