timing is everything and in this particular case of the court please the government's timing was skewed skewed to the point where this defendant should be freed in  for ease of reference or applications for ease of reference and in those at the very least they included that she would live on the premises  was buying now it's a little odd that she said she would do that purchasing both properties a month apart and that that time she was indictment charges these two versions of fraud the bank in the mail fraud and their schemes and at least one act of each scheme takes place inside the ten year statute so if it is a ten year statute of limitations and i understand it that's part of your argument too but if it is then the statute of limitations isn't the problem  then to decide whether the ten year statute applies or not we really need to dig in a little more to the merits of the case and all this business about the difference between citibank and citi mortgage and you know who is a financial there might be a distinction here between the mail fraud count and the bank fraud count because the mail fraud statute simply looks for conduct that affects a financial institution and we have the testimony in the record of the city person who says this money came from citibank moved over to citi mortgage it's all sort of swapped around in a day it seems to me a jury could find that that effects a financial institution if you on the other side on the bank fraud side have to have specific intent that you're defrauding a financial institution i think that's a heavier lift for the government because i'm not sure where in the record we have evidence that o'brien herself knew where these funds were coming from or whether they were coming all the way back into citi bank as opposed to these specific intent goes with mail fraud as well as  content required and that specific content must affect the financial institution all agree that in two thousand and seven c m o and all these subsidiaries underneath you are right i know they changed the definition later not relevant her case would not sustain because there was no impact on the bank and the financial institution was the ba sales take place where citibank's interest is disclosed i apologize i couldn't hear you run into you know the hud one form that accompanies any real estate closing and city government argues cit line of credit and the dispute below was wait a nd did c m i write of those loans also the answer was yes according to this record and i cite in the brief the various pages where this appears now clearly and i absolutely agree there was something on one form that said citibank and that had to do with mr won't but she never saw his loan documents because she's not entitled to it so really what you had here when you when you take this record as a whole mr kwan didn't intend to live than any of the four places he built when doing company lending institutions in april t anything this defendant did nothing and part of the law in the recent cases we thought from the sister circuits and the case we originally cites the seven circuits case whatever the name of it is anymore i don't know as part of its opinion showing that the affected financial institution must chief judge wood she is not entitled to a good conduct medal i am not saying that but i am saying that in this particular case if the government had charged in a timely fashion there wouldn't be any of us standing sitting and i wouldn't be standing here today be that as it may the government that's not her fault the government could have charged much sooner much quicker and it was may please the court edward leave on behalf of the united states the district court did not carry into nine defendants rule twenty nine motion for judgment of acquittal because the evidence at trial when viewed in the light most favorable to the government was more than sufficient for instructed jury to conclude that the defendant was guilty on both counts so would you address then i'm really having trouble other than some hand waving seeing how the government shows that o'brien has the defendant was intimately involved in this transaction but do we know that see her sophistication cuts both ways in my view because maybe people on the street you know don't know that there could be a bank and a subsidiary of a bank in a different kind of institution that looks a lot like a bank that isn't really a bank you know and all of these other things this particular defendant does know those things so she sees the cheese dealing with citi mortgage she knows she's not dealing with citibank right and i'd and there is no veil piercing theory that just says all of ciliates of any bank are automatically part of the act that's not the way the law of corporate organization works right but the seventy three thousand dollars loan is a citibank one seed bank but it's not to her though why did why do you attribute kwan's loan to her because of her involvement with the deal she's the seller she's the seller's attorney she's present at the closing where these documents are signed she's made a she didn't sign them though did she she signed the hard one for the two hundred and ninety two thousand dollars which disclosed the seventy three dollars that one doesn't disclose citibank on it is not that that one does not disclose it right that's the problem right to get given her involvement a rational jury could have inferred that the defendant didn't know this you're just saying so the best you have is the just the sort of generically she's involved in these transactions and somehow this very picky point about financial institution organization would have seeped through the ether somehow as she's sitting there in the room and you want to start real estate closings know that there's a stack of paper this high that you're signing your way through what it's weak you know of went when you don't really have anything where you can say to the jury she signed this piece of paper this piece of paper said it was a citibank loan ergo she knew or testimony from her i went into citibank to talk about the loan or anything and right we don't have that document but we do have more the testimony we do but we do have testimony from judy taylor who's the vice president city who said that when there's two loans with regard to we do need to know we do need to show a specific hand in blood and her involvement in the scheme we do think that she intended