d refunds infringer were prior to the actual proper person around the return it appears the numbers were probably just picked out of the air most of them were in the fifty thousand dollars range storage or other type cards where you can buy them in advance and you can reload them then they arrange to have those cards notated with the actually turns recipients name you thought the controversy was a one hundred and fifty thousand dollars home and that's what parties prepare for and they didn't prepare for the sentencing hearing so for the court accountant he has no background in money service businesses there was no comparison of her business to every other such business we heard just this month a report about two trillion dollars  suspicious activity reports from the major virus in the role you can make an argument that all the money in the world is dirty at some point or the cures but there was no effort bar or  the government would say established this other issue what about what happened at sentencing when defense counsel basically said well i think that that issue has been determined at the forfeiture here and we have that we have our same objection which tand that with the facts of the records i'm objected to us for the amount of the last year in terms of the amount of money that was laundered here she's focusing on the laundered money and not necessarily the underlying crime  the us money from those two accounts essentially not all of it almost all of it to this robinson and page twenty one of the draft describes in good detail as mister sort of reiterated how this problem was committed and in the discovery of the defendants all the defendant had all of the tax returns all the bank statements all of the debit card accounts all of the deposit items which is five thousand money orders roughly and could not find a legitimate money order that went into that account there total amount of deposit items that were money orders and nice round numbers cash that is  order there's just no factual issues about what this business was or how much money went through it and the fact that it was d a business and gauged d in laundering fines and that the laundered  thousand dollars home and that this idea of the total quantity was not at issues that that the party or questioning directly the agent about that issue i would take some issue with that  st of all we were trying to establish that all the money in the account was dirty and that was well known ahead of time and mr mccabe knew that the government knew that the we wanted to show that virtually the entire account was set up for the purpose of longer and and then when see from the record then if you look at the spreadsheets that were provided to the court and testif to by the agent he went through every single one of these the poverty line he looked at every single money order and he described exactly how this fraud was committed not just then his testimony but through  through the you know if you look at the plea agreement of course there was a large amount of admissions made by miss robinson about what this business was for d that these money orders were dirty  wasn't a surprise mr mccabe or me that we were talking about all the money in the account a sensually being part of this business of wander and find that it was him and with that your approach is that how you went about is it fair to say that thousand dollars home had to be included in that instead of coming at it directly at that and fifty thousand dollars home because if you're the forfeiture both came from dirty money but also there was a bank fraud type of thing involved in shipping d the money to mr cooke of the cow to show that he was putting up a false deflator claiming that the have the money and that's another for money laundering act that made the property involved in money laundering so we had both theory that all the money in your count was dirty and also that they did other acts of money laundering to  make the property dirty in two different ways so i think back to this notice issue course we're we're talking about a plea agreement actually mentions the value of wandered spawn's being something the court was going to have to decide that's in the plea agreement then the draft of the pre sentence report comes out and i findings may be relevant to the final draft of the pre sentence report course the final draft comes out the defendant has had opportunity after opportunity ready after opportunity to put on any contrary evidence including at the por including at the sentencing here the fact is there wasn't any contrary evidence and ms robinson is in the same position as every other defendant who goes through this system this federal system the notice requirements are met when you're provided at a time what the pre sentence report says you're allowed an opportunity to rebut that within the any evidence you have and in this case the only only thing that they wanted to object to was the fact that it wasn't all the money you know i'll concede that it wasn't all the money but it was almost all the money and that's what the court and there was no real contest as to whether it was more more than three and a half million because it's over for me and in fact it's upwards of five so we're not talking about a miscalculation in terms of the financial part and this idea that the i r s agent was unqualified he actually did the analysis it went through every money order they noted when they were purchased when they were tasked to pay in the ins on them he went back and checked where related to the i was situation in his testimony he describes sampling to other chest agents fundamental premises money orders are sequential and if they're