give the pattern instructions defining attend to the fraud and the fifth is that the court wrongly instructed the jury and the offense clause of three seventy one the conspiracy statute defense and now why why do you i mean why should we treat this any differently from an ordinary defense he had two lawyers i think is that right there but i can he didn't like them he fired them and it is clear the law there's a number of reasons why it makes a difference here first of all i know the government is going to argue today that the claim air standards ought to apply to their failure to allege the material element and there's no real question that i apply and to argue your question to answer your question judge lester i think it does make a difference that he or she did proceed because my understanding is that tell them what element was missing but he surely argued several times that the elements of war and both the court and the government responded that the elements were all there citing clarke so i'm not so sure a plane or standard applies here basic allegation was concealment and information the irish would surely like to hear did in that case she wasn't the principal and she was basically failing to report is not right is that a fair summary of what was going on in that case this case there was more than simply a failure to reveal i mean he was i can use the word an approximate stance he's been laundering a fair amount of money through other people i mean all kinds of things that he was doing that looked as though and i reasonable jury could have concluded were intended to deceive there must be more than just concealment maybe you disagree with me on these facts but i started asking myself why did the why didn't the government charge this man with tax evaders the conspiracy t government but then we'll give you some time to respond basically agreed together to conceal each other's income in other words the clients paid defendant in a way that a lot of the defendant to conceal his income from the i r s but but he just made the point and it seems to me correct this is not a tax evasion case in which he's charged with failing to stassi and collecting income taxes including his own i mean somebody can conspire to defraud the united states involving their own taxes and in this case he was doing both that and conspiring that the government was defrauded by the defendants conduct in the conspiracy and that with the head probably the bottom line is the government was cheated out of over as the jury found out of over one million dollars in tax revenue every year so the evidence clearly does show defrauding based on the definition of well now if i were required to file tax returns and i don't file argument i think just fell apart i think you need more than just a requirement to file a report on a failure to file a porter and you need something else to show deceit one dishonest means so where's the put so where's the concealment come from in this case he only comes from the fact that the defendant number one had his clients pay him in a way that made it virtually impossible for the internal revenue service to trace it and that the reason he so that they would be no give using the term paper trail and money trail he instructed the clients that they didn't want to do anything that would create a paper trail of money thrale which is by definition an act of concealing he also instructed them that it would be wise to get and an offshore bank account in the cayman islands he instructed them i said not to follow returns so he instructed them basically to become to operate their financial affairs in a way that made it impossible for the internal revenue service states there was no direct evidence without listening to yes mr benson and the government's response to that is twofold first of all that was circumstantial evidence that a reasonable jury could conclude that that check represented in transaction would be relevant and an overt act in furtherance of that conspiracy because the internal revenue service can ascertain somebody think if they can't trace and figure out what it is they can compute it for the same reason and they can reach ok here over time if any more questions from the bench ok thank you thank you very much and we'll give you a little time to respond dishonest means part of the statute origen part of a glass on the statute i'm reluctant to use the term gloss on the staff she just which are those words used in the criminal statute of the word acquiring another person's property by intentional misrepresentations of the word to fraud has been read much more broadly the frogging the government under section three seventy one means of structuring the operation of government by any deceit craft sounds like a gloss on the stash right term the radical and additional elements of broad reading of the term well if i'm wrong i'm wrong the way i read it and i don't want to go on and on is that my mind if it's wrong i don't think another element of the crime to be added by judicial decisions i think that's what the court talked i think that's what the terms of definition rather than actually a whole new element sides for your helpful argument the case the united states versus mention is now submitted for decision the next case on the calendar united states versus dixon has already been submitted on the br