to defraud citibank here but there's also you're guessing over the big details though because until two thousand and nine if you can't get her brain you know from citi mortgage over to citibank you haven't done what you needed to do well i think i think it's important remember that there's two prongs to the bank fraud statu to obtain money or property under the custody or control of the financial institution and again that the funds here came directly from citibank for those who were residents gives you that i mean to the extent you need that i really think that the taylor added ross is that bridge and so given given her again her and her involvement with this particular transaction she's the one who's orchestrating the fraud she's making kickback payments to the true buyer she knows christopher quantised just  can tailor knows that but why does she know that because of her involvement in the industry and in knowing how do you ever have any evidence that she knows about this corporate structure of citibank for the evidence was sufficient that the defendant would have known similarly seated at sea there's where i have a problem given her sophistic you know if you were involved in a transaction you might well think there was a difference between cit mortgage and citibank because you know that corporations have various subsidiaries and other kinds of affiliates through which they do business i should know that for a start law school s but i think if she sees it citi mortgage why is she not entitled to rely on the fact that it's it even the c's and she does see on the one for the two hundred and ninety two thousand dollars that citi mortgage is the lender right but so it's not citibank it's not city back but the funds for that loan did come from citi but if she doesn't know that why are we attributed to her it was a reasonable inference for the jury to make based on the evidence based on  again her involvement based on her goings with mr klein and miss parker so the jury is allowed to infer any time two names are separate that these are the one that you see on the piece of paper is actually that's a big theory but it's more than just that i mean she she is experienced in this particular industry she's worked as a mortgage loan originators she's been to multiple clones she's she owns her own real estate company she's a licensed attorney she's intimately together a lot of banks in chicago yes i mean she you think she knows that much about every single one of them no not necessarily but she she has prior dealings particularly with citibank who  was a secondary successor lender on one of her prior ones for the fall property so she does have direct experience with citibank it's not unreasonable for her to know how the funding at citibank works with assumption be that it's citi mortgage that answering the funds and that could be one reasonable conclusion that a jury trial don't have a jury could conclude anything else without some evidence without evidence that she looked that she actually saw them or signed them but that she did not testify and neither did quansah as we do not have time to really stay close or didn't testify no i made sure that every person in the room saw every document but there was testimony she knows that the house is being sold for three hundred and sixty five thousand dollars to two hundred and ninety two thousand dollars in the entire mortgage so there's a seventy three thousand dollars mortgage that's out there it's a citibank product and to address one point that defense counsel make made she doesn't need to made any representation directly to citibank in order for the conviction to stand under one thousand three hundred and forty if you look at the lock in case the court held that the standard is false representation used to naturally induce the bank to part with its money in that case that there was no direct representation made to the bank it was fraudulent checks being deposited at a target so the fraud was being directed at target payments that she made to barco that was naturally induced citibank to part with the funding for both the seventy three thousand and the two hundred and ninety two thousand dollars and i follow you that far it's it's getting her the factors that that i've mentioned here and it's the government's position that the district court did not err in this conclusion and that a rational jury could still convict the defendant turning briefly to the mail fraud capture and i think you hit the nail on the jazz differently i'm sorry no no no i think you hit the nail on the head earlier it's a different standard for mail fraud and what the government had to show is that the defendant engaged in a scheme to defraud and that the scheme affected a financial institution now does she have to know mr ackerman argue that that doesn't help you at all because she has to know that her scheme is going to affect a financial institutions so she would have to know that even though she's dealing with citi mortgage it's ultimately going to affect citibank show only that the defendant acted with intent to defraud someone a financial institution you not beating intended victim because object of the fraud is not an element of these it's against the scheme to defraud and it effects a financial institution he didn't have to know and didn't know that lehman brothers lehman brothers was covered by f b i c and therefore the subsidiaries that he dealt with and arguably do fraud did could not stand the conviction because no financial institution what affected not to attribute special knowledge to ms so brian is unfair truly is she she was working for the state of illinois she was on leave she did this enterprise two i'll skip all the rest but my opponent said she dealt with citibank and say sucks that's  but she doesn't know that because arden mortgage gave her saw to it that she got the loan and they are the f d i c not covered entity that ok with you there is nothing like that in this record all that's in this record is that they were a success a blend or she paid on time they were paid off when she was refinance by new century that's what this record reflects nothing more so with all due respect to my opponent to argue the success of lender aspect and something that  special knowledge or is simply for this record there should be great doubt in the court's mind and if there is grave doubt there is a theory of beck or poise going back i think to nine