who actually carried the bags of candy across the border he changed his story numerous times when confronted by the border agents he made efforts to distract them so there was substantial evidence that he actually paid that no more and he was hired to come in and help a struggling starter company to come it was only a few months old at the time and there's quite a bit of evidence that he indeed did do such help give such help to the company he factor should have or which again is the danger of grand struction that was given to this jury they were allowed to argue that mr cain should have known a crime was a would because the bookkeeping was back because there were an appropriately clad women in the office because there were posters on the wall that were inappropriate into korea's behavior in the workplace and that mr cain i should have known and that that's exactly why this court has time and again sad that instruction should rarely be given because the danger is that it will lessen the burden of proof to a negligence type mens rea and allow very rare occasion know but rather please tell me i do want to know we haven't shouts from several witnesses that mr cameron heatedly asked for financial records from the company that he insisted on hiring outside nothing criminal or business practice and therefore it was actual knowledge versus no knowledge that was the classic tinier choice the jury should have been given the instruction however to that by bringing in the gary came on it had nothing to do with their any statements that were made to them anything that was done in that in that vein to lure them and perhaps was not even aware of how that money had been  it wasn't until sometime much later the theory came was became aware of investors funds being used from one person to pay another and that was much later after who had left the company all of these activities that where the issue arises and your in your honor that moral paste was used analogously demonstrate that one party caucus understood your use of it but the question is is clarity sufficient cl cain had no decision making authority he had no control over what those three did prior to his coming he had no way to force see any of the actions that would have occurred when he joined for wins he had no way of knowing any of the behavior that had occurred prior to him certainly behavior that if this court which is to hold him responsible for behavior that occurred after the fact that might make more sense the government has assessed the full amount and most of standard that applies i think the answer to that is the nature of the scheme with mr cain joined the conspiracy under our theory probably actually joined it sometime between december an where the investors put up money and now they've been the best of their money the way the scheme worked is they would have their money invested in sand and they were supposed to have that money put back into separate account for them and they would make decisions all over again about whether to and invest in another stand transaction so it wasn't as though it wasn't like they were buying equity as well that was going on it was a series it was serial transactions as it was designed and  mr cain's responsibility was is when he found out when he figured out what was really going on and i think there are some argument he knew in the st meeting with mr bates that something was going on because he told them still this sounds like a snake o but by the time he was actively involved he made representations to the sun to richard and surely own they were concerned about the security of their investment and he said to them on two occasions in december and i believe again in february not to worry if there's something it's out of place i'll let you know and he did and he knew by then he knew well that there were things that were not right with the point and he also seriously misled the nice country and there was an abortion april timeframe and he told her it was typically and she was concerned about her investment and he told her physically all your money was used by singing and he knew that was not true even told by laura jacobs that that was not true you know in the books by that time it was not true  an accounting of his own and knew that none of her money was insane and yet he badgered me basically only her with the text it's in the record that said well if you don't if you want your sand all delivered to your front door which you have to pay for it and she was probably the most fragile of the victims but the nature of the scheme i think addresses the issue of whether or not it's reasonable that the restitution amount encompass the entire scheme because by the time really tw fifteen was around cain's interest was in keeping those investors in making misrepresentations so that he wouldn't pull their money out because if paralegal had some believe that he could get this with the alpha company go was going to produce enough funds to keep the other san side going until the market came on push he was making fifteen thousand dollars every two weeks he'd come to the for the for when the job or the opportunity after having been out the deliberate ignorance instruction and i believe that there is evidence in the record of a contrivance not to know and that is the information that would be evidence that when he was involved in the fall already thought to himself this is a snake oil salesman and he would get up and leave in another and other occasions bates would say we have eighteen million dollars in the bank go away and cain knew that was not true and his response was he didn't want to sit  it went to whether or not he had a specific and to get to to defraud those victims and bad that carries a higher mental state there was instructions whatever to instructions on the intent to defraud as well as an instruction on good faith and that basically was what keynes defense was and the circumstances were more than sufficient to show they had knowledge of the fraud as well as efficient to show that he had the intent is to committed the fraud to d fraud those victims to keep the scheme going and the the closing argument put to the jury squarely the question of you can believe he and his version of events or you can believe laura jacob smith and denise cantu and the thumbs who testified about the misrepresentations that he made to them and it made he made some some noise about he didn't really get all of the record for more a jacob until or didn't start getting maybe till november but he was able to write that memorandum that you referred to jo jo and then memorandum it was dated january th but i think there was some testimony oriental agents that is actually prepared in the last week of december if you go through that memorandum many of those items matched specifically to the fraudulent circumstance i mean they that's what he's talking about were we have to contrary to joint venture agreements and doctors there is more than the day he got it from so the circumstances were substantial there was substantial evidence was that his actual knowledge and there was substantial evidence of five minutes are about from just as the prosecutor stated that mr k they believe came aware of the issue in december two thousand or ten or january two thousand and fifteen he claimed it was an ongoing scheme but in february of two thousand and fifteen investors were already asking for their money back so there was no further payments no further fraud no further information and the only thing he points to is back mr  that mr cain's leaving the room doing pitch meetings conducted by stand a was a sign with numerous representations were occurring and that's exactly the danger and instruction that allows for a reasonable person or  should have standard rather than actual knowledge that mr cain left the room where he was where and mr bates was making pictures there is not evidence to show that it was because he knew brock was being committed in fact mr king stated quite valuable at that time he pointed out that you can believe mr k or you who believe the government witnesses and that exactly was the government's argument here you can believe one person or you can believe the other and the court has said repeatedly that when it was down to that simple toys the deliberate ignorance instruction is dangerous because it reduces the negligence reduces the misery of negligence