statutory mandate added two years to the sense imposed on the other eight counts now the govern in this case again proves identity theft was committed by doc that mysterious online apparently foreign entity who in this case managed to get ahold of the social security numbers and names of ten couples some who live various places in the united states and use those names and some scary numbers to fill out electronic ten forty tax forms requesting refunds of approximately eight thousand dollars apiece how and when he obtained those means of identification is completely unknown he then e file to those to open a bank account so that doc could deposit those tax refunds mr carbons and miss watch with them with got the money and wire doc share to somewhere in eastern europe the problem in this case is that the government presented no evidence establishing that when mr cardenas agreed to enter into this arrangement that he had any knowledge that the source of this money was  that was to the commission of identity that in fact the only evidence presented are on the issue of knowledge in this regard is now free to watch his testimony who said that she and mr cubbon simply did not know the source of the money they when he got a notice from dark that the department was going to hit within a couple of days they would they would check on minus the when it hits all they know when to withdraw money well from what i understand when when he didn't need to check on line maybe that's what they did but i'm not sure in this case why that that's going to matter too much that they did eventually see them see what the department said and then afterwards i think on  we see them that he ever looked at that he ever got online again we don't not sure that's too important to point furthermore a bit of all that can be inferred that he did look and see that these were tax refunds in joe smith but whatever it was then there still needed to be some more inference is that he knew they were not authorized using that person's name direct and just to be clear what they said was and this is who send in the send the department to the bank and then you have the person's name why wouldn't it be perfectly logical if i think that was a tax refund for that person but again he is not he has put another film in those two not whether he goes to whether he intended to facilitate doc's commissioner of any more doc couldn't do this without him or somebody like if the decision to not withdraw which may be motivated by you know it was not a reasonable thing to do at the time it could be intact it could be a dangerous thing to do the time that his decision to go forward the larger come but now that he's gone home and split the proceeds now he is guilty i mean that would be the kind of the logic of saying that because because he doesn't withdraw after learning about it he knew about it from the beginning i mean i if if you really thought oh my god i didn't know this and he's dealing with social security numbers i don't want to anything to do with that that's what somebody you know to truly innocent person would do right so i mean doesn't the law generally recognize that what you do continue to do after the fact can be evidence of your intent before yes but not in this case that's not a reasonable conclusion  the government makes that are usually it would be a reasonable conclusion you're not challenging the fifth convictions oh absolutely not but this is the guy who signs out that oh gosh look where this money come from well i'm going to spend it anyway it's like the government makes the argument and we think the logic is equivalent to this you find a suitcase full of money on the side you tend to keep then you find out from the news that oh this was a subject of a bank same but there was an innocent potential that could have just been you know money in a suitcase and you just have sort of like a dollar on the street not that i take those but you don't view it as theft necessarily if there's a dollar lying around the street and pick it up whereas here you know it was the stealing from someone and now he finds out in your view who and that it is a who not just the big old government but that it is a person's social security you know whatever that make a lick of difference to him isn't that was innocent of aggravated a gaffe but not of course agreeing to defy the government so you know he so that's how the analogy works he is innocent of the bigger crime any remains innocent of the bigger crime that doesn't change by the fact that he decided to take that for the united states evidence presented in the government's case in chief as a position to uphold the conviction under section ten twenty this evidence includes the bank account the text and email was to access and presently bill out the money that was then deposited into the bank account so at this point this was basically the defendant's job he was responsible those being deposits it includes the fact that the deposit was coming from the iris coming from the us treasury that it was a tax refund and that it included the names of the individuals whose identity had been stolen so at that point  bad knowledge has to begin at the start of the scheme in the end of that business at that the in order to be an accomplice you have to have more knowledge which means that you have to have knowledge at a time where you can do something most notably walk away so i would suggest that at this point when two big deposits have been made into carbons various bank accounts that said that it was coming from the i or us that stated specific individuals needs he had the opportunity to walk away scheme essentially would not work with our knowledge that it was real people whose identities are being still it now and of work it was a case using medicaid medicaid identification numbers of minors i chiropractor would use the medicaid identification number and seek refunds who were procedures that he did not perform i mean on these children i'm now in that case it was a different issue before the court about the jury instruction which is which is not present here but the core recognize that without the existence of real children the refund of the chiropractor received would not be would the chiropractor would not receive those those as there are there a kinds of tax schemes where the taxpayer themselves is involved in the fraud where they get a preparer to make up the big dependence we can get the only income tax credit i mean there's all types of schemes where taxpayers are complicit with a preparer or someone sort of kickback from it to get something out of the money here he's just paying doc and they're there's no indication gowdy and white got any of this money so that would seem to make it unlikely they were part of the scheme that's correct and i'd also like to point out that the specific issue was before the jury the first claim that the first argument that the defense counsel brought up in his closing statement was the fact that the defendant did not have knowledge during the time of the tax filings that the identities were being stolen so the jury had this argument before them they considered it and they rejected it when they convicted carbons on on this count nine you want about  the scheme proceeded whether carbons stated that he believed the money was coming from the i r s or not as i believe at this point the combination of the deposit statements which was testify that she did not have access to the carbon iris check he could say it was an iris wire he could say it was a wife and anything which a check or anything we really got doc had that type of you know capability to do things i didn't actually think they were iris checks until he went there and found out that literally it was an again that begs the question as to how that happened at that he knows how that when he got there in the first place because even if they are real people he still doesn't know how those real people whether it's real people begin to buy them there and you know ye again the question is what inferences can you draw from it's rare in a criminal case if you just have absolute proof of every single aspect of intent like his intent is a naturally something that people have in their head and we were it circumstantially the