i would like to just forfeiture issue the court that the the entire i'm now which was worth it and that included all of the wagers that were paid to the beneficiaries those wages were not and i just have a hard time getting my head around whether the this these he was getting from the people they actually worked more on the was my e that was for it and the probably eat the money that you actually back for attending the business wasn't twenty percent of the actual wages paid to the beneficiaries and there can't be any doubt that the beneficiaries who actually work in legitimate and that's what it had to be end but he had control of all of the money and couldn't we look at this as you know for his his business model if you want to call it that which is to g tame these visas and he gets a percentage he gets paid that's a cost of his bit doing business to pay the workers that's cost of doing the criminal enterprise here is that he pays the workers just like if you dealing narcotics you pay the other people in the trafficking chain that's part of the price of the business but you're still you had control of this money he's it's not like a joint several i believe the situation i kind of have with the person never had control of the money mr sun here i think it's understated in the is about who is person who is getting the proceeds not what the proceeds are and i believe there are a set of cases about what proceeds are but you christian you are frozen and you're not everybody's counselor osing on my end i don't know can you hear me now ok so are you are you familiar with united states versus santos counsel for example that's one of the cases of the class of cases i think she means where the united states supreme court looked at the definition of proceeds and whether that's talking about profits or overall gross receipts have you are you familiar with that case  case they reach one result and decided that there was an equal pose and they just and they decided the case along the lines of the rule of law but in this case the statute we're talking about if we have assumed procedures that is a is a big term and biggest term that could mean you know the profits or the overall gross receipts and i think we look at the statute and the statute here in this case is a statute that talks about all property or covers rather all property that is used to facilitate or is intended to be used to facilitate the commission of the offense and so for just on my scorecard so you have a chance to respond it seems to me that even though he was taking twenty percent of each paycheck if you will that the gross amount of those paychecks was used to facilitate the commission of the offense because his ability to perpetuate the commission of the offense for months and months and months depended upon him taking the twenty percent and giving the eighty percent to the workers or otherwise otherwise this offense would not have been ongoing so why should i decide that the eighty the other eighty percent was not used to facilitate his offen because that the money that was paid that it was actually earned by them through legitimate work which is very different than in all of the other cases cited by the attorney general when i mention all but i mean if for example you have a the person who's selling him the the aggies is involved in legitimate work and the purchase of a bag is that i and all the whole activity but my understanding is that he would be liable for the entire receives this has a separate feel to me though because he is i mean personal is that right as a hypothetical right writing but the but the difference in what you're talking about is th it's very interesting then all the other cases because the work was actually legitimate work and they earned money for that they earned the difference i guess what you're saying is that a drug runner a mule is is is hired labor and  and of itself is unlawful and things like who are working right ok exactly right you that i think that's a correct observation i just don't know why it matters under cases like the one i was just mentioning with santos when we look at the  and see that it's sweeps as broadly as it does all property used to priscilla tate the crime of kind of conviction and i just keep going back to the whole fact problem is that he didn't supply green unless the court has any question i think you was the government not i mean in other instances in which for example you have a ponzi scheme or something like that and they try to argue that the money that they paid out process he was prosecuted under the be surprised statute so it was misrepresentation on the piece of forms but it's just what your honor said just a moment ago during his drills argument which is that these people only had these jobs because of that b s abroad and they were working on those fraudulent beasts as his employees so if you do that then of at least up was waiting he represented a job was waiting for these people and in some instances there was no job at all right and they had to get a completely different work and you know so yes so so so that there's the slightly different circumstances but i think your theory has to be they wouldn't been able to enter the country period do you think is responsible for those present so a lot of them that's exactly what happened because as the cisco testimony demonstrated during trial there weren't cisco jobs for these people so they went on to work other places but on these h whether the nd one wins and one is not the subject of same crime and maybe it is a crime because the people he's running out of don't have valid visas and he knows that but that's not what he's been charged with right illegal conduct and the illegal conduct here in the law is on the views the kitchens that allow these workers to come to the united states at all are you familiar with united states present us counsel yes i am your honor if you want to speak to that and that about as clear as the court i think will ever see where there's just one person one bank account and all of the front proceeds going into that one bank account this is the perfect application of what  means and then once he distributes it back out from that bank account that's in his discretion he is the sole decider of what to do with it that the honor of the agreement that he had with the abuse of prisoners it's really not a relevant point because it was his money to control he set the terms with the employers of these people what the salary would be he determined out of view of the employer what he would derived from was traceable to the proceeds obtained directly or indirectly from the commission of the offense so they might add something that's back to trying to figure out what proceeds means that's what we were talking about earlier that just really kind of begs the question of whether the proceeds are the you know the that says that in a situation like this one where the court made the fact findings consistent with this that there is one person who receives all of the fraud monies one person who control month to month to month but i'll come to a screeching halt it could but that would be speculation and these individuals are fairly vulnerable they were here on his visa that he obtained for them  hostile question it seems to me that i'm trying to explain why i see this as an ongoing scheme that's perpetuated and it wasn't a trick we need to keep these workers happy right in his keep them paid and keep them working so he can keep getting his cut but i guess i i have a hypothetical for you that i think in my mind is how one income would have by if these workers were somehow complicit in the fraud if they knew that cisco wasn't going to hire them and there was no job there and at these as were orange and so they had some criminal exposure they were involved in the fraud and then they got paid their eighty they got eighty percent of their salary and that's all they see then under mr side to be the mastermind and these people might be on the hook for forfeiture for their the amount of money they actually made the never had the rest of the money they did have a possession of control over it and they're not jointly and severally liable for all of that would you agree that that would be a way to impose but it had on our facts make it made more sense as if that in fact i think that's exactly right your honor and the  it may be easier for people involved in a drug enterprise to recognize that the criminality of what they were involved with the trial testimony in this case was that many of the used visa beneficiaries didn't even see the before they were going into the united states government so they were really in the dark about westminster prison was doing they were hoping they would work at cisco and were quite disappointed that they didn't i was the point being there that and that's an interesting question if it didn't all flow through his bank account and you negotiate and on their behalf and then presumably from that point forward they would be direct conversation with that with the place where they were working  contract and company and then you pay them x amount to you pay me why and how oh if you could have arranged that i want to say it may be that  may prefer not to be the employer but again that's a that's kind of a gift from and legitimate scheme from these and there are many i think you know many many of these companies in particular ones   the model isn't illegitimate it's the idea that it's all premised on a lie and that once they don't they are on those fraudulent visas so they the whole time that they're here and working there under mr here so i as i understand the case law that the money that you get and then pay the writer with his privacy but what the writer is doing is illegal and so it's part of the entire scheme and that's the difference well accept