alleges the continuity component of a pattern of rocketeer a lower court held that we had shown either closed or open ended continuity actually we showed both although both although  if we needed to show either and i'd like to turn st to the money laundering issue although it is not necessary this bolsters open and closed continuity concepts but i think it's important to discuss this a period of time and followed which by by which there was transactions in those proceeds that were designed or in part to could steal the nature location ownership control of those proceeds  and used to pay suppliers and subcontractors that didn't happen here mr fester based on circumstantial evidence to clearly diverted these funds now lower court dismiss this for several reasons one the court said you have to plead with specificity well money laundering is a rule eight dollars claim not rule nine doesn't have to be played with specificity but how do we say th purpose of these communications it was to conceal the source of the funds isn't this just typical kind of contractor breaking a contract with you why is it money laundering when there typical business communications in fact been paid that's under oath and there's a lot of these documents that went went to my client sworn to by mr festa i believe that's perjury purpose to conceal the phones absolutely because if these funds are trust funds and i grant you they're not dedicated trust funds they're not designed to be this is the amount you have to pay it if you can't use the money once you get it you build for it you have to pay the subcontractor that's clear you hold it in trust the transaction itself by turning this money over to yourself or rd person that in of itself alters the nature it's a necessity it's part of that it's the same thing as if a spouse who gets it turns it over to his wife which is one of the elements of the staff it's a case it's certainly more significant than it that it is changing large bills denominations to smaller ones the act itself is designed certainly in part to conceal the nature it changes the nature by virtue of no longer being in trust a change of location changes the ownership and let us some a continuity here so what what is the prospect for continuity here you seem to suggest in your brief that it's because the project is only thirty eight percent done you've established the continuity requirement but obviously that's not enough it's well other victim is there any was formed based on this to new york state website in two thousand and twelve or was it in existence that long and we also know alleged in the complaint to suggest that this there is some prospect of continued has gone by i do these this court's minimum rule two years is insufficient as a i'm sorry necessary is not sufficient but twenty nine months have gone by and it's for two to sleep interrupted before half the project is finished  party that over pay bills and there are a number of cases where there is an inherently terminal project such as fresh meadows and procter and gamble the fact that there was one victim but there wasn't heritage which was the lender was a victim because heritage lent money on the strength of these documents they're going back for a nd that the rd victim was american building company america building company was supposed to sell the steel instead of selling the steel one festa did was it pocketed the money over one hundred thousand dollars he did store the steel we found out about that much later but they were picked because they would've made a profit i submit that the three sub contractors that we know of they were all victims as well why because every single application in certification said that we went st saw and they've been paid so  lower court also your honor if you have if you have money laundering again this is the pleading stage if you have money laundering that's an inherently illegal activity it is not like wire fraud as there are cases that have held that money laundering is an inherently illegal activity and as a result of that that goes into the issue of whether there's continuity whether there's a presumption continuity and therefore we believe that the allegation coupled with the other allegations again you have the nature of the predi these these documents these sort of occasions and applications each of them basically is based on a past history it is how much you pay this is what the work we did is what has to be done in the future the past is lent it basically draws out under eight g the nature of the predicate x brings you into the future the money laundering is because of its nature it's inherently illegal and this court has so he this is the money laundering aspect of this and certain other aspects of this is something that would not be within our knowledge that knowledge of these acts would be with mr festus or purview he would know whether these events happened is this is one construction job with one plaintiff with one defendant you know essentially mr fester and falcon general construction or the same entity you know he's a sole shareholder chief cook and bottle wash point out doesn't fall under the category of a rico file civil rico violation she recognized it immediately you know conferences and certainly made that quite clear in her in her decision were the court to open the door to a claim like the one presented before this court would be a flood of litigation you know i could sue my contractor on my home renovation because maybe he misrepresented something to an out of state contractor or maybe the bank that was financing my home renovation was from out of state and it was a misrepresentation there that would open the door to any garden variety type of construction project to be in federal court not only utilizing the resources of the federal court in a case that should appropriately be in the state court but also effectively piercing the corporate veil which is certainly not a policy i think th counsel initially filed a complaint after court conferences subsequently amended the complaint and in doing so essentially fragmented each requisition of money and each lien that came down on the job point of one jobsite one defendant nothing at the point of can do with respect to revising the complaint is going to change that fact  it below did not reach the they mention the issue of proximate cause which the requirement of a civil rico is that is that the the act that gives the federal court jurisdiction over this over this case  but the reality is he intended to finish the job he had the funds to finish the job and the job could have easily been finished there are multiple reasons as is true in any construction contract of this scope why a job may not be finished and i've experienced that over my career of the last twenty five years in representing contract or since every case is a reason why a job is not finished so i would submit to the court that the proximate cause element while not discuss by the lower court is another reason why this court should affirm the  with respect to continuity open ended vs close ended the quote was correct a couple of is correct there's no there's no legitimate claim that this defendant was either committed similar acts in the past and by the way his affidavit also states that he's been in business doing this for forty years while falcon admittedly this corporation mentally was a relatively new cooperation this individual's been in the construction business forever there's no allegation that he previously committed any such acts and the allegation that he's going to continue to commit such acts is purely speculative and the court appropriately found that issue  as a lower court pointed out pleadings require more than a sure possibility that the defendant will act unlawfully in the future that's at page eight of its decision with respect to close ended continuity the court properly found that there was no agency on the initial transaction so which essentially takes this project down from two thousand and twenty nine months to i believe eighteen months the st action being that one of the contractors on long island ordered steel products from from a supplier in in georgia but that contractor was not affiliated with my client any way whatsoever so the actual requisition process that has that makes up most of the plaintiff's complaint is simply an eighteen month process which for short well short of the two your benchmark at this court has spoken  entity that did the shop drawings in on the ground but it was that entity that community ordered the actual steel from the entity in georgia so my client had no communication at that stage of the game with the e plaintiff it failed to even plead the continuity component either closing the door open ended as the court stated below it does not wish to federalize a garden variety was his intent and that he orchestrated this that was part of this whole scheme six victims to schemes twenty nine months minimum and interrupted under geld the interruption should not be tak it as if it ended this this is the type of case which is not garden variety by any stretch of imagination if we affirm here we basically disregarded the supreme court's reasoning in in h j and a number of other cases congress intended rico to be applied to situations like this i hope that a contractor that spends over two years misappropriating funds from a church stealing money basically taking money from subcontractors committing perjury and larceny that is not the typical way that we do business in the state of new york or anywhere else in this country this is exactly what rico was designed to do and even though was a business that mr penn draw for claims was legitimate for many years two thousand and twelve was when it was formed and almost immediately you have the situation